# The fool.



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

Psalms 14
1 The fool says in his heart, “God does not exist.”
They are corrupt; they do vile deeds.
There is no one who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the human race
to see if there is one who is wise, one who seeks God.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

“This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10


----------



## ky55 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Psalms 14
> 1 The fool says in his heart, “God does not exist.”
> They are corrupt; they do vile deeds.
> There is no one who does good.
> ...



You gonna start over again and see if this one ends up better for you than the last one??

http://www.forum.gon.com/threads/authority.935108/page-11

Probly not, but good luck......

*


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Foghorn Leghorn creator telling Foghorn Leghorn fans why people who don't like Foghorn Leghorn are bad people.

Priceless


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Proverbs 1:22

How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Proverbs 23:9

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, 
for he will despise the good sense of your words.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Proverbs 18:2

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, 
but only in expressing his opinion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

*Ecclesiastes 1:9 *
9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Romans 3:11
there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Romans 3:12
All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Luke 18:19
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Luke 17:20
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God will come, He answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with something observable; 21 no one will say,[l] ‘Look here!’ or ‘There!’ For you see, the kingdom of God is among you.”

This verse gives me comfort and on that Good Night.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2019)

Not that this apply's to me, because I am a believer, yet, I would not mind being called ignorant. Ignorant imply's I have simply not learned a certain topic. The smartest person in the world can be ignorant of  farming life, etc. But "Fool", that word is offensive. I think the Atheist here are far from fools. I know of none here whom are Atheist because their mom and pop are, or because they grew up in an area that typically produced this, as would a man in Iraq naturally be inclined to be muslim. Quite the contrary, These guys have studied these things deeper than the Christian faith community has studied their own. One might say, I did not call them a fool, the bible did. Yet the word was used as a sword to inflict. Purposely placed in the atheist section. Maybe people can go about this differently, like good cop, bad cop, but you can build walls or relationships. No one hears what you have to say on the other side of the wall. And you make it harder for the rest of us to have a conversation. Thinking out loud here, asking myself if the context of the verses was ever meant to be used this way


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg, I looked back over the post. Thinking maybe the emphasis was about seeking God and the word  "Fool" was never the intent, but I then see for sure that the word fool is your emphasis. It's apparent that you have an insecure standing due to your lack of being able to hang with these guys in debate so like an elementary student, you have resorted to stabs rather than substance. A clear sign of no substance, every time. I suggest that you reevaluate you ability to debate anything that is by faith. Their is no proof in faith. Only conversation


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> SemperFiDawg, I looked back over the post. Thinking maybe the emphasis was about seeking God and the word  "Fool" was never the intent, but I then see for sure that the word fool is your emphasis. It's apparent that you have an insecure standing due to your lack of being able to hang with these guys in debate so like an elementary student, you have resorted to stabs rather than substance. A clear sign of no substance, every time. I suggest that you reevaluate you ability to debate anything that is by faith. Their is no proof in faith. Only conversation



Well said.  You are wrong in your interpretation of my intent in starting this thread, and most certainly in your conclusion that there is no proof of faith.  As to the rest,  I truly appreciate the civility in which it was said and will weigh it with deep consideration.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well said.  You are wrong in your interpretation of my intent in starting this thread, and most certainly in your conclusion that there is no proof of faith.  As to the rest,  I truly appreciate the civility in which it was said and will weigh it with deep consideration.



Please also consider that If a A/A said it that you would take offense and see it as an attack, though it may have been said with the same intent as 1gr8.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Not that this apply's to me, because I am a believer, yet, I would not mind being called ignorant. Ignorant imply's I have simply not learned a certain topic. The smartest person in the world can be ignorant of  farming life, etc. But "Fool", that word is offensive. I think the Atheist here are far from fools. I know of none here whom are Atheist because their mom and pop are, or because they grew up in an area that typically produced this, as would a man in Iraq naturally be inclined to be muslim. Quite the contrary, These guys have studied these things deeper than the Christian faith community has studied their own. One might say, I did not call them a fool, the bible did. Yet the word was used as a sword to inflict. Purposely placed in the atheist section. Maybe people can go about this differently, like good cop, bad cop, but you can build walls or relationships. No one hears what you have to say on the other side of the wall. And you make it harder for the rest of us to have a conversation. Thinking out loud here, asking myself if the context of the verses was ever meant to be used this way




What's your unique take on why the Bible writers would use the word "fool" so much in reference to skeptics?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 26, 2019)

Waylon:

There ain't no good in an evil-hearted woman, and I ain't cut out to be no Jesse James. You don't go writin' hot checks down in Mississippi, and there ain't no good chain gang.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Luke 17:32

32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to make his life secure[m][n] will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Is this not the “Key” to Faith?  So easy a child can understand it, yet so hard a “self-made” man can’t, or if he can, won’t due of the cost to his autonomy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> Waylon:
> 
> There ain't no good in an evil-hearted woman, and I ain't cut out to be no Jesse James. You don't go writin' hot checks down in Mississippi, and there ain't no good chain gang.



Quiet possibly the best CW song ever written.  I honestly can’t think of one I like more.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Luke 17:32
> 
> 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to make his life secure[m][n] will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
> 
> Is this not the “Key” to Faith?  So easy a child can understand it, yet so hard a “self-made” man can’t, or if he can, won’t due of the cost to his autonomy.


Or yet another of the tens, dozens, hundreds,of other possibilities is that many people have faith that these particular writings of anonymous authors over FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS are nothing more than the people trying to tell the tales of their start as a race, culture and nation. And because of the time in world history they included divine intervention just like every other culture did. It was a sign of the times which has since died off worldwide.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> SemperFiDawg, I looked back over the post. Thinking maybe the emphasis was about seeking God and the word  "Fool" was never the intent, but I then see for sure that the word fool is your emphasis. It's apparent that you have an insecure standing due to your lack of being able to hang with these guys in debate so like an elementary student, you have resorted to stabs rather than substance. A clear sign of no substance, every time. I suggest that you reevaluate you ability to debate anything that is by faith. Their is no proof in faith. Only conversation





> Their is no proof in faith.



James 2:18
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Notice “ I will SHOW you my faith..”

Matthew 7:16

16 You will know them by their fruits.Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor _can_ a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

The phrase “YOU WILL KNOW” bookends this passage.

John 14:34-35

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

“By this SHALL ALL MEN KNOW”

Faith in God is not some intangible invisible concept whose very existence can be called into question.  The scriptures make it very clear it’s presence is confirmed by its effect on the believer.  No different than the effect of heat on a pot of water, yet I doubt you would say “There is no proof of heat.”


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> James 2:18
> But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
> 
> Notice “ I will SHOW you my faith..”
> ...


Scripture is clearly wrong


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What's your unique take on why the Bible writers would use the word "fool" so much in reference to skeptics?



I have no “unique” take, only what is plainly stated in scripture for anyone who is willing to accept it.  To your question , I think Romans 1:18 addresses it precisely.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown _it_ to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible _attributes_ are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, _even_ His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify _Him_ as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I have no “unique” take, only what is plainly stated in scripture for anyone who is willing to accept it.  To your question , I think Romans 1:18 addresses it precisely.
> 
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown _it_ to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible _attributes_ are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, _even_ His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify _Him_ as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.



The invisible is seen.  How does this happen?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Please also consider that If a A/A said it that you would take offense and see it as an attack, though it may have been said with the same intent as 1gr8.



Not true.  If you will notice he was very personal in his criticism of me, to the point that it was uncomfortable.  That said, he was civil and there is much to be respected in that.  As to where he is exactly in his beliefs, unbelief, disbelief, I have no idea.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> The invisible is seen.  How does this happen?





ambush80 said:


> The invisible is seen.  How does this happen?



Ask God.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

I try not to get personal when we discuss things, but if someone says "I know this" then I have to ask them how they know it.  I also make observations about their patterns and try to draw inferences from them.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ask God.



I'm asking you.  But if you don't know then just say so.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'm asking you.  But if you don't know then just say so.



I’ll point you right back to what it says.  It says that you KNOW there is a God, but suppress it as truth to the point God has given you over to your delusions. If I were in your shoes and was HONESTLY searching for God I would start there, with me.  Am I the reason, is there something about me, .  Honestly, you’ve already ruled out God from his end, but what if it’s  from your end, as this passage states.  If your honest, it’s the only option left to explore, the last diagnosis to rule out.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’ll point you right back to what it says.  It says that you KNOW there is a God, but suppress it as truth to the point God has given you over to your delusions. If I were in your shoes and was HONESTLY searching for God I would start there, with me.  Am I the reason, is there something about me, .  Honestly, you’ve already ruled out God from his end, but what if it’s  from your end, as this passage states.  If your honest, it’s the only option left to explore, the last diagnosis to rule out.




Fair enough, but do you recognize that the prescription here is to "believe and then you will believe"?  Do you see how the only evidence that someone has tried to believe correctly is that in the end they believe and that continued disbelief is a symptom of not having tried to believe properly?  Upon deep examination I cannot distinguish the voice of God from the thoughts in my own head.  Is the voice in your head that you believe is God really God?  How do you know?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

My question is can we blame them that at least tried to find God? Can someone find God by seeking?

Romans 10:20
And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

The bible is full of passages that say even though you want god he may not want you. Even though you may not want him he will want you. You were chosen to believe.  You were chosen to not believe. Everyone knows god. Not all can know god. And on and on. 
I mean it covers every base by contradicting itself.

Is it not good enough that I am who I am whether by my reasons, Gods reasons, another Gods reasons Natures reasons, or by the reasons by which the available chemistry set and conditions allow?
Who can be a fool for reasons beyond their control?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Not that we aren't all sincere but at some point in discussions and even in life, it becomes an "us against them" type of existence.

Pride takes over. Everyone wants to back the winning team. Everyone wants to back their own team. The Christians, the Atheist, the Democrats, the Republicans, The Protestants, the Catholics, etc.

Soon we become polarized. Then our mission becomes presenting things just to win regardless of the outcome. We then can find no fault with our own group and blame everything on the opposing group.

It's like the Hatfields and McCoys, we continue to fight with no cause. Winning become the reason of pride.

Politics is the best example.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The bible is full of passages that say even though you want god he may not want you. Even though you may not want him he will want you. You were chosen to believe.  You were chosen to not believe. Everyone knows god. Not all can know god. And on and on.
> I mean it covers every base by contradicting itself.
> 
> Is it not good enough that I am who I am whether by my reasons, Gods reasons, another Gods reasons Natures reasons, or by the reasons by which the available chemistry set and conditions allow?
> Who can be a fool for reasons beyond their control?



The bible also says that even if God doesn't choose you, you still have no reason to question God.
"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?"

So not only do you not get to choose God, he still blames you for being made a vessel of wrath.

Your mission is to show the vessels of mercy God's glory.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The bible is full of passages that say even though you want god he may not want you. Even though you may not want him he will want you. You were chosen to believe.  You were chosen to not believe. Everyone knows god. Not all can know god. And on and on.
> I mean it covers every base by contradicting itself.
> 
> Is it not good enough that I am who I am whether by my reasons, Gods reasons, another Gods reasons Natures reasons, or by the reasons by which the available chemistry set and conditions allow?
> Who can be a fool for reasons beyond their control?



 Look on the bright side though. The answer is found in Romans 11.

Romans 11:32-33
32For God has consigned all men to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all. 33 O, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways!


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not that we aren't all sincere but at some point in discussions and even in life, it becomes an "us against them" type of existence.
> 
> Pride takes over. Everyone wants to back the winning team. Everyone wants to back their own team. The Christians, the Atheist, the Democrats, the Republicans, The Protestants, the Catholics, etc.
> 
> ...



I want to know the truth and I want it to be backed by evidence.  I don't care about winning.  Winning to me would be discovering the best truth that can be known.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> The bible also says that even if God doesn't choose you, you still have no reason to question God.
> "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?"
> 
> So not only do you not get to choose God, he still blames you for being disobedient.



I'm fine with the contradiction.  I don't like how people deny it exists and I'm not fully convinced that living with it and believing that there's a bigger plan involved makes it more tolerable.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'm fine with the contradiction.  I don't like how people deny it exists and I'm not fully convinced that living with it and believing that there's a bigger plan involved makes it more tolerable.



It's really funny when an Election believer tries to evangelize in this forum.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> The bible also says that even if God doesn't choose you, you still have no reason to question God.
> "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?"
> 
> So not only do you not get to choose God, he still blames you for being made a vessel of wrath.
> ...


Yep.
No win situation.

Many religions books are similar


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Look on the bright side though. The answer is found in Romans 11.
> 
> Romans 11:32-33
> 32For God has consigned all men to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all. 33 O, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways!


Problem is there is answer which contradicts the answer. It is too easy to find, interpret and use whatever and whenever because there is no verse that truly overrides the rest.
Too many authors all trying to state their opinions.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not that we aren't all sincere but at some point in discussions and even in life, it becomes an "us against them" type of existence.
> 
> Pride takes over. Everyone wants to back the winning team. Everyone wants to back their own team. The Christians, the Atheist, the Democrats, the Republicans, The Protestants, the Catholics, etc.
> 
> ...



Proselytizing to atheists is another fine example.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Fair enough, but do you recognize that the prescription here is to "believe and then you will believe"?  Do you see how the only evidence that someone has tried to believe correctly is that in the end they believe and that continued disbelief is a symptom of not having tried to believe properly?  Upon deep examination I cannot distinguish the voice of God from the thoughts in my own head.  Is the voice in your head that you believe is God really God?  How do you know?





> believe and then you will believe"



I’ve never heard that.  Are you sure that is the correct terminology.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Fair enough, but do you recognize that the prescription here is to "believe and then you will believe"?  Do you see how the only evidence that someone has tried to believe correctly is that in the end they believe and that continued disbelief is a symptom of not having tried to believe properly?  Upon deep examination I cannot distinguish the voice of God from the thoughts in my own head.  Is the voice in your head that you believe is God really God?  How do you know?



Fair question and one that even every believer SHOULD ask their self.  I think the answer is the same.  If it is truly God calling you or speaking to you there will be no mistaking it.  It may be different for every person, but there will be no mistaking it.  You will know.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The bible is full of passages that say even though you want god he may not want you. Even though you may not want him he will want you. You were chosen to believe.  You were chosen to not believe. Everyone knows god. Not all can know god. And on and on.
> I mean it covers every base by contradicting itself.
> 
> Is it not good enough that I am who I am whether by my reasons, Gods reasons, another Gods reasons Natures reasons, or by the reasons by which the available chemistry set and conditions allow?
> Who can be a fool for reasons beyond their control?





> The bible is full of passages that say even though you want god he may not want you.



That is truly news to me and contradicts all I’m familiar with.  

John 3:16 is pretty much the central message that explains the purpose of Christ.



> 16 “For God loved the world in this way:[j] He gave His One and OnlySon, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.



I think you would be very hard pressed to find someone who denies that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I want to know the truth and I want it to be backed by evidence.  I don't care about winning.  Winning to me would be discovering the best truth that can be known.



If this is truely, really your quest in life, as it should be for everyone, no matter the cost, even being thought a fool by all, then you truely will find Christ who I will bear witness to you , to the point of my death, is Truth Incarnate.  And if you truely are willing to bear that label of “fool” to all your peers, you will find Him as just that, Truth, what you seek.  Are you REALLY willing to do that.  It’s a cost that every would be follower must weigh.  I know I did, and I came to the conclusion I would rather be thought a fool by my peers, than go through my life not knowing the Truth if it existed, because if Christ was really who he said he was then being labeled a fool by my peers was inconsequential.  I made that decision years ago, voiced it to Christ, and ask that he honor it as he said he would.  He did, in a way I never would have imagined, and I’ve never doubted again.  Again I ask, is it worth it to you?  Count the cost.  It’s just as the verse says.  He who saves his life will lose it, and he who loses his life will save it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> The bible also says that even if God doesn't choose you, you still have no reason to question God.
> "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?"
> 
> So not only do you not get to choose God, he still blames you for being made a vessel of wrath.
> ...





> you still have no reason to question God.


Jesus questioned God while he was on the cross.
Was he guilty of sin?
If not, wouldn't that make not questioning God more of a "suggestion"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I want to know the truth and I want it to be backed by evidence.  I don't care about winning.  Winning to me would be discovering the best truth that can be known.


Pretty simple concept ain't it?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is truly news to me and contradicts all I’m familiar with.
> 
> John 3:16 is pretty much the central message that explains the purpose of Christ.
> 
> ...


Romans 8:29-30, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
(Romans 9:22-24)
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is truly news to me and contradicts all I’m familiar with.
> 
> John 3:16 is pretty much the central message that explains the purpose of Christ.
> 
> ...


So loved the world?????
Do you deny these verses????
Proverbs 21:1. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turns it wherever He wishes.”     “What could be more explicit? Out of the heart are ‘the issues of life’ (Prov. 4:23), for as man ‘thinketh in his heart, so is he’ (Prov. 23:7). If then the heart is in the hand of the Lord, and if ‘he turneth it whithersoever He will,’ then is it not clear that men, yea, governors and rulers, and so all men, are completely beneath the governmental control of the Almighty!"

Romans 9:18-21. “He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?”


Joshua 11:19-20. “There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. All the others they took in battle. For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the LORD had commanded Moses.”

Exodus 10:1, 20. “Now the LORD said to Moses, ‘Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants, that I may show these signs of Mine before them….’ But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go” (cf. Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 14:4; 20:27).
John 12:39-40. “Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and understand with their heart, lest they should turn, so that I should heal them” (cf. Mk. 4:11-12).

Luke 24:4. “And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.”

Acts 16:14. “Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”

Philippians 2:13. “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

Ezra 1:1, 5. “The LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom.... Then the heads of the fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, with all those whose spirits God had moved, arose to go up and build the house of the Lord” (cf. Ezra 6:22; 7:6; Ex. 12:36; Ezek. 36:27; Gen. 20:6; Isa. 6:9-10; Lk. 8:10).


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So loved the world?????
> Do you deny these verses????
> Proverbs 21:1. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turns it wherever He wishes.”     “What could be more explicit? Out of the heart are ‘the issues of life’ (Prov. 4:23), for as man ‘thinketh in his heart, so is he’ (Prov. 23:7). If then the heart is in the hand of the Lord, and if ‘he turneth it whithersoever He will,’ then is it not clear that men, yea, governors and rulers, and so all men, are completely beneath the governmental control of the Almighty!"
> 
> ...



None of which could be interpreted correctly as you did



> The bible is full of passages that say even though you want god he may not want you.


 
“want God” being the key word phrase, but that’s obvious.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Proverbs 26:4

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, 

lest you be like him yourself. 

5 Answer a fool according to his folly, 

lest he be wise in his own eyes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Here’s a good explanation of the previous proverb

“The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of Proverbs 26:4-5, which tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he is. Because he despises wisdom and correction, the fool will not listen to wise reason and will try to draw us into his type of argument, whether it is by using deceit, scoffing at our wisdom, or becoming angry and abusive. If we allow him to draw us into this type of discourse, we are answering him “according to his folly” in the sense of becoming like him.

The phrase “according to his folly” in verse 5, on the other hand, tells us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words, rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his words and reasoning. Our “answer” in this case is to be one of reproof, showing him the truth so he might see the foolishness of his words in the light of reason. Even though he will most likely despise and reject the wisdom offered to him, we are to make the attempt, both for the sake of the truth which is always to be declared, and for the sake of those listening, that they may see the difference between wisdom and folly and be instructed.”


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> None of which could be interpreted correctly as you did
> 
> 
> 
> “want God” being the key word phrase, but that’s obvious.


It is clear in scripture that God changes mans heart to suit. Period


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here’s a good explanation of the previous proverb
> 
> “The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of Proverbs 26:4-5, which tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he is. Because he despises wisdom and correction, the fool will not listen to wise reason and will try to draw us into his type of argument, whether it is by using deceit, scoffing at our wisdom, or becoming angry and abusive. If we allow him to draw us into this type of discourse, we are answering him “according to his folly” in the sense of becoming like him.
> 
> The phrase “according to his folly” in verse 5, on the other hand, tells us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words, rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his words and reasoning. Our “answer” in this case is to be one of reproof, showing him the truth so he might see the foolishness of his words in the light of reason. Even though he will most likely despise and reject the wisdom offered to him, we are to make the attempt, both for the sake of the truth which is always to be declared, and for the sake of those listening, that they may see the difference between wisdom and folly and be instructed.”


The bible is chock full of examples of god purposely altering the thoughts, intentions and heart of people so that it justifies God killing them.
Don't tell us that the he so loves the world verse supersedes all those that contradict it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Romans 11:8
as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It is clear in scripture that God changes mans heart to suit. Period





bullethead said:


> The bible is chock full of examples of god purposely altering the thoughts, intentions and heart of people so that it justifies God killing them.
> Don't tell us that the he so loves the world verse supersedes all those that contradict it.




Could changing or altering a mans heart qualify as a tool that ultimately saves or protects a people?

He so loves the world probably doesn’t supersede anything, but if he so loves the world, someone may have to take one for the team. Is it any different than us putting our men on the front lines to save / protect our homeland? 

From a skeptical view I can understand how it can seem contradictory to being all power. But I can also understand how he could use man to work through.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It is clear in scripture that God changes mans heart to suit. Period



Not synonamous with



> The bible is full of passages that say even though you want god he may not want you.



Period.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The bible is chock full of examples of god purposely altering the thoughts, intentions and heart of people so that it justifies God killing them.
> Don't tell us that the he so loves the world verse supersedes all those that contradict it.



Annnnnd there he goes, aaaaaaagain, like Wiley Coyote off a cliff.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

Psalm 5:6
You destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2019)

Lost my post that I wanted to link to. We also have Heb 11-1,Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see. 2This is why the ancients were commended.… The word "faith" imply's to me that's it's not seen. But sensed, as your heat example. If it was proven.... would it then still be called faith?  I just don't expect ever in my lifetime that facts will equate to proof, even after the 2 witnesses get up.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What's your unique take on why the Bible writers would use the word "fool" so much in reference to skeptics?


I have thought about this a lot today, on my 8 hrs of driving visiting your great state of Georgia today while going to Atlanta to pick up a truck. After lots of pondering, I do not have a reasonable answer


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

Maybe it’s the verb part of fool - deceived or misled??


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have thought about this a lot today, on my 8 hrs of driving visiting your great state of Georgia today while going to Atlanta to pick up a truck. After lots of pondering, I do not have a reasonable answer



Aww man.  You should have let me known you were in my neighborhood.  I would have bought you lunch.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Maybe it’s the verb part of fool - deceived or misled??



Seems like they use it as a noun.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Seems like they use it as a noun.


I would think that deceived would go more with the story than idiot would. 

Seems pretty bold to call someone an idiot, especially waving the WWJD wrist bands. 

But I’m just guessing, I’d like to think it’s the verb part, at least that’s how I use it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Annnnnd there he goes, aaaaaaagain, like Wiley Coyote off a cliff.


It says he did it in your own book!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Could changing or altering a mans heart qualify as a tool that ultimately saves or protects a people?
> 
> He so loves the world probably doesn’t supersede anything, but if he so loves the world, someone may have to take one for the team. Is it any different than us putting our men on the front lines to save / protect our homeland?
> 
> From a skeptical view I can understand how it can seem contradictory to being all power. But I can also understand how he could use man to work through.


So, in order to better the world, God stepped in and purposely did not allow people to be able to change their hearts so he can have them killed?

And yet he lets Hitler, Stalin and the likes keep their hearts,  c'mon


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not synonamous with
> 
> 
> 
> Period.


Sfd, what purpose would it be to change or harden someone's heart? It means that they could possibly be open to change but hardening them ensures they will not change. 
It has everything to do with god not wanting them.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So, in order to better the world, God stepped in and purposely did not allow people to be able to change their hearts so he can have them killed?
> 
> And yet he lets Hitler, Stalin and the likes keep their hearts,  c'mon


I think I missed the purposely have them killed part. 

I guess my thinking was more along the lines of a sacrificial type of changing one’s heart.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Annnnnd there he goes, aaaaaaagain, like Wiley Coyote off a cliff.


Luckily for me your own scripture is my safety mat.
Josh 11:20
For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

"When the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them" (Deuteronomy 7:2)


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

God LOVES his children.
The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go” (Ex 4:21).
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country (Ex 11:10).
Why, O LORD, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes that are your inheritance (Is 63:17).
He [God] has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them (Jesus quoting Isaiah 6:9-10, in John 12:40).
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (2 Thess 2:11)


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

Hebrews indicates that one can harden their own heart. 

Why soften it up for continued rejection?    

Who’s really going to keep calling on the chick that stands you up and won’t answer the phone? There’s a time to move on.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go” (Ex 4:21).
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country (Ex 11:10).

So the whole point of Moses and Aaron going there was to convince Pharaoh to let the people go. God literally sent them to Pharaoh to do it.
But God at the same does not allow Pharoah to be convinced. He lets Moses people suffer longer under a ticked off and hardened hearted Pharaoh. 
God lets it continue until God purposely sends the Angel of death to kill EVERY first born because Pharoah would not free the people, and Pharoah would not free the people because God would not allow him to!!!!!
Then he kills Pharoah and his army anyway.

Sfd, awesome god you have there.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Hebrews indicates that one can harden their own heart.
> 
> Why soften it up for continued rejection?
> 
> Who’s really going to keep calling on the chick that stands you up and won’t answer the phone? There’s a time to move on.


You can surely read the scripture quotes that specifically say that GOD hardened their hearts for specific reasons right?

People who harden their own hearts have absolutely no bearing on this point.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Hebrews indicates that one can harden their own heart.
> 
> Why soften it up for continued rejection?
> 
> Who’s really going to keep calling on the chick that stands you up and won’t answer the phone? There’s a time to move on.


In your analogy...
If God was at a nightclub, God would insult the chick all night, degrade her, and embarrass her, and purposely make sure that in no way shape or form she could get his number, then he would kill her for not calling.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You can surely read the scripture quotes that specifically say that GOD hardened their hearts for specific reasons right?
> 
> People who harden their own hearts have absolutely no bearing on this point.


It has plenty bearing on this point, Pharoh hardened his own heart many times during the first 5 plagues on his own accord.

And God knew it was Pharaoh’s nature to say no to Moses, it was and is His nature to continue “pleading and persuading” When a person continually rejects God their heart becomes harder and harder, even when God continues to reach out to them.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> In your analogy...
> If God was at a nightclub, God would insult the chick all night, degrade her, and embarrass her, and purposely make sure that in no way shape or form she could get his number, then he would kill her for not calling.


No my analogy means there’s a time to say “talk to the hand”


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Hebrews indicates that one can harden their own heart.
> 
> Why soften it up for continued rejection?
> 
> Who’s really going to keep calling on the chick that stands you up and won’t answer the phone? There’s a time to move on.



While it may be true that one can harden their own heart such as in Romans 1, Well actually they performed events that lead to God hardening their heart.

And on that thought, one can do something so bad like idol worship that leads God to turning them over to a reprobate mind. Meaning one can make God so mad that God will turn his back on them. To the point that God won't let them back in. So much for OSAS, they knew God yet chose idols. They exchanged the worship of God for that of idols.

That is a different story than God the potter making vessels of wrath for his plan and purpose. God didn't leave nothing up to chance. He had to makes sure the Jews rejected Jesus to bring salvation to the Gentiles as per Romans 11.

A remnant was elected by grace and the rest were hardened. God did this. They didn't harden themselves for this purpose. The remnant was chosen by grace and not by works.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It has plenty bearing on this point, Pharoh hardened his own heart many times during the first 5 plagues on his own accord.
> 
> And God knew it was Pharaoh’s nature to say no to Moses, it was and is His nature to continue “pleading and persuading” When a person continually rejects God their heart becomes harder and harder, even when God continues to reach out to them.



Romans 9:17-18
For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. 

If it were true that God didn't do this, even though he just said he did, why would Paul add this part next;

19One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?”   20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?"

That part would not be needed if Pharoah hardened his own heart.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Why do Christians find it so terribly wrong for God to do this? Even to say he didn't when scripture says he did. God had a purpose and plan from the beginning. He wasn't about to leave it up to chance.

The Word was with God. The Word knew what his future mission was. He was already standing by. God had to harden Pharoah and the Jews.
He couldn't just hope they hardened themselves. They were all a part of His original plan.
Vessels of wrath to show his mercy to his vessels of mercy.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 9:17-18
> For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
> 18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.
> 
> ...


Exodus 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also.....

I don’t take issue with a purpose and a plan. I’m just pointing out that there’s more to that story than just designing Pharoh to fail. It also illustrates God’s continual dealing with man while being rejected.

I don’t intend for it to appear that I’m disagreeing with bullethead by pointing out more to the story.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It has plenty bearing on this point, Pharoh hardened his own heart many times during the first 5 plagues on his own accord.
> 
> And God knew it was Pharaoh’s nature to say no to Moses, it was and is His nature to continue “pleading and persuading” When a person continually rejects God their heart becomes harder and harder, even when God continues to reach out to them.


 
Would you agree with the opposite? One can elect themselves? One can grant themselves grace by their soft heart? The Jews could have thwarted God's plan by softening their own hearts. Thus becoming a part of the remnant base of works and not grace.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No my analogy means there’s a time to say “talk to the hand”


I know what your meant, but it was not applicable to a God purposely hardening a heart and an Individual hardening a heart.

The bible ,again, is chock full of God hardening hearts. And God softening hearts.

Is an individual powerful enough to thwart the intentions and powers of God?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you agree with the opposite? One can elect themselves? One can grant themselves grace by their soft heart? The Jews could have thwarted God's plan by softening their own hearts. Thus becoming a part of the remnant base of works and not grace.


I don’t think anyone can grant themselves Grace directly. However, a willing heart results in that.

I don’t know if his plan would have been thwarted. There are Jews today that cross over and believe Jesus is the Messiah. I think the salvation plan is set, it’s people that change.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Exodus 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also.....
> 
> I don’t take issue with a purpose and a plan. I’m just pointing out that there’s more to that story than just designing Pharoh to fail. It also illustrates God’s continual dealing with man while being rejected.
> 
> I don’t intend for it to appear that I’m disagreeing with bullethead by pointing out more to the story.


 I wonder if Paul ever read Exodus 8:32? I would agree that there is more to the story.
Just pointing out that in the end, God raised Pharaoh up to do what he did. It should not even be viewed as failure.  Paul then goes on to explain using the Potter analogy. Pharoah was God's prime example of this analogy. How can one not read this Potter analogy and not see this?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I know what your meant, but it was not applicable to a God purposely hardening a heart and an Individual hardening a heart.
> 
> The bible ,again, is chock full of God hardening hearts. And God softening hearts.
> 
> Is an individual powerful enough to thwart the intentions and powers of God?


True, but since it was Pharoh.....
I will attempt to be more clear going forward, sometimes I cow trail without explanation. 

I’m thinking of Sodom, if 10 righteous could be found??


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think anyone can grant themselves Grace directly. However, a willing heart results in that.
> 
> I don’t know if his plan would have been thwarted. There are Jews today that cross over and believe Jesus is the Messiah. I think the plan is set, it’s people that change.



Then you don't see God hardening and softening the hearts of anyone from Adam to the Cross to make his plan come about? Did he just hope it would happen the way he wanted it to?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then you don't see God hardening and softening the hearts of anyone from Adam to the Cross to make his plan come about? Did he just hope it would happen the way he wanted it to?


Ok another case of me not being more detailed, or I misread your question???

I don’t believe anyone can do anything to grant themselves Grace. After the cross it’s who so ever will.....and many Jews have.

And I don’t believe his plan of destroying the wicked and saving the willing would or can be thwarted, hince the hardening and softening of hearts.

The “tool” or “vessels” (people) for lack of better words, that are utilized could change. I referred to Sodom where the plan was to destroy the wicked but they kept searching and for the sake of 10....

Could those 10 have changed his plan? They could, but only for that city, not his ultimate plan of destroying the wicked. 

I don’t believe it would make any difference if the Jews had received him, his plan of salvation and the cross would have still been carried out because part of his purpose was to cover all sin for all people. 

Some sins such as “intentional” couldn’t be atoned. The poor may not have been able to obtain certain animals to offer as a sacrifice.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I know what your meant, but it was not applicable to a God purposely hardening a heart and an Individual hardening a heart.
> 
> The bible ,again, is chock full of God hardening hearts. And God softening hearts.
> 
> Is an individual powerful enough to thwart the intentions and powers of God?





Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if Paul ever read Exodus 8:32? I would agree that there is more to the story.
> Just pointing out that in the end, God raised Pharaoh up to do what he did. It should not even be viewed as failure.  Paul then goes on to explain using the Potter analogy. Pharoah was God's prime example of this analogy. How can one not read this Potter analogy and not see this?


I guess if you take a deeper look into it, although a man can harden his heart - what if he was designed to do just that??? 

The case that both of you are making makes more sense to me now.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 27, 2019)

I have pondered the times from which most these came, times of David, etc,


ambush80 said:


> Aww man.  You should have let me known you were in my neighborhood.  I would have bought you lunch.


 I was there 2 weekends ago at Durahamtown  riding dirtbikes. Hunting club evolved into a offroad adventure park.  Next trip is to Rockcrusher Farms more north of Atlanta. Interesting state


----------



## Brother David (Jan 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I guess if you take a deeper look into it, although a man can harden his heart - what if he was designed to do just that???
> 
> The case that both of you are making makes more sense to me now.


Ecclesiastes 1


----------



## Israel (Jan 27, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if Paul ever read Exodus 8:32? I would agree that there is more to the story.
> Just pointing out that in the end, God raised Pharaoh up to do what he did. It should not even be viewed as failure.  Paul then goes on to explain using the Potter analogy. Pharoah was God's prime example of this analogy. How can one not read this Potter analogy and not see this?



Would one keep reading? Paul as need be, but to no necessity of ignoring any other.

For Paul surely continues in the matter. But if we just (and only) continue in this account, is there still something to "hear"?

(An aside) I don't think any but a vast majority of what would be called "christian" would deny that Paul came to know a lot of stuff. I know I have marveled at it, been puzzled by it, sought to enter it for a likewise knowing, even to a sort of wondering "how does one get positioned to see such things?" What eye is necessary?

And, for what I cannot but deem as God's purpose we are left with a far more weighty amount _of Paul _(or_ through Paul_ if one finds this better) than of any other in the NT scriptures. But this is only as men might count weight, in amount of writings. If, to a man then, this _amount of weight _speaks, (and he knows if it does) he would have to enter lie within himself to dismiss or discount it. Therefore, _if_ he senses a significance, he is responsible to his own integrity to not neglect any of it. And further, if need be...we know...even Peter...read Paul. Not seeking to add anything of insight or pertinence into this other than what is stated; Peter accepted (even _if with difficulty_ in understanding) that what Paul wrote was sound. Does this mean Paul _needed_ Peter's imprimatur? God forbid! (I say). Nevertheless, we are left with it of sorts. And God be praised. (Aside done)

If we then count Paul as worthy of being heard (and make no mistake, this alone also comes by revelation) a full hearing is in order. Therefore, in that matter of potter and clay Paul continues, "hearing" what would be man's response. Were I to say "could be" man's response, I would be found seeking to undercut that brother's knowing, which _I have found through much experimentation_...a very painful exercise...(but this also comes only by revelation). By following, Paul also understood, as Jesus Christ, what is in "the heart of man".

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will _have mercy_, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Thou wilt say, then, to me, 'Why yet doth He find fault? for His counsel who hath resisted?' YLT (for what_ I deem_ could be better accuracy for concurrence)

Unless we come to see _a thing _that is _always about seeking_ to deny God His right of judgment (while retaining it, nevertheless to itself! and that even "over Him!" by its _own_ logic) and therefore made able to put _Him_ in the place of judgment for being _all powerful..._we are effectively and (make no mistake) quite clearly, antichrist. We know...nothing. And in _that nothing _replying _against God_. And are therefore quite against _the all_ that is everything of true. Jesus Christ.

_There is_ something proud that cannot receive the humility of God demonstrated through, and in, Jesus Christ. To that thing...it is both shameful and a scorn. For its perception of power (and that _of God_...coveted) is blinded _by that covetousness_ from seeing, that impetus to "grasp at", that leaves it all of unknowing. It thinks...it can escape God's judgement by some _strange knowledge _about Him. Use God...against God!

But the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ...is quite _all of other_ than this strange knowledge. Suffice it to say, (for bearing with me is indeed painful) that until the _very weakness _of God is revealed through Christ (toward man) the man must bristle under God's power...with response of accusation...and excuse. He retains _to himself _still, the _power to find fault_. And that...with God. He cannot yet, nor does not yet, apprehend the _full investment_ of God's power...to mercy. That God, in Christ...has submitted His own judgment to mercy.

Therefore the man who yet _finds fault_ to the experience of God's judgment against sin, not able to "_see Christ_" is found heaping sin _against Christ_. _The elect of God_. Simply...what may yet find fault, if not turned to the _mercy given_ to be seen in Christ _must complain_...for being what it is. It has not yet learned that such _seeing is gift_ (as all is) _if fault be found, _and _pressed to seek Christ _for resolution. This does not at all imply anything other than what is plainly taught "confess your faults to one another" having been persuaded that such is plainly demonstrated as:

#1. Having _no dominion_ over the believer to a necessity of hiding nor shaming.
#2. The full persuasion of mercy found in Jesus Christ to what _is true._
(My numbering implies no primacy, reverse as one cares to)

Paul said in his coming to it: 

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which _was bestowed_ upon me was not in vain; 

and no less came to this:

This _is_ a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

The "Pharaohs" complaint of seeing himself powerless against God's power, and miserable in what he perceives as his defeat _is all and only _from knowledge of_ a thing._

The believer's joy in being formed as he has been to _even embrace his own manifest defeat, is all, and only_ in his coming to know _a person._

Judgment _was not defeated_ in Christ, mercy triumphs.

To deny a pain, a suffering endured in being drawn near, an embrace of fire and light to which all else except Christ cannot endure, we do not deny. Much we learn...is there for the exposing. We claim no goodness in this, nor can, even discovering...as perhaps Paul..."Pharaoh" is not God's chiefest end to display. His end is all in bitterness. One is rejoicing...in being conquered and displaying it, of mercy and longsuffering.

For though he was crucified _through weakness,_ yet he lives by the power of God. 

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 27, 2019)

Brother David said:


> Ecclesiastes 1


Can you explain your post? I prefer to not guess the meaning or intent you have with this Chapter.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2019)

Bullet I’m pretty much personally convinced based on my medical knowledge that this fixation you have on this forum has become, or is on the verge of becoming pathologic.  Your posts are becoming more over-the-top,  your denigration more frequent and more vindictive to the point where you are now replying 2, sometimes 3, seperate times to one single post that someone makes in which you disagree with.  It’s obvious to even the casual observer that you actual take pleasure in the taunting and goading of those who have opposing viewpoints, but are yet civil to you.  A while back I started a thread specifically FOR those here who are believers and wanted to discuss how Christ is Truth incarnate.  Not only did you crash the thread, reviewing it last night it’s evident you did everything in your power to derail it.  You were even called out on your actions by several members.  Say what you will, that’s not mentally healthy for anyone.  

Even if I’m wrong , and I hope I am, I can not in good conscious continue to dialogue with you because it just giving you more to destroy yourself with.  That said, I’m blocking you.  I felt like the honorable thing to do would be to give you my reasoning and tell you face-to-face so to speak.  At the very least it will save you time trying to taunt, goad or insult me into an exchange.  Good Day.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have pondered the times from which most these came, times of David, etc,
> 
> I was there 2 weekends ago at Durahamtown  riding dirtbikes. Hunting club evolved into a offroad adventure park.  Next trip is to Rockcrusher Farms more north of Atlanta. Interesting state



Not my hobby but we have Sunnyside in our neck of the woods. They been filming out there last year;

Tune in to the History Channel(HISTORY) on Jan 31 to watch the new seaon of Truck Night in America, filmed out here at Sunnyside Atv Paradise 2018 Wrens, Georgia.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It has plenty bearing on this point, Pharoh hardened his own heart many times during the first 5 plagues on his own accord.
> 
> And God knew it was Pharaoh’s nature to say no to Moses, it was and is His nature to continue “pleading and persuading” When a person continually rejects God their heart becomes harder and harder, even when God continues to reach out to them.


 
Correct. Romans 1 makes that crystal clear.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Can you explain your post? I prefer to not guess the meaning or intent you have with this Chapter.



Agreed Brother.  There’s so much been said here, I need some help with your point here.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2019)

I'm sure that Pharoah did harden his own heart on those various occasions but it was still in line with God's plan and purpose. God didn't base his plan off of Pharoah's plan.

If we back up in Romans 9 to verse 11;

Romans 9:11
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

Now moving forward just a few verses and keeping with God's plan;

Romans 9:17
For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Verse 18 is the proof in the pudding;
18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. 

One can't choose their own salvation. Now I will admit that God may temporarily provide  the hardening. I think Romans 11 describes this about the Jews. He does this to make sure His plan happened they way He wanted it to happen. Not Pharoah's way or the way of the Jews but God's plan.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 27, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm sure that Pharoah did harden his own heart on those various occasions but it was still in line with God's plan and purpose. God didn't base his plan off of Pharoah's plan.
> 
> If we back up in Romans 9 to verse 11;
> 
> ...


We probably agree more than it appears. Getting my typing coordinated with my thinking is not one of my strong points.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Lost my post that I wanted to link to. We also have Heb 11-1,Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see. 2This is why the ancients were commended.… The word "faith" imply's to me that's it's not seen. But sensed, as your heat example. If it was proven.... would it then still be called faith?



Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the reality[a] of what is hoped for, the proof[b] of what is not seen.

This is from the HCSB

I like it in that it translates faith as reality and proof, which in my mind in no way softens it down from the KJV substance and evidence.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

In my mind faith is the evidence, the proof, OF OUR HOPE.  But! The evidence of our FAITH is obedience which produces good works, love, etc which are visible and even measurable.

In short the evidence for our Hope is Faith, and the evidence for our Faith is obedience, which produces love and other works (which are visible and quantifiable)

Is that reasonable?

But going into either translation and looking at them Faith is ascribed in very concrete terms ; substance, proof, evidence, reality.

Your question “If it was proven.... would it then still be called faith? “ flies in the face of how the writer is describing faith.

He’s saying Faith is Proof (of our Hope).  It is assumed it is unseen by the author and that everyone knows that (like heat.  If we were speaking of heat, it would be assumed it’s not visible with the eye).  The writer is NOT saying faith is some intangible squishy “feeling” or notion.

The preceding verse 10:39 (keep in mind chapters and verses weren’t numbered when it was written) provides the context and its bold and inspiring in its tone.

10:39

But we are not those who draw back and are destroyed, but those who have faith and obtain life.

It makes no sense that he goes from this bold, uplifting, inspiring tone to almost apologizing in the next sentence for the invisibility and intangibility of Faith.

Think about it.



> I just don't expect ever in my lifetime that facts will equate to proof, even after the 2 witnesses get up.



Then why even believe that there will ever even be 2 witnesses.  Why believe anything?  You can’t serve 2 masters, God and Satan, you can’t believe and not believe, you can't pick and choose.  Christ was either exactly who he claimed to be or a raging lunatic, the Bible is either Gods revelation and completely true to what it’s content says or fire starter. By not deciding you are not striding the fence, but the abyss.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet I’m pretty much personally convinced based on my medical knowledge that this fixation you have on this forum has become, or is on the verge of becoming pathologic.  Your posts are becoming more over-the-top,  your denigration more frequent and more vindictive to the point where you are now replying 2, sometimes 3, seperate times to one single post that someone makes in which you disagree with.  It’s obvious to even the casual observer that you actual take pleasure in the taunting and goading of those who have opposing viewpoints, but are yet civil to you.  A while back I started a thread specifically FOR those here who are believers and wanted to discuss how Christ is Truth incarnate.  Not only did you crash the thread, reviewing it last night it’s evident you did everything in your power to derail it.  You were even called out on your actions by several members.  Say what you will, that’s not mentally healthy for anyone.
> 
> Even if I’m wrong , and I hope I am, I can not in good conscious continue to dialogue with you because it just giving you more to destroy yourself with.  That said, I’m blocking you.  I felt like the honorable thing to do would be to give you my reasoning and tell you face-to-face so to speak.  At the very least it will save you time trying to taunt, goad or insult me into an exchange.  Good Day.


Not a single refutation from you.
Not a single explanation from you.

If you think my replies based off of your scripture and facts are taunting and goading and feel the need to  block me instead of answer me with a solid rebuttle...then...
 Thank God


----------



## Brother David (Jan 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Can you explain your post? I prefer to not guess the meaning or intent you have with this Chapter.


1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem:   
2 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher; "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."   
3 What does man gain from all his labor in which he labors under the sun?   
4 One generation goes, and another generation comes; but the earth remains forever.   
5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to its place where it rises.   
6 The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north. It turns around continually as it goes, and the wind returns again to its courses.   
7 All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again.   
8 All things are full of weariness beyond uttering. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.   
9 That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.   

13 I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under the sky. It is a heavy burden that God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with.   
14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and a chasing after wind.   
15 That which is crooked can't be made straight; and that which is lacking can't be counted.   
16 I said to myself, "Behold, I have obtained for myself great wisdom above all who were before me in Jerusalem. Yes, my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge."   
17 I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also was a chasing after wind.  


18 For in much wisdom is much grief; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Also Ecclesiastes 8:

14 There is a vanity which is done on the earth, that there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the work of the wicked. Again, there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the work of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity.   
15 Then I commended mirth, because a man has no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be joyful: for that will accompany him in his labor all the days of his life which God has given him under the sun.   
16 When I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done on the earth (for also there is that neither day nor night sees sleep with his eyes),   
17 then I saw all the work of God, that man can't find out the work that is done under the sun, because however much a man labors to seek it out, yet he won't find it. Yes, moreover, though a wise man thinks he can comprehend it, yet he won't be able to find it.   

All of our toils here on earth , are for nothing , if we toil without God !!! Why desire temporal when all  is permanent ? Goes back to claim I posed in a previous post , we make everything about ourselves , and seek answers for oneself so as not to have to make a commitment to Jehovah . 

Now all the experts can join in by quoting why and how Jehovah , as well as how committed they are to this and that , when in reality it's a ploy to justify there stance . Real commitment happens when you take expecting nothing in return !

2 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher; "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."  WITHOUT GOD !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hebrews 11:1
> 
> Now faith is the reality[a] of what is hoped for, the proof[b] of what is not seen.
> 
> ...


It's delusional to call faith fact. Faith is a belief. Argue all you wish. What I believe I have entrusted my soul to and will not change. It's an internal satisfaction that I am right. But it will never be fact until it happens.


SemperFiDawg said:


> Hebrews 11:1
> 
> Now faith is the reality[a] of what is hoped for, the proof[b] of what is not seen.
> 
> ...


So.... the guys who brought down the trade center had faith that they will now be with 10 virgins, rewarded by God. Is that a fact or misguided  faith? The word "faith" is the  same as it's use does not get to pick and chose a particular religion. You keep implying the word faith means fact. But faith is not a word exclusive to Christians.  What I believe, I believe it almost as if it's fact, but it's still faith. Because it's not fact yet.  You say "by not deciding yet" implying I have not decided in whom I have entrusted my soul to imply's someone whom is waiting for proof. Not at all. I have my faith in whom I will not waiver, in whom I will stand firm even under persecution, yet, it's called faith. The minute anything is proven, it no longer can be called faith. Only religion changes the dictionary to fit their book. Most assume the dictionary and "book" can agree.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> It's delusional to call faith fact. Faith is a belief. Argue all you wish. What I believe I have entrusted my soul to and will not change. It's an internal satisfaction that I am right. But it will never be fact until it happens.
> 
> So.... the guys who brought down the trade center had faith that they will now be with 10 virgins, rewarded by God. Is that a fact or misguided  faith? The word "faith" is the  same as it's use does not get to pick and chose a particular religion. You keep implying the word faith means fact. But faith is not a word exclusive to Christians.  What I believe, I believe it almost as if it's fact, but it's still faith. Because it's not fact yet.  You say "by not deciding yet" implying I have not decided in whom I have entrusted my soul to imply's someone whom is waiting for proof. Not at all. I have my faith in whom I will not waiver, in whom I will stand firm even under persecution, yet, it's called faith. The minute anything is proven, it no longer can be called faith. Only religion changes the dictionary to fit their book. Most assume the dictionary and "book" can agree.



Is it delusional to call love “fact”?

It is a verifiable fact that the fate of the trade centers was a direct result of FAITH, misguided faith, but faith none the less.  The obvious next question SHOULD be how do we differentiate between the faith in God and misguided faith which is very much an apologetic question, and a spiritual one also.  The answer is given by Christ, and goes right back to what has already been said...by the fruit the tree bears.



> The minute anything is proven, it no longer can be called faith.



I think this is the heart of it right here.  What scripture do you base this on, or How did you arrive at this.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Is it delusional to call love “fact”?


What's love but a second hand emotion
What's love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken


----------



## 660griz (Jan 28, 2019)

A *fool* thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a *fool*.
--William Shakespeare


----------



## 660griz (Jan 28, 2019)

He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave.     ---Andrew Carnegie


----------



## Israel (Jan 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Not a single refutation from you.
> Not a single explanation from you.
> 
> If you think my replies based off of your scripture and facts are taunting and goading and feel the need to  block me instead of answer me with a solid rebuttle...then...
> Thank God





Artfuldodger said:


> I'm sure that Pharoah did harden his own heart on those various occasions but it was still in line with God's plan and purpose. God didn't base his plan off of Pharoah's plan.
> 
> If we back up in Romans 9 to verse 11;
> 
> ...



Amen. 

Not even...according to the way Paul might have at one time, preferred.

Sent to the Gentiles in bearing much fruit...but always kept from those by whom he carried the deepest burden of heart. And such burden that (if we receive Paul as speaking truth) "he could wish himself accursed from Christ" on their account...that he was willing to surrender all he had come to know of the glory _and salvation_ in Christ...that his _brethren after the flesh_ be saved. Hyperbole? God forbid.

Is there not something to this, as even as our brother Drummer Boy has so recently spoken? The patient bearing of an anguish (yes, an anguish even in Christ!) that works to salvation in an obedience to "let go" in such obedience...though we ourselves must enter into a patience _almost blind _to the fulfilling of the longing for which we so hope?

But, is God ignorant? Uncaring? Unseeing? Of what is laid upon the altar?
God forbid.
Do we not, in some way, know such working? If not to now...than I am persuaded it is only...not yet.

The how, when, and of _what type of fruit _we may participate to seeing...is not our own!

It is almost too funny (laughably joyous!) how we are caught! We, almost all (I have little doubt) find much of guidance, understanding, encouragement toward the light in God's work through Paul; his labors and accompanying words. How much we feast upon! How much strength we gather.

Yet, we find something else...too...something slipping through in it all, no less taken in with every bite. That is the changed nature of Paul...which as new creation we recognize as the spirit of Christ. This is as much imparted into heart...as words we may struggle (at times with) in mind. Every tumbler's turn to a heartfelt "click" of knowing (do we deny this experience?) is leading to an opening of heart...as Paul himself experienced, to what we, in previous unknowing, could never have imagined working toward.

Think for a moment of Peter's necessity of persuasion...there on that roof top.
But Peter was no Pharisee! Peter had no testimony of the many things Paul enumerates in Philipians. A Jew, no doubt...but a Jew of the _seeming excellency_ of Paul? And God chooses this very man, sets him apart, as an apostle to the Gentiles!

How much more, it might seem, Paul _could offer_ in working amongst the Jews! Who understood better their traditions and ways? And who...would have whatever might remain as revulsion, needing to be expunged, as to intercourse with Gentiles?

Ahhh, the beauty of it! The perfection of it! The utter necessity...of it!
And we...are his beneficiaries! (and _only through_ Jesus Christ)

But such God has done. But we may see, not to our benefit only...but that this particular sending...enriched Paul himself to such measure as, broke open his bosom of mercy that he, without contradiction might see himself as wet nurse toward a form of people...once held in easy derision. Himself...willing to be entirely spent...for their benefit. Yes, this seeps through and no less drenches us, even if we do not yet know. And this sending where he would not have gone...("when you were young you gird yourself and went where you wanted...but when you are old...") comes in with every word through Paul we might savor.

Paul was allowed to retain this burden of heart, (God knows we cannot hide anything from Him), nor foolishly think we should attempt to. And his confession of such was of no shame to his now  (once) Gentile brethren. To whatever extent they knew...of his love for them was undimmed.

But it was in such extremus of longing Paul was given a vision, an understanding, a revelation, an enlightenment...to a _fullness of plan_ and purpose he could not have imagined. In being kept from making "his contribution" to his preference, and suffering therein, something became laid out before him of such scope and magnitude that he could not but exclaim:

O, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?” “Who has first given to God, that God should repay him?” For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen 

Oh, brothers...do we see? May we? Even if in all, the verses previous to the above may yet be somewhat in need of a surety to us...what absolution of fretting, relief of "trying to figure out", or directing (in a control we sense _in departure_), banishment of confusion...(when to ourselves we make least sense of all)...what direction to singleness of eye...is found here!

Look, I could tell you of a man who once believed peace was a thing barely seen and sensed...as though it were reserved for the "well advanced", those who through some mastery, merited its acquisition. What a fool would be displayed! Yes, even a man who, believing he knew grace...and so preached it, hoping to carry a "gift" to some...never himself knew such a gift was first and foremost for his delight...if he might just learn to see Jesus Christ...and such _patient bearing of heartbreak_ among his brothers. This heartbreak...works!

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem!...how I have longed..."

God help me, I know I am unable of myself...in all.
As much as I have been set to an upending, an overturning, as each we are (I can claim no special occupation), it is only with trembling, a breaking of voice unseemly I ask any who may...to consider.

Who really is the prodigal? 

Is it the wandering one...eating with the pigs? Who nevertheless retained in his knowing, even if of necessity to be summoned by a "coming to his senses" the remembrance and conviction of his Father's goodness...

Or

Is it the other? Who, thinking he was faithfully serving the Father in all, was manifestly displayed as never having known his heart...at all? 

All was already his, and yet found a sulking with a _peculiar desire and pleasure._

To what poverty shall we incline ourselves? Is there _any necessity_ to it?

Can heartbreak...really open doors?

One of a favorite Hymns:





"


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Is it delusional to call love “fact”?
> 
> It is a verifiable fact that the fate of the trade centers was a direct result of FAITH, misguided faith, but faith none the less.  The obvious next question SHOULD be how do we differentiate between the faith in God and misguided faith which is very much an apologetic question, and a spiritual one also.  The answer is given by Christ, and goes right back to what has already been said...by the fruit the tree bears.
> 
> ...


So anyone that loves another person,a different person than say you is also Misguided??? Because they do not love the same as you? Same as misguided faith?
Or
Is the Love of another person and Faith of another religion equal to yours?

Sfd doesn't want to be able to see the points that I make to him...but all of you others will see it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2019)

Israel said:


> Amen.
> 
> Not even...according to the way Paul might have at one time, preferred.
> 
> ...


Referring back to Arts point about Pharoah that you quoted...
If it IS all part of gods plan,  then it certainly backs up my stance that God chooses who chooses God. If it is part of the plan,  his plan was that no matter what, Pharaoh was never going to be a fan of God. His decisions were planned. He had no choice.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> It's delusional to call faith fact. Faith is a belief. Argue all you wish. What I believe I have entrusted my soul to and will not change. It's an internal satisfaction that I am right. But it will never be fact until it happens.
> 
> So.... the guys who brought down the trade center had faith that they will now be with 10 virgins, rewarded by God. Is that a fact or misguided  faith? The word "faith" is the  same as it's use does not get to pick and chose a particular religion. You keep implying the word faith means fact. But faith is not a word exclusive to Christians.  What I believe, I believe it almost as if it's fact, but it's still faith. Because it's not fact yet.  You say "by not deciding yet" implying I have not decided in whom I have entrusted my soul to imply's someone whom is waiting for proof. Not at all. I have my faith in whom I will not waiver, in whom I will stand firm even under persecution, yet, it's called faith. The minute anything is proven, it no longer can be called faith. Only religion changes the dictionary to fit their book. Most assume the dictionary and "book" can agree.





> It's delusional to call faith fact. Faith is a belief. Argue all you wish. What I believe I have entrusted my soul to and will not change. It's an internal satisfaction that I am right. But it will never be fact until it happens.


I honestly believe its a self defense type of mechanism.
At the same time one acknowledges the foundation of religious belief is based on faith, which you correctly point out is not fact, it is necessary to "make it fact".
Why?
How else can one honestly claim other religions are wrong? Non-believers are wrong? That all the other gods are false? That you will be rewarded and "they" wont? Multitudes of other examples.....
To truly 100% accept that your belief is based on faith leaves the possibility that your religion is just like all the other religions/no religion.
To claim everybody else is wrong, you MUST be right. So faith gets turned into fact.
In other words, for some, faith on its own is not a strong enough position to hold.
From an argument/claim making standpoint, faith is "weaker" than fact.
Its how one can take "Faith is things HOPED for" and twist it and turn it and somehow translate it into fact.
SFD's post above is a perfect example.
You don't HOPE 2 + 2 = 4. Its just a fact.
Religious beliefs, in this case Christian beliefs, are not fact.
And the 'ol "Well its a fact to me" is just a concession that its not really a fact.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 28, 2019)

“Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.”   
―       Baruch De Spinoza,


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Is it delusional to call love “fact”?
> 
> It is a verifiable fact that the fate of the trade centers was a direct result of FAITH, misguided faith, but faith none the less.  The obvious next question SHOULD be how do we differentiate between the faith in God and misguided faith which is very much an apologetic question, and a spiritual one also.  The answer is given by Christ, and goes right back to what has already been said...by the fruit the tree bears.
> 
> ...


Love is not a good parallel or comparison  to faith. Delusional to hold the world's dictionary to your standards of belief. Your conversing on a world wide forum. The word faith is not defined on personal levels. If your belief is treated as fact, then so be it, but to argue to the world that faith and fact are the same..... Delusional
"What scripture do you base this on", you say, see..... just more delusion. Everything is not based on scripture. You can't see it because you are in a religious trance, as if you can't help it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 28, 2019)

Israel said:


> Amen.
> 
> Not even...according to the way Paul might have at one time, preferred.
> 
> ...



Where do you find time on a Monday to write such a response.  Retired or Government employ?


----------



## Israel (Jan 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Where do you find time on a Monday to write such a response.  Retired or Government employ?


Semi.

No, not driving one. 


Retired.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet I’m pretty much personally convinced based on my medical knowledge that this fixation you have on this forum has become, or is on the verge of becoming pathologic.  Your posts are becoming more over-the-top,  your denigration more frequent and more vindictive to the point where you are now replying 2, sometimes 3, seperate times to one single post that someone makes in which you disagree with.  It’s obvious to even the casual observer that you actual take pleasure in the taunting and goading of those who have opposing viewpoints, but are yet civil to you.  A while back I started a thread specifically FOR those here who are believers and wanted to discuss how Christ is Truth incarnate.  Not only did you crash the thread, reviewing it last night it’s evident you did everything in your power to derail it.  You were even called out on your actions by several members.  Say what you will, that’s not mentally healthy for anyone.
> 
> Even if I’m wrong , and I hope I am, I can not in good conscious continue to dialogue with you because it just giving you more to destroy yourself with.  That said, I’m blocking you.  I felt like the honorable thing to do would be to give you my reasoning and tell you face-to-face so to speak.  At the very least it will save you time trying to taunt, goad or insult me into an exchange.  Good Day.


I'll go ahead and clarify this post as for what it really is. Under the guise of looking like concern, it's actually a bailing out because of lack of substance to debate with. It seemingly is to Bullet but it's actually meant for others so that when he no longer responds to Bullet, he hopes to save face, and not look as though he can't debate his topic. I'd cut you some slack if I did not know that you did a "fool" word search to find your fool verses at the start of this thread.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2019)

I am alright knowing that his medical knowledge is on the same level as the rest of his knowledge he posts in here.
Only bright spot in the entire post was that he admitted that he could be wrong.

Reading between the lines is that he blames me for doing such a good job that he cannot debate or refute what I say.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am alright knowing that his medical knowledge is on the same level as the rest of his knowledge he posts in here.
> Only bright spot in the entire post was that he admitted that he could be wrong.
> 
> Reading between the lines is that he blames me for doing such a good job that he cannot debate or refute what I say.


You guys handle things well. It made me mad when I saw the bible being used vindictive


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'll go ahead and clarify this post as for what it really is. Under the guise of looking like concern, it's actually a bailing out because of lack of substance to debate with. It seemingly is to Bullet but it's actually meant for others so that when he no longer responds to Bullet, he hopes to save face, and not look as though he can't debate his topic. I'd cut you some slack if I did not know that you did a "fool" word search to find your fool verses at the start of this thread.


You, like we, are supposed to ignore that


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 28, 2019)

Faith?

No matter what they tell us 
No matter what they do 
No matter what they teach us 
What we believe is true


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 28, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Faith?
> 
> No matter what they tell us
> No matter what they do
> ...



That's not a very good standard operating procedure.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 28, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That's not a very good standard operating procedure.



Yeah, but it sounds so noble.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 28, 2019)

No matter what, if you believe it, it's true. If you believe in Jesu through faith, then to you, it's true.
No matter what the Atheist is telling us, no matter what the Muslim is teaching.
What we believe is true.

Then one can take this and reverse it. No matter what the Christians are teaching, No matter what the Hindu is telling us.
What we believe is true.

So in that sense, what we "believe" is true. The reality is that it may not be true, but to you, what you believe is true.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 28, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> No matter what, if you believe it, it's true. If you believe in Jesu through faith, then to you, it's true.
> No matter what the Atheist is telling us, no matter what the Muslim is teaching.
> What we believe is true.
> 
> ...



Nooooo, what you believe would be false.  The absurdity of truth being relative has been beat to death here.  Even the statement contradicts itself, but whatever.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 28, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I honestly believe its a self defense type of mechanism.
> At the same time one acknowledges the foundation of religious belief is based on faith, which you correctly point out is not fact, it is necessary to "make it fact".
> Why?
> How else can one honestly claim other religions are wrong? Non-believers are wrong? That all the other gods are false? That you will be rewarded and "they" wont? Multitudes of other examples.....
> ...





> How else can one honestly claim other religions are wrong?



Because they all make exclusive truth claims that exclude other beliefs.  Based on this all can be wrong, one can be right, but all can't be right. Therefore 



> To truly 100% accept that your belief is based on faith leaves the possibility that your religion is just like all the other religions/no religion.



is true only if your definition of faith is like that of 1gr8, synonymous with uncertainty.



> To claim everybody else is wrong, you MUST be right.



Close. Because all make exclusive truth claims, to claim your religion is right, everyone else must be wrong.  



> From an argument/claim making standpoint, faith is "weaker" than fact.



From an argument/claim standpoint, faith IS fact.  If you will notice a couple of things:



> Its how one can take "Faith is things HOPED for" and twist it and turn it and somehow translate it into fact.



First, I quoted the verse correctly and verbatim from 2 separate translations.  

Hebrews 11:1 
HCSB



> Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.



and KJV



> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



You are the one who has twisted it by changing the terms "reality" and "proof", or "substance" and "evidence" to "things.  I hope that wasn't intentional, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  None-the-less, I quoted it correctly the first time.

Second, and more important, the term "is" meaning "to be" is of course a *linking verb.  *And *linking verbs * connect the subject of a sentence (*Faith)* to a noun or adjective that *renames* or *describes* the subject.  Therefore, *Faith is renamed or described as both "the reality" and "the proof", in the HCSB, and "the substance" and "the evidence" in the KJV.*

As I tried to explain to 1gr8, Faith is not some unknown, uncertainty.  It's synonymous with or described as , proof, evidence, substance, reality.   

Opine as you like over it's validity, there's no denying what the verse actually says.  To suggests otherwise is well....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 28, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'll go ahead and clarify this post as for what it really is. Under the guise of looking like concern, it's actually a bailing out because of lack of substance to debate with. It seemingly is to Bullet but it's actually meant for others so that when he no longer responds to Bullet, he hopes to save face, and not look as though he can't debate his topic. I'd cut you some slack if I did not know that you did a "fool" word search to find your fool verses at the start of this thread.



Well you're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but you are dead wrong.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 28, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Because they all make exclusive truth claims that exclude other beliefs.  Based on this all can be wrong, one can be right, but all can't be right. Therefore
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As long as you insist faith is fact your arguments are null and void.
Try to make that fact not true any way that satisfies you.
Faith is not fact until it is proven to be fact. At that point it becomes fact not faith.
Just the way the ball bounces.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 28, 2019)

faith
[fāTH]
NOUN
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:
trust · belief · confidence · conviction · credence · reliance ·
[more]
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

fact
[fakt]
NOUN
1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts" ·
[more]
synonyms:
reality · actuality · certainty · factuality · certitude · truth · naked truth · verity · gospel



> As I tried to explain to 1gr8, Faith is not some unknown, uncertainty.  It's synonymous with or described as , proof, evidence, substance, reality.


Note where your synonyms fall under. As opposed to where you put them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 28, 2019)

Ive lost count.
Is the 10th or 100th time we've pointed out the differences between the definitions of fact and faith?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive lost count.
> Is the 10th or 100th time we've pointed out the differences between the definitions of fact and faith?


Thin Ice Walt....when you start using facts that are irrefutable you are setting yourself up for a "medical" diagnosis...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 28, 2019)

There are different levels of faith.  Every time you put your butt on a chair you have faith that it will support you but it's not a fact that it will support you until it does.  I'm interested in the way that believers talk about their faith in God.  They say things like "He never lets me down". What's interesting to me is that I notice that if they prayed "Lord, please let this chair support my buttocks" and the chair fails they will view that as an answered prayer.  That's why they can conflate fact with faith.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Thin Ice Walt....when you start using facts that are irrefutable you are setting yourself up for a "medical" diagnosis...



Which lapse in logic do you find less egregious, when they say "I don't care if it doesn't make sense.  I believe anyway" or "Faith is fact"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 28, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Which lapse in logic do you find less egregious, when they say "I don't care if it doesn't make sense.  I believe anyway" or "Faith is fact"?


For me, "egregious" doesn't really apply with either until I see where they go from there.
Until then... wacky/nonsensical/whatever floats your boat is probably more applicable.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 28, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Which lapse in logic do you find less egregious, when they say "I don't care if it doesn't make sense.  I believe anyway" or "Faith is fact"?


Most of us say neither. Faith is not a fact, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Neither of those are fact. 

You have to keep in mind when you’re talking “facts”.........neither of us really have what it takes to prove or disprove this. 

However, I do find it bothersome when I hear “the Bible says, I believe it, and that settles it”.........and there’s nothing else to go with it. Even though I’m a believer, I still like to ensure I’m believing the right way.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 28, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> For me, "egregious" doesn't really apply with either until I see where they go from there.
> Until then... wacky/nonsensical/whatever floats your boat is probably more applicable.



I think I agree.  If the net result of their poor reasoning results in them being better people then I won't get in their way.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Most of us say neither. Faith is not a fact, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Neither of those are fact.
> 
> You have to keep in mind when you’re talking “facts”.........neither of us really have what it takes to prove or disprove this.
> 
> However, I do find it bothersome when I hear “the Bible says, I believe it, and that settles it”.........and there’s nothing else to go with it. Even though I’m a believer, I still like to ensure I’m believing the right way.



So are you convinced by historical evidence, preponderance and quality, that Jesus resurrected after being dead three days?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 28, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> So are you convinced by historical evidence, preponderance and quality, that Jesus resurrected after being dead three days?


I’m convinced by faith. Not just because I believe it. I can understand how through the spirit and not the natural that a thing such as that can happen.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m convinced by faith. Not just because I believe it. I can understand how through the spirit and not the natural that a thing such as that can happen.



Can you describe this phenomenon in more detail?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 28, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Can you describe this phenomenon in more detail?


That same spirit that raised him is the same spirit we receive with salvation.  It’s the same spirit that causes a preacher in another city that you’ve never met to pull you off to the side in private and read your mail word for word and he’s correct. It’s the same spirit that tells you that the preacher that ask for a Joe with a headache in a room of 500 is using statistics to pat himself on the back. 

Once you receive it, you’ll know without a doubt or question and then SFD is dead on the money, it becomes evident to you.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> That same spirit that raised him is the same spirit we receive with salvation.  It’s the same spirit that causes a preacher in another city that you’ve never met to pull you off to the side in private and read your mail word for word and he’s correct. It’s the same spirit that tells you that the preacher that ask for a Joe with a headache in a room of 500 is using statistics to pat himself on the back.
> 
> Once you receive it, you’ll know without a doubt or question and then SFD is dead on the money, it becomes evident to you.



I know that I can convince myself of anything even something that contradicts reality.  To me that realization felt like the beginning of wisdom.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> That same spirit that raised him is the same spirit we receive with salvation.  It’s the same spirit that causes a preacher in another city that you’ve never met to pull you off to the side in private and read your mail word for word and he’s correct. It’s the same spirit that tells you that the preacher that ask for a Joe with a headache in a room of 500 is using statistics to pat himself on the back.
> 
> Once you receive it, you’ll know without a doubt or question and then SFD is dead on the money, it becomes evident to you.


And JUST as evident and real worldwide for ALL religions and their members experiences, believers in witchcraft, tree worshippers, pyramid power, voodoo and on and on and on.
Can you acknowledge that others experiences are at least as convincing as yours?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And JUST as evident and real worldwide for ALL religions and their members experiences, believers in witchcraft, tree worshippers, pyramid power, voodoo and on and on and on.
> Can you acknowledge that others experiences are at least as convincing as yours?


They absolutely have to experience something that connects them to what they believe.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 28, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I know that I can convince myself of anything even something that contradicts reality.  To me that realization felt like the beginning of wisdom.


You most certainly can convince yourself of anything. But if you can “prove” that Christians are only self convincing themselves, I’d like to see what you have. You’re a daisy if you do


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You most certainly can convince yourself of anything. But if you can “prove” that Christians are only self convincing themselves, I’d like to see what you have. You’re a daisy if you do


In that regard, since these other believers in other religions are in similar situations as the Christians, would you be inclined to say that they are in fact in contact with actual spirits and gods too?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> In that regard, since these other believers in other religions are in similar situations as the Christians, would you be inclined to say that they are in fact in contact with actual spirits and gods too?


If I believe my Bible I have to believe there are evil / demonic spirits as well. 

That being said, I’m not saying that anyone that believes differently than I do is believing in something evil. I’m not that judge. 

But at face value, to believe in something by faith, you must have some form of connection, even if it’s a false connection??


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive lost count.
> Is the 10th or 100th time we've pointed out the differences between the definitions of fact and faith?



Walt, there's no doubt we're talking past each other.  Here's a very well articulated and reasoned article on what I'm trying to convey if you or anyone else cares to read it.

https://www.bethinking.org/can-we-know-anything/faith-and-facts

This is the summation.




> *So, faith is knowing, and that knowledge is based on evidence leading to confidence or conviction. But biblical faith is more than that. There’s another element. Faith is not just knowing. Faith is also acting. Biblical faith is a confidence so strong that it results in action. You’re willing to act based on that belief, that faith*



Even you own definition which you provided



> 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something]



makes no mention of faith being blind.  You are inserting that opinion into it.

Your definition isn't



> 1. complete BLIND trust or BLIND confidence in someone or something



and to imply it does is well...

P.S.  It's NOT ironic that the definition you provided, sans your interpretation, aligns perfectly with the authors summation in the article


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If I believe my Bible I have to believe there are evil / demonic spirits as well.
> 
> That being said, I’m not saying that anyone that believes differently than I do is believing in something evil. I’m not that judge.
> 
> But at face value, to believe in something by faith, you must have some form of connection, even if it’s a false connection??


By those standards, even you do not know if your connection is false or evil or demonic.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

The resident psychologist is quoting himself and double answering....same stuff he used for my diagnosis....hmmmm


----------



## Israel (Jan 29, 2019)

Only to the extent we agree to this matter might this post appear to be anything other than wasted bandwidth. But even if there is any agreement, that does not guarantee any rightness to it at all, only some form of agreement. For even what might appear (even if)_ in all agreement_, could be shown moot. And to the extreme beyond...all wrong.

Even if there is agreement that, in, and of all things Jesus speaks, teaches, and yes, commands; relationship and relationships are all of singular and _paramount importance_. From this (as I see/hear Jesus speak) essential matter, all else springs. Relationship to self, himself, (and in that relationship to God)...and all and any that would be described in us (or by us) as "other". But Jesus takes it to an extreme, even the extremest of extreme (if you can bear that expression). But, as any might see, this is only and exclusively toward what might have any affection, some sense to any _of relationship_ to him at all; for what cares not for him (to any interest of hearing him at all) could _neither hear it_, nor would care to.

I have little doubt this is up for much debate and exchange, especially among what would see itself as "christian", for, in one sense (to me) it does describe that extreme of extreme that becomes an inescapable and irreducible point _of reduction_, unyielding to denial...but that may provoke a cleverness of handling_ seemingly _required when one is "caught" in its light. And it may well be of all, that is shown _clever in handling to a shame, _that it is I, myself, so exposed.

But, to the extent I have learned, and am learning, it is better to be exposed by a shame that is both forgivable and remediable than to cast away in denial something given that is of _spirit and life. _(I hear begging to get to the point)

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done _it_ unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done _it_ unto me. 

Oh, make no mistake, I would like it to always speak to me of a positive of affirmation, and never a rebuke. But, where do "I" get caught? In my esteem and judgment of what is "least"!

Some of y'all (does my affected folksiness not appear? or, am I of all, excluded from ever wearing a cowboy hat?...well, yeah, that could be!) _seem quite expert_ in spotting what is described as a false piety, a false caring. And I would also say, no less, a recognition of a proclivity (in man? of man? all men?) to a deceit engendered to the _purpose and cause_ of enlistment. Some might even say such is exercised to an expertise of perfect (or approaching it) _skepticism_.

But, of what must the _perfect skeptic _have to his self appearing? If it is not the conviction that he sees rightly for discerning _beyond the represented_ to its essence, an ability to "see through" all to the truth of matters_ represented _(a self retained and contained truth against which all is measured)...why do we belabor this notion (as I see as no less a false..._piety..._or _am _I of all _excluded from this allowing?) "_at least the unbeliever (A/A or whatever) says 'I don't know'." As this, in some way (or am I excluded from seeing thus?) is no less a play _for a piety_? A "moral" advantage...in (some form) _a humility_ expressed? As though "_we submit_ to the buffeting of reality in our confessed ignorance" to its _seeming contradictions_ and caprice...as "you" are not able to."

And please, for the love of Christ in truth, it is far too late in all these meanderings and expressions of thoughts to not find (or worse, deny!) there are ample examples of claim to what appears the "braver" (do you doubt_ at all, or worse deny? _there is an intended moral weight ascribed, and claimed?) course to the subscribers of such?

The "we face without crutch (of _assumed superstition_) what life 'throws at us'...while others...in all pusillanimity cling for succor to myth"

"We are _the man_, the_ they_ are the infantile". Really, how far back do any of you care to read? Tell me again of overweening pride or what opts _scurrilously_ for 'higher moral ground'.

You friend...are simply not skeptical enough yet, then, of yourself.
Me?

I know _the facts_ as have been made _undeniably clear_ to myself.

"I" am craven coward. Prideful to an extreme. Found willing to say and do _most anything _to an enlistment to myself in terror of isolation and abandonment. Promiser of moon and stars while found only full of ash. You doubt this is true?

Yeah...me too. Mostly. Until in skepticism (and cynicism) I invite a true eye upon myself.

You may say, in all of skepticism (to even a perfection of cynicism) there is no_ true eye _invited by such. (or laughably, you_ already truly_ posses it)
But being gripped by a patience that is _always_ in rebuke _to my own, _I can now love you no less than myself.

Keep eating. Keep occupying.

And, as necessary...run to one another. God knows I have.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> By those standards, even you do not know if your connection is false or evil or demonic.


Those are not really standards. 

Just acknowledging what I believe (Bible) says about evil.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt, there's no doubt we're talking past each other.  Here's a very well articulated and reasoned article on what I'm trying to convey if you or anyone else cares to read it.
> 
> https://www.bethinking.org/can-we-know-anything/faith-and-facts
> 
> ...


Never said faith was blind.
Never said faith was.....
You have been provided the definitions for both faith and fact.
They are fundamentally different. 
Not you, not any author can change that with your explanations.

Its odd to me how badly you seem to need faith to = fact.
Its fine for YOU to believe they are the same.
But the minute you claim to us that they are the same, you change the whole ball game because they aren't. 
And its easily provable they aren't.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Those are not really standards.
> 
> Just acknowledging what I believe (Bible) says about evil.


You are avoiding the possibility that you are in the same boat as the others despite what you believe.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 29, 2019)

Israel said:


> Only to the extent we agree to this matter might this post appear to be anything other than wasted bandwidth. But even if there is any agreement, that does not guarantee any rightness to it at all, only some form of agreement. For even what might appear (even if)_ in all agreement_, could be shown moot. And to the extreme beyond...all wrong.
> 
> Even if there is agreement that, in, and of all things Jesus speaks, teaches, and yes, commands; relationship and relationships are all of singular and _paramount importance_. From this (as I see/hear Jesus speak) essential matter, all else springs. Relationship to self, himself, (and in that relationship to God)...and all and any that would be described in us (or by us) as "other". But Jesus takes it to an extreme, even the extremest of extreme (if you can bear that expression). But, as any might see, this is only and exclusively toward what might have any affection, some sense to any _of relationship_ to him at all; for what cares not for him (to any interest of hearing him at all) could _neither hear it_, nor would care to.
> 
> ...



This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.

      William Blake.

Oh how keen was HIS sight.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Never said faith was blind.
> Never said faith was.....
> You have been provided the definitions for both faith and fact.
> They are fundamentally different.
> ...



So I’m guessing you didn’t read the article.  I don’t need faith to = fact no more than I need water to =wet.  It is by its very nature.  Do you need faith for 2+2 to =4?

Do you have faith 2+2=4?  Of course you do.  Why, for the precise reason that it is fact.  Christians don’t, by nature, have faith in lies or falsehoods any more than the next person,  Yet, atheist would have others believe that the faith that Christians have in God is somehow less than the faith they have in 2+2=4.  It is NOT.  We base our faith on evidence and truth just like the next man.  To believe otherwise is absurd.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Israel said:


> Only to the extent we agree to this matter might this post appear to be anything other than wasted bandwidth. But even if there is any agreement, that does not guarantee any rightness to it at all, only some form of agreement. For even what might appear (even if)_ in all agreement_, could be shown moot. And to the extreme beyond...all wrong.
> 
> Even if there is agreement that, in, and of all things Jesus speaks, teaches, and yes, commands; relationship and relationships are all of singular and _paramount importance_. From this (as I see/hear Jesus speak) essential matter, all else springs. Relationship to self, himself, (and in that relationship to God)...and all and any that would be described in us (or by us) as "other". But Jesus takes it to an extreme, even the extremest of extreme (if you can bear that expression). But, as any might see, this is only and exclusively toward what might have any affection, some sense to any _of relationship_ to him at all; for what cares not for him (to any interest of hearing him at all) could _neither hear it_, nor would care to.
> 
> ...


Where is our resident *S*igmund  *F*reud *D*octor for diagnosis on this self question and answer session?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt, there's no doubt we're talking past each other.  Here's a very well articulated and reasoned article on what I'm trying to convey if you or anyone else cares to read it.
> 
> https://www.bethinking.org/can-we-know-anything/faith-and-facts
> 
> ...


From the link:


> Some suggest we cannot find facts to support our faith, nor is it preferable to try. This is silly. We’re enjoined to have faith in part because we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.



Yet provides ZERO evidence.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So I’m guessing you didn’t read the article.


Nope sure didn't.
Our discussion is whether faith and fact are defined as the same thing.
They aren't.
And I repeat -


> You have been provided the definitions for both faith and fact.
> They are fundamentally different.
> Not you, not any author can change that with your explanations.


There is no shiny object, opinion, explanation, philosophy or article that you can wave in front of me that changes the definitions of those words.
If and when those definitions change, feel free to wave that in front of me.
Until then, you are just trying to get around the definitions by attempting to make me ignore the definitions with philosophy, opinion etc.
Again, its fine for YOU to believe they are the same but that doesn't make them the same except to YOU.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You are avoiding the possibility that you are in the same boat as the others despite what you believe.


No, in a sense, I’m acknowledging both, and I’m saying I’m in the same boat as you. Until one of us had hard factual evidence.....until then, we are left with what we believe or disbelieve.

I consider the possibility I might be wrong every time I study, one of my purposes of studying. I want to know if I’m wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, in a sense, I’m acknowledging both, and I’m saying I’m in the same boat as you. Until one of us had hard factual evidence.....until then, we are left with what we believe or disbelieve.
> 
> I consider the possibility I might be wrong every time I study, one of my purposes of studying. I want to know if I’m wrong.


You and I are in the same boat only because of a lack of evidence to show any religion, including Christianity is correct. 
You and the other believers are in the same category due to the options that you have stated previously. But, you make it sound as if yours happens to be because of a God and theirs is due to deception.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, in a sense, I’m acknowledging both, and I’m saying I’m in the same boat as you. Until one of us had hard factual evidence.....until then, we are left with what we believe or disbelieve.
> 
> I consider the possibility I might be wrong every time I study, one of my purposes of studying. I want to know if I’m wrong.





> I’m saying I’m in the same boat as you.


Its not the same boat.
Your boat says something is that cant be proven that there is.
Our boat says something isn't because it hasn't been proven that there is.
Those are very different boats.
Your life jacket is not accepting the difference in the arguments.
Since no one is going to PROVE the outcome, its the argument that matters.
And one of the arguments requires far stronger evidence than the other to back it up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 29, 2019)

For those believers out there I would highly suggest you read this article which serves as a good example where thinking your faith is not supported by facts leads.  

https://creation.com/faith-not-facts





> Christians sometimes think that by cutting their faith loose from facts, they are making their beliefs invincible against the scientific arguments of atheists. But in reality, the effect is the opposite. A faith devoid of facts is dead. The problem is not just that such a faith is logically indefensible, but that it eventually loses any content worth defending. When you separate Christianity from the sciences and history, atheism wins because the skeptic can merely ascribe your faith to wishful thinking.


 (a statement we see here almost daily)


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For those believers out there I would highly suggest you read this article which serves as a good example where thinking your faith is not supported by facts leads.
> 
> https://creation.com/faith-not-facts
> 
> ...





> Christians sometimes think that by cutting their faith loose from facts, they are making their beliefs invincible against the scientific arguments of atheists. But in reality, the effect is the opposite. A faith devoid of facts is dead. The problem is not just that such a faith is logically indefensible, but that it eventually loses any content worth defending. When you separate Christianity from the sciences and history, atheism wins because the skeptic can merely ascribe your faith to wishful thinking.


That goes a long way in explaining why you have your own definition of "fact".
I would suggest that this statement -


> A faith devoid of facts is dead.


Is far more dangerous to your beliefs than you may realize.
Having been a Christian, I can assure you that statement would have been a gigantic, flashing warning sign to me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That goes a long way in explaining why you have your own definition of "fact".
> I would suggest that this statement -
> 
> Is far more dangerous to your beliefs than you may realize.
> Having been a Christian, I can assure you that statement would have been a gigantic, flashing warning sign to me.



Apparently not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Apparently not.


Apparently not what?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Apparently not.





> A faith devoid of facts is dead


Really?
Is a Christian described by Christianity as the faithful or the factful?
How many times does the word faith appear in the NT? (245)
How many times does the word fact appear in the NT? (a search gave 0 results)
Is it - "Faith is things hoped for" (or whatever translation floats your boat) or is the emphasis on fact?
How many more examples you need?
In other words its faith not fact that is the foundation of Christin beliefs.
And a "faith devoid of facts is dead" sounds reasonable to you?
Really?
Is that really what you want to suggest to other Christians?
I personally would have never read another word that author had to say.
Obviously your mileage varies.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Its not the same boat.
> Your boat says something is that cant be proven that there is.
> Our boat says something isn't because it hasn't been proven that there is.
> Those are very different boats.
> ...


My boat is saying for bullet, I can’t prove the rest wrong.....he can’t prove my one wrong.....in a sense we are in the same boat. Unless I’m just looking at it all wrong???


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You and I are in the same boat only because of a lack of evidence to show any religion, including Christianity is correct.
> You and the other believers are in the same category due to the options that you have stated previously. But, you make it sound as if yours happens to be because of a God and theirs is due to deception.


Ok I see what you’re saying as a whole now.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> Having been a Christian


Still do not get this, how someone can be a Christian and have a relationship with Christ then turn around and say they do not believe when they just admitted they had a relationship but now that one they had it with does not exist.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Still do not get this, how someone can be a Christian and have a relationship with Christ then turn around and say they do not believe when they just admitted they had a relationship but now that one they had it with does not exist.


I doubt this will make much sense to you either but …..
I did not leave Christianity because I had a problem with God.
I left Christianity because I had a problem with Christianity.
I came to believe Christianity was entirely man made and man inspired and was about power and money and control.
I came to reject Christianity and not trust what it was selling.
So for years I still believed in God but had rejected Christianity.
During those years I set out to prove to myself that God actually existed.
Came to realize that the only "proof" of God existing comes from Christianity.
So now the only way I will believe God exists is if God himself gets me to believe it or if God is PROVEN FACTUALLY to exist.

As far as a "relationship" with God..... as you have pointed out in the past a relationship requires two. So far there is no proof that the second person (God) exists except for in your mind.
Its why you yourself cant prove God exists except to yourself.
You believe he does. You cant prove he does.
Name something else that in fact exists that cant be proven to exist.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 29, 2019)

This thread has become a thread about idiot rather than fool. Every religion is a religion of faith, and none, zero, of them, including Christianity, have facts to back them up. This is why it's called faith. Dang, the stupidity of arguing this. Yea... Stupid is the word


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> My boat is saying for bullet, I can’t prove the rest wrong.....he can’t prove my one wrong.....in a sense we are in the same boat. Unless I’m just looking at it all wrong???


You look at things backwards.
Like we talked many threads ago, in your type of thinking, you would have us believe anything and everything that can be thought up and imagined must exist because nobody has or can proven them not to.

In reality, those things do not exist until someone proves that they do.

They are two very different things Spotlite


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I doubt this will make much sense to you either but …..
> I did not leave Christianity because I had a problem with God.
> I left Christianity because I had a problem with Christianity.
> I came to believe Christianity was entirely man made and man inspired and was about power and money and control.
> ...


Exactly Walt.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> My boat is saying for bullet, I can’t prove the rest wrong.....he can’t prove my one wrong.....in a sense we are in the same boat. Unless I’m just looking at it all wrong???


Im not willing to go so far as to claim you are looking at it "wrong".
I will go so far as saying that in my opinion you are looking at it in a way that protects your beliefs.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That goes a long way in explaining why you have your own definition of "fact".
> I would suggest that this statement -
> 
> Is far more dangerous to your beliefs than you may realize.
> Having been a Christian, I can assure you that statement would have been a gigantic, flashing warning sign to me.


When a Fact is made up, a made up definition for it must also follow.

And STILL nothing to back up a claim, just more claims.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You look at things backwards.
> Like we talked many threads ago, in your type of thinking, you would have us believe anything and everything that can be thought up and imagined must exist because nobody has or can proven them not to.
> 
> In reality, those things do not exist until someone proves that they do.
> ...


Well yea I do look at things backwards sometimes lol ?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> This thread has become a thread about idiot rather than fool. Every religion is a religion of faith, and none, zero, of them, including Christianity, have facts to back them up. This is why it's called faith. Dang, the stupidity of arguing this. Yea... Stupid is the word


Just the fact vs faith part is pretty silly.
Theres some pretty good other stuff being discussed imo.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For those believers out there I would highly suggest you read this article which serves as a good example where thinking your faith is not supported by facts leads.
> 
> https://creation.com/faith-not-facts
> 
> ...


That entire creation.com article goes on and on about "facts" with faith, and does NOT mention a single one.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well yea I do look at things backwards sometimes lol ?


Your way lends more probability that other religion(s) are as equally truthful as yours and their gods are just real.

You seem to not use your way of thought when it isn't suitable.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not willing to go so far as to claim you are looking at it "wrong".
> I will go so far as saying that in my opinion you are looking at it in a way that protects your beliefs.


I can see that. Wasn’t my intent but that’s how it shows.

Long story short, when I say we are in the same boat.......bullet took it one god further than I did. For the rest of the gods, we riding in the same boat.

You spoke of the “argument”.....I would agree that their argument / experience, etc isn’t any less valid than mine as far “our word”, but I’m right there with you two when I say I don’t believe it.

I realize none of “our word” is really fact to prove anything.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I can see that. Wasn’t my intent but that’s how it shows.
> 
> Long story short, when I say we are in the same boat.......bullet took it one god further than I did. For the rest of the gods, we riding in the same boat.
> 
> ...


Yep.
Thats where the frequently used A/A phrase "we just take it one god further than you do" comes from.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Your way lends more probability that other religion(s) are as equally truthful as yours and their gods are just real.
> 
> You seem to not use your way of thought when it isn't suitable.


I’m not denying that other “gods” exist. The Bible I read tells me to not have any other gods before mine. Do I believe there are 1,000’s of other spiritual gods?? No. I believe you can make a god out of your fishing boat. I do however believe there are evil spirits, the god of the world, or Satan.

But for human nature, a person has to have some type of connection to what he believes in or else he doesn’t really believe in it. That’s why I say I can’t / don’t discount their experience, even if it’s false, something is connecting them and who am I to say what it is or isn’t?

I still believe in one true God. I also believe man has the stupidity to give a god / God credit for a lot of things that neither had anything to do with.

I know you say I could be wrong about mine. I agree, I could be, but so far I have no reason to think I am. That’s why I study.,


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That entire creation.com article goes on and on about "facts" with faith, and does NOT mention a single one.


Oh geez I didn't even notice that was from creation.com.
That tells me everything I need to know


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not denying that other “gods” exist. The Bible I read tells me to not have any other gods before mine. Do I believe there are 1,000’s of other spiritual gods?? No. I believe you can make a god out of your fishing boat. I do however believe there are evil spirits, the god of the world, or Satan.
> 
> But for human nature, a person has to have some type of connection to what he believes in or else he doesn’t really believe in it. That’s why I say I can’t / don’t discount their experience, even if it’s false, something is connecting them and who am I to say what it is or isn’t?
> 
> ...


In your studies, have you happened across how many other gods were involved and believed in and worshipped by the Jews? Yahweh being the highest?
Jesus was Jewish. 
What other gods did he acknowledge?


----------



## Israel (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Where is our resident *S*igmund  *F*reud *D*octor for diagnosis on this self question and answer session?


I believe he made an excellent diagnosis in regards to the limits of my sight, especially in regards to distortion...even if the quatrain was borrowed.

Being a plainly known _thing_, but less than fully known to myself (but just enough to glimpse the inevitable necessity of salvation to that_ thing_) causes a present delight in a thing that once found no pleasure in the reality of being scarcely saved.

What has labored hard and long to prove this untrue of itself, and to itself, even to a _demonstration_ of exceeding that _scarcely_ is being laid to rest. The thing that once tripped to a provocation to again rise and stand against it in_ judgment of least _was containing all of instruction (and delightful invitation) to lie down in rest.

Who could know? I surely didn't. How could I then possibly fault any? The perfect security found in being _less _than the least. If it's hidden...it can only be to the _better man._


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Israel said:


> I believe he made an excellent diagnosis in regards to the limits of my sight, especially in regards to distortion...even if the quatrain was borrowed.
> 
> Being a plainly known _thing_, but less than fully known to myself (but just enough to glimpse the inevitable necessity of salvation to that_ thing_) causes a present delight in a thing that once found no pleasure in the reality of being scarcely saved.
> 
> ...


Izzy.
Your last post that I made the Sigmund Freud Doctor( SFD ) referral about was because you held a question and answer session with yourself in order to further the conversation you were having with yourself and all in order to make a point and points that had nothing to do with what is being discussed in here. And if somehow a sentence or two remotely was geared towards the discussions in here,  it was lost in all the back and forth between yourself and yourself.
Nobody was asking, only you.
Who is the "we"?
What the heck were the 4 agreement uses for in your opening salvo?

I was hoping Sigmund Freud Dawg would use his medical background to break down your post and explain it.
He is qualified you know.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Israel said:


> I believe he made an excellent diagnosis in regards to the limits of my sight, especially in regards to distortion...even if the quatrain was borrowed.
> 
> Being a plainly known _thing_, but less than fully known to myself (but just enough to glimpse the inevitable necessity of salvation to that_ thing_) causes a present delight in a thing that once found no pleasure in the reality of being scarcely saved.
> 
> ...


And to this ^

Huh?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> In your studies, have you happened across how many other gods were involved and believed in and worshipped by the Jews? Yahweh being the highest?
> Jesus was Jewish.
> What other gods did he acknowledge?


It is my understanding that the ancient Jews believed that many gods existed, but only worshiped one.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It is my understanding that the ancient Jews believed that many gods existed, but only worshiped one.


One commanded them to be his people because he chose to save them, that is why they are his chosen people. He is their god. Not the one and only God. Not everyone's God. The Jews God.

There was a movement and movements to change that.
Big difference between the actual Hebrew bible and the New Testament.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> One commanded them to be his people because he chose to save them, that is why they are his chosen people. He is their god. Not the one and only God. Not everyone's God. The Jews God.
> 
> There was a movement and movements to change that.
> Big difference between the actual Hebrew bible and the New Testament.


I realize the hype. But the hype doesn’t ever change the fact that what Acts says will happen, actually happens. If it wasn’t for that, I’d be on your side. 

Some spiritual guidance could and will show the Hebrew Bible and NT intertwine.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I realize the hype. But the hype doesn’t ever change the fact that what Acts says will happen, actually happens. If it wasn’t for that, I’d be on your side.
> 
> Some spiritual guidance could and will show the Hebrew Bible and NT intertwine.


Lolol
Who wrote Acts?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

There was 400 years between the last writings which made up the OT and the first Writings of the NT.

Compare that with our own country and what has taken place in 400 years.

Do you think that you could take writings from the 1600s and create New writings now 400+ years later to coincide with them? Enhance them? Create and intertwine stories that seem to fulfill what was written then? Could you create a character that fits?
Could a modern person live his life to suit and try to fulfill what says needs to be fulfilled?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 29, 2019)

THe bible context is that, just as today, many so called gods were believed in. All kids of religions, versions of god, singular and plural, but the story goes that the one real God decided to reveal himself to one particular group of people. The Jews. They are his socalled chosen people. But I believe it had nothing to do with them, as a people, but rather that they were slaves. What better way to reveal God than them thinking they had freed themselves by their own brains or discipline.  As a side note, it's just a picture..... the freed slaves of today, that God chose to reveal himself to,  are those freed from religion. Religion is a terrible thing. It will cause you to redefine words to fit your agenda


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> THe bible context is that, just as today, many so called gods were believed in. All kids of religions, versions of god, singular and plural, but the story goes that the one real God decided to reveal himself to one particular group of people. The Jews. They are his socalled chosen people. But I believe it had nothing to do with them, as a people, but rather that they were slaves. What better way to reveal God than them thinking they had freed themselves by their own brains or discipline.  As a side note, it's just a picture..... the freed slaves of today, that God chose to reveal himself to,  are those freed from religion. Religion is a terrible thing. It will cause you to redefine words to fit your agenda


While many many many people were slaves then and now...the Jews seemed to have embellished their slavery claims to include way more people and a much longer journey more so as an analogy rather than fact as to how they became a culture.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Lolol
> Who wrote Acts?


Does it matter? Is it or is it not working 

I saw it work 3 times in the last week. 

Your missing element is the “spiritual”. If you haven’t had that, how could you remotely say it isn’t? It’s far more than “just believing”.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> While many many many people were slaves then and now...the Jews seemed to have embellished their slavery claims to include way more people and a much longer journey more so as an analogy rather than fact as to how they became a culture.


Agreed, it seems to contain more than meets the eye, an analogy.  And "journey" is the key to the analogy. Modern Christianity excludes the OT, they don't have a clue what's in there


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Does it matter? Is it or is it not working
> 
> I saw it work 3 times in the last week.
> 
> Your missing element is the “spiritual”. If you haven’t had that, how could you remotely say it isn’t? It’s far more than “just believing”.


Spiritual is a more romantic word for Religious Imagination


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spiritual is a more romantic word for Religious Imagination


 Are you sure? How do you know? I’d like to know how you know with certainty.

But, on second thought, I can only imagine that if I was just a church member without it, I’d feel the same way. Ok, we will just leave it at that then. No need in beating a dead horse.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 29, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> THe bible context is that, just as today, many so called gods were believed in. All kids of religions, versions of god, singular and plural, but the story goes that the one real God decided to reveal himself to one particular group of people. The Jews. They are his socalled chosen people. But I believe it had nothing to do with them, as a people, but rather that they were slaves. What better way to reveal God than them thinking they had freed themselves by their own brains or discipline.  As a side note, it's just a picture..... the freed slaves of today, that God chose to reveal himself to,  are those freed from religion. Religion is a terrible thing. It will cause you to redefine words to fit your agenda



Religion could be viewed as the yoke of slavery.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 29, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Agreed, it seems to contain more than meets the eye, an analogy.  And "journey" is the key to the analogy. Modern Christianity excludes the OT, they don't have a clue what's in there



I think many do view it as just an analogy or shadow of Jesus and salvation to the world.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Are you sure? How do you know? I’d like to know how you know with certainty.
> 
> But, on second thought, I can only imagine that if I was just a church member without it, I’d feel the same way. Ok, we will just leave it at that then. No need in beating a dead horse.


Hey, Imagining you are just a church member without it or Imagining you are just a church member with it...
Tomato/TomAHto


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Hey, Imagining you are just a church member without it or Imagining you are just a church member with it...
> Tomato/TomAHto


Or.........maybe Tomato  / no TomAHto.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Or.........maybe Tomato  / no TomAHto.....


Listen, and I mean this sincerely,  you seem to "get" my sense of humor more often than not. I appreciate that.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Listen, and I mean this sincerely,  you seem to "get" my sense of humor more often than not. I appreciate that.


No worries! I realize I’m pushing a chain uphill most times. No need in me getting my feathers fluffed because we don’t share the same beliefs / disbeliefs. We can still have fun arguing over it. I appreciate the banter.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No worries! I realize I’m pushing a chain uphill most times. No need in me getting my feathers fluffed because we don’t share the same beliefs / disbeliefs. We can still have fun arguing over it. I appreciate the banter.



And, you've never taken your ball and went home.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 29, 2019)

I remember growing up my Mom would not let us call anyone a fool because of Matthew 5:22. I guess that could be viewed as not calling a Christian brother a fool but she didn't let us decide. It was almost as bad as using God's name in vain to her.

Mom would not let us use the word "swear" or "lie." Something about not swearing to oaths, I think. Lie? I'm not sure, we had to say "telling a story" or fibbing.

Now getting back to calling a brother a fool? Could land you in He11fire. So much for Once saved always saved.
I think the passage may be teaching that hatred is just as bad as murder. The importance of forgiveness, etc.

So it's more of the pitfalls of anger and not forgiving than actually calling someone a fool.

Just to keep my Mom happy, I never have used the word. Weird but I could use the "N" word growing up to my heart's content. The Bible didn't tell me not to. Neither did Mom.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 30, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I remember growing up my Mom would not let us call anyone a fool because of Matthew 5:22. I guess that could be viewed as not calling a Christian brother a fool but she didn't let us decide. It was almost as bad as using God's name in vain to her.
> 
> Mom would not let us use the word "swear" or "lie." Something about not swearing to oaths, I think. Lie? I'm not sure, we had to say "telling a story" or fibbing.
> 
> ...



Culture shapes morality. This is a fine example of it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> View attachment 957443
> 
> Really?
> Is a Christian described by Christianity as the faithful or the factful?
> ...





> Is a Christian described by Christianity as the faithful or the factful?



I don't know of a Christian "described by Christianity".  I know of disciples described by Christ, but to answer the point of your question: Both.



> Is it - "Faith is things hoped for" (or whatever translation floats your boat) or is the emphasis on fact?



Again altering the text.  The very fact that you have to alter the text and then cast a dispersion on it speaks to the integrity of your position on this.



> How many more examples you need?



None. I'm perfectly fine with the original verse.  You  on the other hand are the one that finds fault with it.



> And a "faith devoid of facts is dead" sounds reasonable to you?
> Really



Absolutely! Does it not to you.   I've always felt that atheist faith in 'no God' was unreasonable and baseless, but I never thought I would see the day where one admitted it was SOP.

Now this 



> I personally would have never read another word that author had to say.


 makes sense in the fore mentioned light.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've always felt that atheist faith in 'no God' was unreasonable and baseless...


Really? What about your disbelief in all the other Gods?
Let me clarify. Do you believe in all the other Gods but, only worship the one?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't know of a Christian "described by Christianity".  I know of disciples described by Christ, but to answer the point of your question: Both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Again altering the text.  The very fact that you have to alter the text and then cast a dispersion on it speaks to the integrity of your position on this.





> None. I'm perfectly fine with the original verse.  You  on the other hand are the one that finds fault with it.


Apparently you are unaware that there are slight differences in the wordings in various translations depending on which version of the Bible you look at.
Since I, even though I am an A/A, am aware of that, I included -


> (or whatever translation floats your boat)


Thats not finding fault with it SFD. That's being aware there are slightly different translations.
So 3/4 of your post is the usual crap.


> I've always felt that atheist faith in 'no God' was unreasonable and baseless, but I never thought I would see the day where one admitted it was SOP.


Only in your mind did you read some admission of SOP.

That completes the final 1/4, making your entire post 100% crap.

SFD do yourself and other Christians a favor.
Be content in your belief in God. Stop your ridiculous arguments. Spend your time doing something else.
This debating stuff aint for you.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 30, 2019)

660griz said:


> Really? What about your disbelief in all the other Gods?
> Let me clarify. Do you believe in all the other Gods but, only worship the one?


I bet there was a time when Christians were considered Atheist.....


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I bet there was a time when Christians were considered Atheist.....


I read somewhere that's exactly where the word Atheist originates from.
The early Christians were described by the Roman as Atheists or a form of that word, because they did not believe in the Roman gods.
I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I read somewhere that's exactly where the word Atheist originates from.
> The early Christians were described by the Roman as Atheists or a form of that word, because they did not believe in the Roman gods.
> I'll see if I can find it.


So I may be wrong as far as origin -


> Although "atheism" is sometimes assumed to be derived from the word "theism," it actually predates12 it.  Originally the concept of "atheism" was contributed by the Greeks in 5th Century BCE,


However the early Christians were referred to as Atheists because they did not believe in the Roman gods. The Christian God was not considered to be a god so they were Atheists.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 30, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I read somewhere that's exactly where the word Atheist originates from.
> The early Christians were described by the Roman as Atheists or a form of that word, because they did not believe in the Roman gods.
> I'll see if I can find it.


Probably not THE article....but one that eludes to what you’re saying.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/when-christians-were-atheists/


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

> Perhaps the most erroneous – and ironic – reputation in history belonged to the early Christian church; they were considered “atheists.” It was the Romans who gave early Christians this reputation. According to them, there were several reasons why this young, fragile “religion” should be dubbed “atheist.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Probably not THE article....but one that eludes to what you’re saying.
> https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/when-christians-were-atheists/


Yep.
Not the original article I was talking about but as you can see we have it from multiple sources so its not just some "wacky A/A claim".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> View attachment 957443
> 
> Really?
> Is a Christian described by Christianity as the faithful or the factful?
> ...





WaltL1 said:


> Apparently you are unaware that there are slight differences in the wordings in various translations depending on which version of the Bible you look at.
> Since I, even though I am an A/A, am aware of that, I included -
> 
> Thats not finding fault with it SFD. That's being aware there are slightly different translations.
> ...





> Apparently you are unaware that there are slight differences in the wordings in various translations depending on which version of the Bible you look at.



Oh!  I'm very aware of slight differences between translations.  I kinda thought that would be evident when I quoted 2 translations with slight differences.  What I was not aware of was that you have your own translation which apparently is quiet different, not slightly different.  You know it would be very easy to put this to rest.  Just provide the translation you used for your quote.  Here it is:



> "Faith is things HOPED for"


 post 114.

Otherwise it's a literal twisting of the ACTUAL quote, note the actual "quotation marks".    I'll wait for your source.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

J_SEPH -
I responded to you in post #172
Didn't want you to think I ignored you in case you didn't read back that far.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh!  I'm very aware of slight differences between translations.  I kinda thought that would be evident when I quoted 2 translations with slight differences.  What I was not aware of was that you have your own translation which apparently is quiet different, not slightly different.  You know it would be very easy to put this to rest.  Just provide the translation you used for your quote.  Here it is:
> 
> post 114.
> 
> Otherwise it's a literal twisting of the ACTUAL quote, note the actual "quotation marks".    I'll wait for your source.


*



			Hebrews 11:1
		
Click to expand...

*


> “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
> 
> King James Version (KJV)



Yawn


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Probably not THE article....but one that eludes to what you’re saying.
> https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/when-christians-were-atheists/


Looks like in the early Church, their beliefs weren't religious enough to be considered even a false religion by the Jews. They had no shrines, rites, image, etc. 
Things that they connected with a religion and a belief in a god or gods.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Probably not THE article....but one that eludes to what you’re saying.
> https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/when-christians-were-atheists/


By the way, you are handling that bit of information really well.
In the past Ive had Christians literally melt down and flip their lid and condemn me to he11 for even suggesting that Christians were once considered "Atheists".  
It wasn't intended as an insult, its just history.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Still do not get this, how someone can be a Christian and have a relationship with Christ then turn around and say they do not believe when they just admitted they had a relationship but now that one they had it with does not exist.



Yeah, A DA wouldn’t put that type of person on a witness stand unless they had to.  Too big a chance jury would question their credibility.  “Yes Sir I did profess to know him.  Yes Sir, now I claim he never existed.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> This thread has become a thread about idiot rather than fool. Every religion is a religion of faith, and none, zero, of them, including Christianity, have facts to back them up. This is why it's called faith. Dang, the stupidity of arguing this. Yea... Stupid is the word



Tell me.  Are you in the habit of believing things that are NOT backed up by facts.  And do you have faith that what you just said is true?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh geez I didn't even notice that was from creation.com.
> That tells me everything I need to know



Well hey.  I get it.  Mocking is all that’s left when you can’t prove.   It’s the cardinal sign of either defeated reason or ignorance.  Sadly it never adds anything of substance.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> THe bible context is that, just as today, many so called gods were believed in. All kids of religions, versions of god, singular and plural, but the story goes that the one real God decided to reveal himself to one particular group of people. The Jews. They are his socalled chosen people. But I believe it had nothing to do with them, as a people, but rather that they were slaves. What better way to reveal God than them thinking they had freed themselves by their own brains or discipline.  As a side note, it's just a picture..... the freed slaves of today, that God chose to reveal himself to,  are those freed from religion. Religion is a terrible thing. It will cause you to redefine words to fit your agenda



I don’t know what perplexes me more, the fact that you don’t believe what’s in Bible,or the fact that you get angry when you deem it’s being used inappropriately.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, A DA wouldn’t put that type of person on a witness stand unless they had to.  Too big a chance jury would question their credibility.  “Yes Sir I did profess to know him.  Yes Sir, now I claim he never existed.”


You are so transparent SFD


----------



## Israel (Jan 30, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And to this ^
> 
> Huh?



The first part of that post was me submitting to SFD's diagnosis via William Blake's quatrain.
I get heaven distorted from pole to pole...need to have it straightened out. 

But, besides that...SFD has never been timid in his assessment of me, I'm probably as much an enigma to him as I am mostly to myself. Alternately wackadoodle with a rare and occasional glimpse vs complete fool, which is not unlike (at all) my own observations of myself. So, if fools are the topic du jour, I'm not justified in _my reason_ for posting, just can't avoid much looking like one. 

If I were to say "trust me in this" as folks are often wont to do, I believe I would hear your laughter in Pa down here in Ga. And with little doubt, rightly so. So don't. That just leaves me without appeal but simple assertion, a _fact_ made true to me. 

It is (hey, who used egregious recently?) egregiously burdensome to seek to appear as more than one is. Like a fool striving to appear reasonable in the sight of others...or a man of some capacity, trying to look like he is of _more capacity, _a man of _whatever intelligence _taking on the task of seeking to look, well, more intelligent. Yikes, but it's a killer. 

And God forbid one find any, even if only small success in such cleverness, cause then that provides a terrible impetus to grasp for more, till, like the man of the Peter Principle (and with so much effort and work!) he gets promoted to the place of complete incompetence. It's just so much easier to settle into that place at the get go than to, through so much vain toil, find one ends up there, anyway. 

But, even fools...like company.

Hey, remember when I spoke to you about hints? I don't think you much liked the references, and I think get the why of it. It's kinda (perhaps) like Ambush's assessment of revelation. What did he say, or call it... something like "the weakest form"? Really, who would_ of themselves_ "opt" for the weakest thing...when stronger _appears available?_ I don't think I'm much unlike any other man in this, but any and all are free to think me most uniquely crazy. Nevertheless, I don't believe a man is much in control of receiving hints as such.

Now, this ain't me saying all hints are revelation, nor that all revelation may appear only as hint, because I'm persuaded a sight may come in such overwhelming and blinding flash, with a persuasion from (I like the Oracle's term from the Matrix) "ba**s to bone" that he just can't even (at least at that moment) deny it. He knows he is seeing a thing once so completely hidden to his sight that unless _he is made able_ to receive it, he will be left later, only _trying to_ reason it away. (Cue "What a Fool Believes")

"No wise man has the power to reason away what _seems to be_..."

But

"What a fool believes, he sees..."

But who wants to settle for "being a fool"? Unless it is made plain to him...that alone is what _he has always been_? Then, if found trying to escape _that, the hints _become even more familiar, plain, and _painful._
Yep...pain has an ability to demand attention...where entreaty may not.

God knows how much effort I have devoted to not appear as the man who "knows not what he does". I have so desired and labored to be the man who knows exactly, at all times...what he is doing. C'mon man, throw me a bone, help me out in reminding me how plainly ridiculous that is! Don't get cold feet on me now! Don't you know it's true...I ain't...that guy? Help a brother tear down an idol! You never been reluctant before.

But, God in His wisdom sees plainly what a man like that, devoted to an idol, is doing...denying himself the _only place_ where mercy is found. Where only the "forgive them" is granted...not to the wise and plain seeing...but to the fool (always the fool) who "knows not what he does". 

And you may think you stand, or have stood in denial of Jesus Christ's work, repudiating it as forcefully as, and with, as much reason as a man may find or be allowed? C'mon man...(as some of you also like to remind) "we been there and done that". 

But I know a man who has fought Him tooth and nail, tried to scrape together to nails breaking and fingers bleeding in effort to find reason, any reason at all, that might display him _as not_..."the man who does not know what he does".

I'm just looking for a little agreement, is all. Cause, even fools like company.


What could I present that is easier (and _most_ plain) for any of y'all to confess?
Really, it cost me nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh!  I'm very aware of slight differences between translations.  I kinda thought that would be evident when I quoted 2 translations with slight differences.  What I was not aware of was that you have your own translation which apparently is quiet different, not slightly different.  You know it would be very easy to put this to rest.  Just provide the translation you used for your quote.  Here it is:
> 
> post 114.
> 
> Otherwise it's a literal twisting of the ACTUAL quote, note the actual "quotation marks".    I'll wait for your source.


Hebrews 11:1

That was EASY
New International Version Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 
New Living Translation Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see. 
English Standard Version Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Berean Study Bible Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see. Berean Literal Bible Now faith is the assurance of thingshoped for, the conviction of things not being seen. New American Standard Bible Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 
King James Bible Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Christian Standard Bible Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. Contemporary English Version Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see. 
Good News Translation To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see. 
Holman Christian Standard Bible Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. 
International Standard Version Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists. 
NET Bible Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see. 
New Heart English Bible Now faith is being confident of what we hope for, convinced about things we do not see. 
Aramaic Bible in Plain English Now faith is the conviction concerning those things that are in hope, as if it were these things in action, and the revelation of those things that are unseen; 
GOD'S WORD® Translation Faith assures us of things we expect and convinces us of the existence of things we cannot see. 
New American Standard 1977 Now faith is the assurance of thingshoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 
Jubilee Bible 2000 Faith, therefore, is the substance of things waited for, the evidence of things not seen. 
King James 2000 Bible Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. American King James Version Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 
American Standard Version Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. Douay-Rheims Bible Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 
Darby Bible Translation Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen. 
English Revised Version Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen. Webster's Bible Translation Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 
Weymouth New Testament Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see. 
World English Bible Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen. 
Young's Literal Translation And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well hey.  I get it.  Mocking is all that’s left when you can’t prove.   It’s the cardinal sign of either defeated reason or ignorance.  Sadly it never adds anything of substance.


On this we can agree.
See your last 2 posts. They back your statement I highlighted perfectly.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Hebrews 11:1
> 
> That was EASY


I beat you to it this time 
Usually you beat me to it while Im still typing.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, A DA wouldn’t put that type of person on a witness stand unless they had to.  Too big a chance jury would question their credibility.  “Yes Sir I did profess to know him.  Yes Sir, now I claim he never existed.”


Then the case would suddenly take a turn when the Defense calls God to the stand....crickets..... CASE DISMISSED !!!!


----------



## ky55 (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well hey.  I get it.  Mocking is all that’s left when you can’t prove.   It’s the cardinal sign of either defeated reason or ignorance.  Sadly it never adds anything of substance.



That statement would apply to creation.com as well.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2019)

ky55 said:


> That statement would apply to creation.com as well.


Sfd is still waiting for his star witness to show up on the stand and everyone else has left the courtroom. He is the king of proving no proof to back his claims, ignores the proof others give him, and then makes a medical assessment of others when he is put on the spot instead of admitting his own inability to back himself up.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 30, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> By the way, you are handling that bit of information really well.
> In the past Ive had Christians literally melt down and flip their lid and condemn me to he11 for even suggesting that Christians were once considered "Atheists".
> It wasn't intended as an insult, its just history.


Lol understood. It is what it is. I’m sure the definition changes as culture changes but the common core of it is a lack of belief in a god / God. But the reality is by definition, I’m can still be considered Atheist by not believing in the son god, or one of the many other Hindu gods.  

I think within a lot of Christianity, Atheism is considered evil or wicked. It’s really nothing more than a “non believer”.

And I’m happy to be considered a non believer (Atheist) of all gods except the one.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol understood. It is what it is. I’m sure the definition changes as culture changes but the common core of it is a lack of belief in a god / God. But the reality is by definition, I’m can still be considered Atheist by not believing in the son god, or one of the many other Hindu gods.
> 
> I think within a lot of Christianity, Atheism is considered evil or wicked. It’s really nothing more than a “non believer”.
> 
> And I’m happy to be considered a non believer (Atheist) of all gods except the one.


Exactly.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

ky55 said:


> That statement would apply to creation.com as well.


Im not sure how to word this but....
Its the one Christian site that actually strikes me as purposely taking advantage of Christian beliefs to support its position.
When I read it I cant help but thinking to myself "these people really think Christians are stupid so we can tell them anything and they wont question it".
It literally offends me and Im not even a Christian anymore.
I don't get that feeling from other Christian sites Ive read.
To be fair, Im sure there are probably Atheist sites that do the same thing but since I don't read Atheist sites I don't really know.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2019)

There is a certain type that are easily swayed by creationDOTcom sites, and it is not hard to pick them out with their style/action/reaction.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 30, 2019)

I believe it actually happened, and is an analogy. But lots of details not so much important.


SemperFiDawg said:


> I don’t know what perplexes me more, the fact that you don’t believe what’s in Bible,or the fact that you get angry when you deem it’s being used inappropriately.


You don't believe it all either. You pick and chose just as I do. I'm calling you out. Go drink poison and purposely get bitten by a poisonous snake, as in Mark. And when you don't, you no longer get to play your religious hi card. LOL.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 30, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe it actually happened, and is an analogy. But lots of details not so much important.
> You don't believe it all either. You pick and chose just as I do. I'm calling you out. Go drink poison and purposely get bitten by a poisonous snake, as in Mark. And when you don't, you no longer get to play your religious hi card. LOL.


I don’t know if that qualifies as pick and choose. I’ve never read, heard or been taught that Mark 16 was daring or requiring. It’s a promise of protection IF.....

But I guess I could have been taught wrong. I don’t know of anyone that picks up snakes, but seen them on tv doing specials on them.

Can’t remember if any of them ever made it to the second episode.

But then again, it’s hard for me to argue that I’m right since some folks actually practice this.


----------



## Brother David (Jan 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t know if that qualifies as pick and choose. I’ve never read, heard or been taught that Mark 16 was daring or requiring. It’s a promise of protection IF.....
> 
> But I guess I could have been taught wrong. I don’t know of anyone that picks up snakes, but seen them on tv doing specials on them.
> 
> ...


In Acts 28:3 Paul is bitten by a serpent and doesn't die .
It is speaking of miracles being perform in the Name of the Trinity .


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2019)

Brother David said:


> In Acts 28:3 Paul is bitten by a serpent and doesn't die .
> It is speaking of miracles being perform in the Name of the Trinity .


Garter snake bites kill very few people


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2019)

Here is what Martin Luther has to say on the subject of faith in the preface to his commentary on Romans.

The entire content can be found here.  It's a fascinating read.
https://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

Faith is not that human illusion and dream that some people think it is. When they hear and talk a lot about faith and yet see that no moral improvement and no good works result from it, they fall into error and say, "Faith is not enough. You must do works if you want to be virtuous and get to heaven." The result is that, when they hear the Gospel, they stumble and make for themselves with their own powers a concept in their hearts which says, "I believe." This concept they hold to be true faith. But since it is a human fabrication and thought and not an experience of the heart, it accomplishes nothing, and there follows no improvement.
Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn't know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works.
Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God's grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God's grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Through faith, a person will do good to everyone without coercion, willingly and happily; he will serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire. Therefore be on guard against your own false ideas and against the chatterers who think they are clever enough to make judgements about faith and good works but who are in reality the biggest fools. Ask God to work faith in you; otherwise you will remain eternally without faith, no matter what you try to do or fabricate.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe it actually happened, and is an analogy. But lots of details not so much important.
> You don't believe it all either. You pick and chose just as I do. I'm calling you out. Go drink poison and purposely get bitten by a poisonous snake, as in Mark. And when you don't, you no longer get to play your religious hi card. LOL.



Spotlight alluded to it.  CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) is an excellent source for all type of questions, and I think their answer does a lot better explaining it than I ever could.


https://carm.org/does-mark-16-17-18-teach-that-all-christians-must-speak-in-tongues

"These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover," (Mark 16:17-18).
Some have claimed that this passage proves speaking in tongues to be a necessary sign of salvation. Following this logic, some small groups also include "snake handling" as part of regular worship, since picking up snakes is also something this passage seems to say that believers will do. All of this, however, misrepresents the passage's actual meaning. The verses just before this say:
"And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned,'" (Mark 16:14-15).
An important rule in biblical interpretation is, "always follow the pronouns." Notice that it says "he who has believed" will be saved and "he who has not believed" will be condemned. The pronoun is the singular "he." Every single person who believes will be saved. Every single person who does not believe will be condemned. When we get to verses 17-18, however, the pronouns change. It does not continue by saying "these signs will accompany _him_ who has believed," as one would expect if we were still talking about every single individual. It changes to "these signs will accompany _those_ who have believed." It proceeds to note that _they_ will do these various things. The grammar shifts from talking about the individual believer ("he who has believed") to the group of all believers ("those who have believed"). The passage is not saying that these signs will accompany every single individual believer. It is saying that such signs would accompany believers as a whole. As we read through the rest of the New Testament, that is exactly what we see: various confirming signs like these happening among various believers at various times. For example, we see:

some believers casting out demons (Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:16-18, 19:11-12)
some believers speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4, 10:46, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 12:10, 12:28)
believers laying hands on the sick and healing them (Acts 9:17, 28:8)
one believer bit by a snake and not harmed (Acts 28:3-5)
So believers, as a group, certainly exhibited these various signs, which is precisely what Mark 16 said would happen. None of this implies that every believer performed such miracles. If anything, the very fact that each of these stories was so noteworthy implies that such things were _not_ universal to every believer. The fact that believers brought the sick to the apostles to receive healing, for example, seems to indicate that such believers were not healing the sick by laying their own hands on them.
The purpose of these signs is also important to note. The passage in Mark concludes by saying:
"And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed," (Mark 16:20).

In short, it does NOT teach that any believer can drink poison or get snake bit and not die.  I do believe in everything the Bible teaches.  Many of the points of contention and misunderstanding come when people, as you did, take passages out of context.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 30, 2019)

Brother David said:


> In Acts 28:3 Paul is bitten by a serpent and doesn't die .
> It is speaking of miracles being perform in the Name of the Trinity .


I personally feel it’s speaking of protection / miracle “in case” rather than an “ok” to go play with them. Basically leave them alone, but if you get bit, I got you covered. 

But in reality, some people interpret differently and use that scripture to  play with snakes. Although I don’t agree with them, how do I tell them they’re  wrong until after they’re bitten and die? If they’re just bitten, get sick and pull through.....they can still say “I told you so”. 

That’s sort of what I mean with it’s hard to argue I’m right with those that play with them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I personally feel it’s speaking of protection / miracle “in case” rather than an “ok” to go play with them. Basically leave them alone, but if you get bit, I got you covered.
> 
> But in reality, some people interpret differently and use that scripture to  play with snakes. Although I don’t agree with them, how do I tell them they’re  wrong until after they’re bitten and die? If they’re just bitten, get sick and pull through.....they can still say “I told you so”.
> 
> That’s sort of what I mean with it’s hard to argue I’m right with those that play with them.





> Basically leave them alone, but if you get bit, I got you covered.


Considering that interpretations can vary widely, that ^ certainly would be the smart one to go with.
And you can back it up with "God gave me a brain for a reason".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 30, 2019)

Sooooo, if a Christian gets bit by the worlds deadliest snake, if he dies, he must not have been saved? Honestly, I don't have faith in that. So, it's lack of faith of the statement being words of God. It's not that I don't believe in God. And why just snakes, why then would any Christian ever die, of cancer, heart attack, etc.?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 30, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Spotlight alluded to it.  CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) is an excellent source for all type of questions, and I think their answer does a lot better explaining it than I ever could.
> 
> 
> https://carm.org/does-mark-16-17-18-teach-that-all-christians-must-speak-in-tongues
> ...


I spent 10 years at CARM, debating the Trinity. However, I have not looked at a link, a source, a writing, anything, anybody, in 6 years or more. Everything I have to say comes from hip pocket. LOL, I stand alone in most my thinking


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 30, 2019)

"Those" vs "He," that's a pretty good justification. I'm assuming that justification can be used in other places in Scripture as well. "He" vs "They." They being more than one. He being one individual.

What does "all" mean in the Bible?


----------



## Israel (Jan 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I personally feel it’s speaking of protection / miracle “in case” rather than an “ok” to go play with them. Basically leave them alone, but if you get bit, I got you covered.
> 
> But in reality, some people interpret differently and use that scripture to  play with snakes. Although I don’t agree with them, how do I tell them they’re  wrong until after they’re bitten and die? If they’re just bitten, get sick and pull through.....they can still say “I told you so”.
> 
> That’s sort of what I mean with it’s hard to argue I’m right with those that play with them.



Amen.

It does, as you say, leave the believer in the odd position in matters of "being right", doesn't it?

It's not that we have abandoned the truth of right (or _a righteousness_), to the contrary, we _might say_ we are convinced of it...to the extreme. At least that might be, if we have any agreement in confession, Jesus Christ Himself...is all of right, and righteousness. 

But have any of us (no one need answer) escaped the occupation of that peculiar place where we sometimes think...and perhaps act upon, "now I can show just how very right I am with God". And it is not that that faith, of seeing Jesus Christ as the Righteous One in all, can be contradicted...but we learn..._we surely_ can be...and that by God Himself. Being "right with God" through the faith in and of Jesus Christ is not to our use of parade, but joy...and a joy we forfeit unwittingly (in much fretting and striving) trying to prove to another..."just how right I am (or, we are) with God."

I tremble for what does not find rebuke in this, but is allowed to go on in such. It's a place of such appeal to the soul...to think itself now "better than another" that one may come to see, unless the Lord himself intervene, there is no saving from such a pit. So very sensitive to _our own_ righteousness we fairly bristle like a porcupine when we sense it is being offended. And this self convinces us how _very right we must be..._when we feel opposed. Such as we sense, and at worst cling to as "persecutions for righteousness' sake" become for us very precious (while in that weird place) reinforcing to us that "gee, I must be following the Lord in truth...see how much resistance I meet!" (I tremble less for another than I have been made to see how scarcely I may be saved in it)

But there's an acid test, given by the Lord himself...that we cannot escape. Oh, we can lie, for _whatever time_ to ourselves about it, (for it is indeed, in _that place_ quite precious, and _precious fictions_ are just that...precious) but the Lord remains true.
"Rejoice and leap for joy...for so persecuted they the prophets which were before..."

If, when confronted, something of bitterness is found, a thing we may lie to ourselves about, but which the Lord plainly sees, and brings us to see, we may learn it's not wise to lie _in that closet_. The withering of joy is not appointed to His own. But dare we lie about it when confronted? Will we try to _manufacture joy_...before Him? The greatest actor I have ever known, "I _can do_ joy", "I _can do_ sincerity!" gets laughably exposed there. "I can do...solemnity, too!" Ha ha ha!

How much better to see Jonah! "Yeah, I am extremely...peeved" (At you and your ways) I want judgment...and you show mercy! Oy. Talk about a man_ on his own way! Yikes! _Who..._but God..._can deliver such a man? Yeah, I tremble. And also, laugh. That such a man could be made right with God.





"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 31, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Sooooo, if a Christian gets bit by the worlds deadliest snake, if he dies, he must not have been saved? Honestly, I don't have faith in that. So, it's lack of faith of the statement being words of God. It's not that I don't believe in God. And why just snakes, why then would any Christian ever die, of cancer, heart attack, etc.?



 "None of this implies that every believer performed such miracles. If anything, the very fact that each of these stories was so noteworthy implies that such things were _not_ universal to every believer. The fact that believers brought the sick to the apostles to receive healing, for example, seems to indicate that such believers were not healing the sick by laying their own hands on them.
The purpose of these signs is also important to note. The passage in Mark concludes by saying:
"And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed," (Mark 16:20). "


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 31, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I spent 10 years at CARM, debating the Trinity. However, I have not looked at a link, a source, a writing, anything, anybody, in 6 years or more. Everything I have to say comes from hip pocket. LOL, I stand alone in most my thinking



That is a dangerous place to be, thinking you know better than 2000 years of believers, but if you notice behind you, you have some atheistic thinkers following.  As a self described believer, that in itself would give me pause.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is a dangerous place to be, thinking you know better than 2000 years of believers, but if you notice behind you, you have some atheistic thinkers following.  As a self described believer, that in itself would give me pause.


The believers of every religion that is 2001 years and older or have been in practice longer than 2000 years then negate yours. See how that works? Now you too have atheistic thinkers following you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is a dangerous place to be, thinking you know better than 2000 years of believers, but if you notice behind you, you have some atheistic thinkers following.  As a self described believer, that in itself would give me pause.





> thinking you know better than 2000 years of believers


If this is your criteria ^
Then.....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 31, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> If this is your criteria ^
> Then.....
> View attachment 957631



Twisting of my point noted.  Not surprised.  Just noted.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 31, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> You are so transparent SFD



I tr


Israel said:


> The first part of that post was me submitting to SFD's diagnosis via William Blake's quatrain.
> I get heaven distorted from pole to pole...need to have it straightened out.
> 
> But, besides that...SFD has never been timid in his assessment of me, I'm probably as much an enigma to him as I am mostly to myself. Alternately wackadoodle with a rare and occasional glimpse vs complete fool, which is not unlike (at all) my own observations of myself. So, if fools are the topic du jour, I'm not justified in _my reason_ for posting, just can't avoid much looking like one.
> ...



This may very well be the most accurate and lucid post you have ever written.  I’m not sure what this says about you, but truthfully what worries me, is what it says about me.  Were you just expecially lucid or am I beginning to think like you?  Scary.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Twisting of my point noted.  Not surprised.  Just noted.


And you making the point that 2000 years worth of believers are greater than 1gr8's thoughts. Therefore 2000 years of Christian beliefs (although it is riddled with 40,000 different denominations and millions of believers with different beliefs who certainly do not all believe alike) are more right than1gr8.
Walt and I have shown that by your criteria  Christianity is on the low end of the longevity scale so it is trumped by every other religion that is older ...and this is going by YOUR standards.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I tr
> 
> 
> This may very well be the most accurate and lucid post you have ever written.  I’m not sure what this says about you, but truthfully what worries me, is what it says about me.  Were you just expecially lucid or am I beginning to think like you?  Scary.


Medically Speaking????


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 31, 2019)

Yet even with all of those years of educated men sitting at council, Martin Luther was lead to see through some of it as being from man.

Many felt that he had reached a dangerous place in his path of teaching others.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is a dangerous place to be, thinking you know better than 2000 years of believers, but if you notice behind you, you have some atheistic thinkers following.  As a self described believer, that in itself would give me pause.


That's why it took over 10 years. I kept telling myself, how could I be right and everybody else be wrong? It was a crisis which drove me to search for something to hold to amidst the sinking sand around me. It drove me to read 100's of books, the NT 1200+ times, the OT 100's of times. I even learned to read the greek so I could see for myself what the bible said apart from translator bias. I got pretty good reading Hebrew also. Or at least recognizing words. I have gone cover to cover looking for one specific thing, 50+ times. This kind of study comes from a crisis, not interest. Eventually, going to CARM thinking that the Trinity forum would be the best place to find support. To my surprise, they had nothing. No one there was any help and eventually my mind was convinced..... They are all wrong. So, I then spent several more years debating against the Trinity. Eventually getting tired of it. Being honest, I don't read or study any of it any longer. I don't see the bible as a devotional. So I don't read it any longer. I know what's in there. I live by the Spirit, not by the book.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> That's why it took over 10 years. I kept telling myself, how could I be right and everybody else be wrong? It was a crisis which drove me to search for something to hold to amidst the sinking sand around me. It drove me to read 100's of books, the NT 1200+ times, the OT 100's of times. I even learned to read the greek so I could see for myself what the bible said apart from translator bias. I got pretty good reading Hebrew also. Or at least recognizing words. I have gone cover to cover looking for one specific thing, 50+ times. This kind of study comes from a crisis, not interest. Eventually, going to CARM thinking that the Trinity forum would be the best place to find support. To my surprise, they had nothing. No one there was any help and eventually my mind was convinced..... They are all wrong. So, I then spent several more years debating against the Trinity. Eventually getting tired of it. Being honest, I don't read or study any of it any longer. I don't see the bible as a devotional. So I don't read it any longer. I know what's in there. I live by the Spirit, not by the book.


I left out my 2 year study of early church Fathers, writings written by the men whom are called Fathers or players. Tons and tons of writings as they argued doctrine. I spent years studying early church history, the creeds, the oppositions, The books that were left out, like Enoch, etc. So, my point, is that it seemingly sounds dangerous to think I know more than the majority. However, after this much study coming from someone who hates to read, it's now viewed as being dangerous on the majority side, because they have not looked into this


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

Those credentials are tough to counter.
But
My guess is, You'll have missed  and twisted SFD's point, he will not have been surprised, but he will make note of it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2019)

I'll go a step further.... I don't think people have a choice in what they believe. For example.... if I point out that the Nicene council used Arius association with a particular person, giving his exact belief, spelled out exactly as the trinity, as  we know it today, as a means to discount Arius, No one..... will look into it? No one. Why is that?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'll go a step further.... I don't think people have a choice in what they believe. For example.... if I point out that the Nicene council used Arius association with a particular person, giving his exact belief, spelled out exactly as the trinity, as  we know it today, as a means to discount Arius, No one..... will look into it? No one. Why is that?


Knowledge means change and it endangers self comfort.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 31, 2019)

Brother David said:


> In Acts 28:3 Paul is bitten by a serpent and doesn't die .
> It is speaking of miracles being perform in the Name of the Trinity .


I(a documented heathen) have  been bitten by a serpent and didn't die. Praise be to hydrogen peroxide.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 31, 2019)

Some of the Catholics use the Councils of Nicea against the Protestants for the same argument. Why would we go the way of Martin Luther and his schism?
That we are going to put aside what all of these great men of God decided on as they received it directly from God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 31, 2019)

Ironic but some people tell us to read the Bible and form our own path directly from God and others tell us that those men at the councils have already done it for us.

Like I can't read Romans 1 and form my own beliefs because someone 1000 years before me read it and therefore, I'm suppose to believe it like they did because they got it right and I got it wrong.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Knowledge means change and it endangers self comfort.



Yep....
And keeping with the theme of SFD’s thread...

“A wise man’s mind changes—a fool’s never does.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Those credentials are tough to counter.
> But
> My guess is, You'll have missed  and twisted SFD's point, he will not have been surprised, but he will make note of it.



Actually Im starting to understand SFD's homegrown definitions.
"twisted my point" means blown it out of the water.
"make note of it" means will totally ignore it and plow forward anyway.

I probably should start writing these down.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> That's why it took over 10 years. I kept telling myself, how could I be right and everybody else be wrong? It was a crisis which drove me to search for something to hold to amidst the sinking sand around me. It drove me to read 100's of books, the NT 1200+ times, the OT 100's of times. I even learned to read the greek so I could see for myself what the bible said apart from translator bias. I got pretty good reading Hebrew also. Or at least recognizing words. I have gone cover to cover looking for one specific thing, 50+ times. This kind of study comes from a crisis, not interest. Eventually, going to CARM thinking that the Trinity forum would be the best place to find support. To my surprise, they had nothing. No one there was any help and eventually my mind was convinced..... They are all wrong. So, I then spent several more years debating against the Trinity. Eventually getting tired of it. Being honest, I don't read or study any of it any longer. I don't see the bible as a devotional. So I don't read it any longer. I know what's in there. I live by the Spirit, not by the book.





> I live by the Spirit, not by the book.


Maybe this ^ end result was the most valuable thing you learned from all that studying and reading and debating?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2019)

660griz said:


> I(a documented heathen) have  been bitten by a serpent and didn't die. Praise be to hydrogen peroxide.


Christians have Holy Water.
Heathens have hydrogen peroxide.
Seems fair to me.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 31, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Twisting of my point noted.  Not surprised.  Just noted.



Yeah, he twisted it alright...
Like wringing a chicken’s neck!!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually Im starting to understand SFD's homegrown definitions.
> "twisted my point" means blown it out of the water.
> "make note of it" means will totally ignore it and plow forward anyway.
> 
> I probably should start writing these down.


Daniel Webster was a very religious man but he did not mix feelings and beliefs with his definitions. SFD would rather use opinion pieces over the dictionary.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 31, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Christians have Holy Water.
> Heathens have hydrogen peroxide.
> Seems fair to me.


Just Catholics. The rest of us can’t afford holy water.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 31, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Yep....
> And keeping with the theme of SFD’s thread...
> 
> “A wise man’s mind changes—a fool’s never does.”


Hard to argue with that, but what’s a man that changes his mind for reasons he’s not yet convinced of?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 31, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> That's why it took over 10 years. I kept telling myself, how could I be right and everybody else be wrong? It was a crisis which drove me to search for something to hold to amidst the sinking sand around me. It drove me to read 100's of books, the NT 1200+ times, the OT 100's of times. I even learned to read the greek so I could see for myself what the bible said apart from translator bias. I got pretty good reading Hebrew also. Or at least recognizing words. I have gone cover to cover looking for one specific thing, 50+ times. This kind of study comes from a crisis, not interest. Eventually, going to CARM thinking that the Trinity forum would be the best place to find support. To my surprise, they had nothing. No one there was any help and eventually my mind was convinced..... They are all wrong. So, I then spent several more years debating against the Trinity. Eventually getting tired of it. Being honest, I don't read or study any of it any longer. I don't see the bible as a devotional. So I don't read it any longer. I know what's in there. I live by the Spirit, not by the book.


Like you, I shy away from “sites”. I still read and study my Bible, though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Just Catholics. The rest of us can’t afford holy water.


I guess that's true. Holy water was a part of every single Catholic church service. There were bowls of it at every door and the first thing you did was dip your fingers in and then make the sign of the cross and then proceed to the pews.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Hard to argue with that, but what’s a man that changes his mind for reasons he’s not yet convinced of?


Unsure of his beliefs?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> One who ignores evidence against and or more importantly lack of evidence for.
> Not pointing fingers, just answering your question


I would agree, I guess the next question is who has the “evidence”? The A/A’s or the A?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Hard to argue with that, but what’s a man that changes his mind for reasons he’s not yet convinced of?


Can you give an example?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree, I guess the next question is who has the “evidence”? The A/A’s or the A?


I deleted that reply after re reading yours again
I would need an example before commenting


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 31, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Unsure of his beliefs?


Most definitely, if he changes his mind before being convinced, most likely he was unsure. I’d go with that.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Can you give an example?



Should you decide this thing is real but you’re not convinced it is. You changed your mind, out of the two options of wise verses foolish, or maybe just unsure - to me it would be wiser to stay where you are.

It was more or less saying that just because a man never changes his mind, doesn’t mean he’s a fool, and a man that does change his mind isn’t always wise.

But I agree with ky55.....a wise man will change his mind.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree, I guess the next question is who has the “evidence”? The A/A’s or the A?


We have discussed these topic before though and I would have to say that anything tangible like writings which the contents can be fact checked does not lend well to the accuracy of the bible. SO, that leaves the areas which are unable to be tested like beliefs from imagination.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> We have discussed these topic before though and I would have to say that anything tangible like writings which the contents can be fact checked does not lend well to the accuracy of the bible. SO, that leaves the areas which are unable to be tested like beliefs from imagination.


I would agree that there are some unknown(s), it’s hard to argue against that. I’m not convinced it’s from the imagination, though. But, I get what you’re saying.

And that’s why “Faith” isn’t a “fact”.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree, I guess the next question is who has the “evidence”? The A/A’s or the A?



We both use the very same basic evidence.  It’s the interpretation that is different.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 31, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'll go a step further.... I don't think people have a choice in what they believe. For example.... if I point out that the Nicene council used Arius association with a particular person, giving his exact belief, spelled out exactly as the trinity, as  we know it today, as a means to discount Arius, No one..... will look into it? No one. Why is that?



After reading this I realize there’s nothing productive I can say here other than point to the repentant thief on the cross.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Hard to argue with that, but what’s a man that changes his mind for reasons he’s not yet convinced of?



Spotlite, that’s an old expression I heard years ago and I have no idea of the origin. That’s why I quoted it, but I had no source for the quote. 
I always took it to mean that a wise man had the ability to change his mind if and when new information became available on a subject—if he thought that information justified a change, and a fool would refuse to change his mind on a subject—even when he recognized new information or evidence that could, and should, justify a change. 

*


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 31, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Spotlite, that’s an old expression I heard years ago and I have no idea of the origin. That’s why I quoted it, but I had no source for the quote.
> I always took it to mean that a wise man had the ability to change his mind if and when new information became available on a subject—if he thought that information justified a change, and a fool would refuse to change his mind on a subject—even when he recognized new information or evidence that could, and should, justify a change.
> 
> *


I’m with ya. I was just being different, stubborn and striking conversation. I’m just built with a weird mind lol


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m with ya. I was just being different, stubborn and striking conversation. I’m just built with a weird mind lol


All admirable qualities in my book


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 1, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> We both use the very same basic evidence.  It’s the interpretation that is different.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 1, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> All admirable qualities in my book


Yup


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 7, 2019)

*"A faith that can be destroyed by suffering is not faith."*


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 7, 2019)

*There was once a fiddler who played so beauitully that everybody danced. A deaf man who could not hear the music considered them all insane. Those who are with Jesus in suffering hear this music to which other men are deaf. They dance and do not care if they are considered insane."*
-- Richard Wurmbrand


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2019)

Hallmark card assertions....a new level


----------



## Israel (Feb 7, 2019)

Often things learned in suffering are learned no other way. 
Nicolai Ionescu learned what he learned in a crucible.
God knows what each man has and is made able to hold.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 7, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> *There was once a fiddler who played so beauitully that everybody danced. A deaf man who could not hear the music considered them all insane. Those who are with Jesus in suffering hear this music to which other men are deaf. They dance and do not care if they are considered insane."*
> -- Richard Wurmbrand


Deaf man also lacked common sense.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 7, 2019)

660griz said:


> Deaf man also lacked common sense.



Could not agree more.


----------



## j_seph (Feb 7, 2019)

660griz said:


> Deaf man also lacked common sense.


explain your thought please


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> explain your thought please


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2019)

Deaf man could see the fiddler. Although he could not hear the music, he could have communicated to the fiddler and dancers.

When the story switches into Hallmark Card assertion mode...it it based that people can see and hear the fiddler(Jesus). And those who can't are deaf and blind.

When in reality the story should tell about the deaf and blind who CLAIM to see a fiddler who is not there(but none can explain what he looks like) and dance to music that isn't being played(but none are in agreement of what the song is or what the singers voice sounds like), and they act as if others who can see and hear perfectly are deaf and blind.....
That doesn't sell Hallmark Cards and Memes


----------



## j_seph (Feb 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Deaf man could see the fiddler. Although he could not hear the music, he could have communicated to the fiddler and dancers.
> 
> When the story switches into Hallmark Card assertion mode...it it based that people can see and hear the fiddler(Jesus). And those who can't are deaf and blind.
> 
> ...


So does the deaf man understand what music is? I mean after all he has never heard music. How would you explain music to him? Something he cannot hear to exist?


----------



## 660griz (Feb 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> So does the deaf man understand what music is? I mean after all he has never heard music. How would you explain music to him? Something he cannot hear to exist?


He could be deaf and retarded. Not sure. Just assuming he is just deaf and that he can communicate somehow.
Person rubbing a thing across strings...people dance. Person stops, people stop dancing. His first go to is that they are crazy? Might want to ask some questions first.
Does he think there is no such thing as sound? Does he think people moving their lips are crazy? Can he feel sound at all?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> So does the deaf man understand what music is? I mean after all he has never heard music. How would you explain music to him? Something he cannot hear to exist?


I don't know j_seph, figure out from SFD, what narrative he wants to tell and what details he wants to include or leave out. Get some background from him for this deaf character. Was the man born deaf? Could he hear at one time but later lost his hearing? 
Did he purposely jab his own ear drums out with a sharp stick because he just could not take the horrific fiddler, the fiddlers repeated playing of the same old tired song and the dancers morbid zombie 2-step????
I just don't know j_, I just dont know....


----------



## j_seph (Feb 7, 2019)

I was working in town one afternoon
Attending some business affairs
I heard a commotion a couple streets over And wondered. Whats happenin there
A young man was running from in that direction
And stopped just to catch his breath
I asked him to please tell me what was the hurry
He smiled up at me and he said.
I was trying to catch the crippled man
Did he run past this way?
He was rushing home to tell everyone
What Jesus did today
And the mute man was telling myself and the deaf girl
Hes leaving to answer Gods call
Its hard to believe but if you dont trust me
Ask the blind man, he saw it all
Go ask the blind man, he saw it all


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 7, 2019)

Sound does not exist until the deaf man hears it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> I was working in town one afternoon
> Attending some business affairs
> I heard a commotion a couple streets over And wondered. Whats happenin there
> A young man was running from in that direction
> ...


I'm gonna guess this is made up, right?


----------



## j_seph (Feb 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I'm gonna guess this is made up, right?


----------



## hopper (Feb 8, 2019)

I dont read a bible. I do pray a believe in God or a presence. I am content not knowing all. Had a dude once talking to me about God and said " may you find him know" I see alot of people searching here and there, if your searching for somthing that somthing is lost in my opinion. I was lost or at least discontent. I found somthing in the Now nowhere else.
 My advise for the OP is stop shaking your fist full of proverbs cause you are most likely doing more bad than good. If you must spread your word or the word maybee lead by example instead of smugness.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2019)

j_seph said:


>


That's what I figured.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 8, 2019)

hopper said:


> I dont read a bible. I do pray a believe in God or a presence. I am content not knowing all. Had a dude once talking to me about God and said " may you find him know" I see alot of people searching here and there, if your searching for somthing that somthing is lost in my opinion. I was lost or at least discontent. I found somthing in the Now nowhere else.
> My advise for the OP is stop shaking your fist full of proverbs cause you are most likely doing more bad than good. If you must spread your word or the word maybee lead by example instead of smugness.



Jeez.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Sound does not exist until the deaf man hears it.



I disagree.  Truth, exists outside of mans recognition or interpretation of it.  I don’t understand how one can state differently unless you are speaking in an allegorical sense.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 8, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Deaf man could see the fiddler. Although he could not hear the music, he could have communicated to the fiddler and dancers.
> 
> When the story switches into Hallmark Card assertion mode...it it based that people can see and hear the fiddler(Jesus). And those who can't are deaf and blind.
> 
> ...


Ever heard two deaf men argue about what they hear? How do you know which one is wrong, if either? 

If a man is deaf, blind, no sense of smell, touch, or feeling.........who can only say that the music isn`t being played and the fiddler isn`t there? And if the fiddler tapped him on the shoulder, how do you tell him it`s the fiddler, and not you?


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 8, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I disagree.  Truth, exists outside of mans recognition or interpretation of it.  I don’t understand how one can state differently unless you are speaking in an allegorical sense.


It is a sarcastic analogy of "something (God) does not exist until proven to exist", meaning that music does not exist unless the deaf man can hear it.

The question is who is saying either doesn't. (only those that can`t "hear")


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ever heard two deaf men argue about what they hear? How do you know which one is wrong, if either?
> 
> If a man is deaf, blind, no sense of smell, touch, or feeling.........who can only say that the music isn`t being played and the fiddler isn`t there? And if the fiddler tapped him on the shoulder, how do you tell him it`s the fiddler, and not you?


No never heard two deaf men argue about what they hear.

I can't imagine hauling the deaf, blind, no smell, no touch, no feeling guy to a concert in the first place.

These examples of the deaf, dancers, and fiddles are all analogies that actually have nothing to do with a god/jesus except make believers feel good because they take a possible real trait and link it with the imaginary.

Like the picture that shows one set of footprints in the sand and comments about someone asking the lord where he was during the hard times...and the lord replies about the one set of prints was because it was during those times he was being carried...
Hallmark Fiction that tugs at heart strings through Imagination.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It is a sarcastic analogy of "something (God) does not exist until proven to exist", meaning that music does not exist unless the deaf man can hear it.
> 
> The question is who is saying either doesn't. (only those that can`t "hear")


Yet, those that claim to hear are unable to truthfully say what they hear, or what "gods" voice sounds like.
Except in vague on specific replies.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 8, 2019)

> I was trying to catch the crippled man
> Did he run past this way?


The term "crippled"  isn't confined to cant walk/run.


> And the mute man was telling myself


Mute folks can "tell" through sign language, pantomime or simply writing it down.


> and the deaf girl


See above


> Ask the blind man, he saw it all


Could have just been legally blind which doesn't mean 100% blind. I was blind legally in one eye but still could somewhat see out of it until I had cataract surgery.
So all could have actually happened with no miracles required


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 8, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yet, those that claim to hear are unable to truthfully say what they hear, or what "gods" voice sounds like.
> Except in vague on specific replies.


Yea I don’t get the “heard the audible” voice of God folks. I’ve actually heard some say that. I’m skeptical in that area.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I disagree.  Truth, exists outside of mans recognition or interpretation of it.  I don’t understand how one can state differently unless you are speaking in an allegorical sense.


When nobody is able to provide a realm outside of man's recognition or interpretation, except through assertion and unprovable claims, ....it is easy to state differently.


----------



## Israel (Feb 9, 2019)

Anybody catch the latest Law and Order SVU? Called "Part 33".

It's a great departure from their usual format...appearing more like a David Mamet one act play. Takes place primarily in the waiting room where cops wait at trial to give their testimonies. Sure, it ain't the deepest dive, but it touches upon how things are seen, understood...and how experience influences perceptions of "fact" in the formation of our character. I was kinda surprised at how well the subject was explored and how trenchant some of the dialogue was.


----------



## Israel (Feb 9, 2019)

bullethead said:


> When nobody is able to provide a realm outside of man's recognition or interpretation, except through assertion and unprovable claims, ....it is easy to state differently.




The notion of  (I was gonna say "perfect" but that would be redundant)  circle is probably easily expressed by everyone that has passed HS geometry. (we could no less say point, line, cylinder, square, cone, sphere...etc)

No need to say "perfect", right? The _definitions_ of these things is already accepted as their irreducible being _in_ perfection. But drawing one, creating one (by whatever means) in representation, the bringing of that thing (is it a _real thing?_) into the realm of man for _all common recognition_...something else again.

Mom says "great circle you drew Bobby". The mathematician/draftsman/scientist well, they can have a field day. They can even say "Mom, it does no good to lie to Bobby. There are no good, better, best drawings of circle...it either _is circle, _or it _is not."_

But they can only reject the representation (as no less any man_ might_) through the tacit admission that true circle_ is, _against which, and _only in accord _with such a conscious holding. (We could leave off the vanity/frustration inherent in that, but are we as ready to dismiss the practicality of the wheel...despite?)

We draw for one another.

Pretty much (when I am tempted to dismiss you on whatever basis _I find_ a disliking, a thing I seek to justify by my perception of inconsistency, and desire to "separate" through a manifest contending against) I am reminded of your drawing. It was, to me, at least in memory...pretty inarguable...against. In so much as I would be a fool to say a man isn't holding what he says he holds...unless proven otherwise. (But I just don't remember its totality)

If you can pull it out again, (that drawing) as my memory of it suffers, and my ability to find it through this search engine fails, it would probably be a help to me.

You may remember the one? It was drawn something like this: "A God that is so far beyond my comprehension...[something something something?] is a God I can believe in"

If you don't have it, can't find it, and don't think you can adequately redraw it, that's OK too.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2019)

Israel said:


> The notion of  (I was gonna say "perfect" but that would be redundant)  circle is probably easily expressed by everyone that has passed HS geometry. (we could no less say point, line, cylinder, square, cone, sphere...etc)
> 
> No need to say "perfect", right? The _definitions_ of these things is already accepted as their irreducible being _in_ perfection. But drawing one, creating one (by whatever means) in representation, the bringing of that thing (is it a _real thing?_) into the realm of man for _all common recognition_...something else again.
> 
> ...


?Huh?
I guess I don't hang my drawings on the fridge to marvel at.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2019)

Maybe this one?

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is :  Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world... Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."
Marx


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2019)

Israel said:


> The notion of  (I was gonna say "perfect" but that would be redundant)  circle is probably easily expressed by everyone that has passed HS geometry. (we could no less say point, line, cylinder, square, cone, sphere...etc)
> 
> No need to say "perfect", right? The _definitions_ of these things is already accepted as their irreducible being _in_ perfection. But drawing one, creating one (by whatever means) in representation, the bringing of that thing (is it a _real thing?_) into the realm of man for _all common recognition_...something else again.
> 
> ...


If I had to guess, or more importantly clarify...
I would wager that I started out with or correct that I should have started out with:
"IF a god exists that....."
Not
"A God exists that..."


----------



## Israel (Feb 9, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If I had to guess, or more importantly clarify...
> I would wager that I started out with or correct that I should have started out with:
> "IF a god exists that....."
> Not
> "A God exists that..."



LOL...you really gunna send me on that hunt! It was like the last line to an paragraph or two that had gone before...and it may well have started "if"...but you did pretty well outline a god you could believe in...one so far in excess of our understanding/comprehension...but, till I find it...it's just me remembering it poorly. Man, it coulda been three years ago or even more.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 9, 2019)

Israel said:


> LOL...you really gunna send me on that hunt! It was like the last line to an paragraph or two that had gone before...and it may well have started "if"...but you did pretty well outline a god you could believe in...one so far in excess of our understanding/comprehension...but, till I find it...it's just me remembering it poorly. Man, it coulda been three years ago or even more.



What he said isn't as far off from what most deists believe. They believe in a supreme being that has qualities well outside of their ability to comprehend but it made some of its wishes know through revelation.  Some of its wishes include abstinence from: masturbation, shellfish, and exposure of women's ankles.  Though the uselessness and oddness of those prescriptions in itself isn't a proof that these are just man made, it may, with good reason, tarnish one's idea of the supremacy of that being.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2019)

Israel said:


> LOL...you really gunna send me on that hunt! It was like the last line to an paragraph or two that had gone before...and it may well have started "if"...but you did pretty well outline a god you could believe in...one so far in excess of our understanding/comprehension...but, till I find it...it's just me remembering it poorly. Man, it coulda been three years ago or even more.


I'll Cliff Note it.
If a god exists I can't understand it, nor will I try to understand it, nor will I pretend to understand it. If a god wanted me, it would surely know how to go about it.


----------



## Israel (Feb 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What he said isn't as far off from what most deists believe. They believe in a supreme being that has qualities well outside of their ability to comprehend but it made some of its wishes know through revelation.  Some of its wishes include abstinence from: masturbation, shellfish, and exposure of women's ankles.  Though the uselessness and oddness of those prescriptions in itself isn't a proof that these are just man made, it may, with good reason, tarnish one's idea of the supremacy of that being.



I don't know if in any way you are responding to what I had mentioned in conjunction with Bullet's statement, or just Bullet's (as yet un-recovered by me) proposition. I'm not trying to "hold" Bullet to anything previous, and as he seems to pretty well state where he is now (which may be entirely consistent with what was said then) I'm happy to accept that. 

God knows I have often heard him say, more or less, "If there is a God he knows my address" along with a stand that implies to me "it's the grossest of arrogance to imagine that if there is a God, any could be more privy to his mind or workings than another." And for whatever reasons...arrogance seems to be judged a condemn-able thing. Like it would be self evidently...wrong. 

It would seem perhaps a funny thread, as though entirely unnecessary "What's wrong with arrogance...anyway?" But admittedly, what I think we all may easily accept as "foregone" in conclusion to its _badness,_ is just assumption till established as something else.

What I found in that older statement, even if it be of some essence deeper to me, might be remembered wrongly or subject (by him) to any and all modification. I know I have said things I have had to apologize for, or modify in view (not that I imply Bullet need apologize for anything) but that we are all subject to some form of change, and not infrequently relative to things we may have once said.

So I won't assume any of your proposition here:



> Though the uselessness and oddness of those prescriptions in itself isn't a proof that these are just man made, it may, with good reason, tarnish one's idea of the supremacy of that being.



has anything to do with my my statement a few lines back.

But perhaps you could see why I wonder. It's as if you could be saying "A man tells me that a circle is that set of points that lie equidistant from one point (called its center)." But then this man presents to me a drawing that to me appears far more rectangular, I can easily see that some points are closer, some farther (or whatever he may draw that easily gives lie to what he stated). 

I have little problem in understanding your proposition in such light "a deist says God is totally transcendent and his understanding beyond searching out, but your drawing of it is also saying he has an expressed interest how clay handles its own member, and what other forms of clay it consumes and looks at". In essence (to me) saying "your drawing is absurd, a thing is either transcendent or not, you are trying to have something both ways". Like pointing out "corners" in the drawing of a circle...the set of points are obviously not equidistant.

One could ask "where on earth did you learn to draw?"! Or what rules of drawing have you adopted that appear to me so poor? Of course, if some pull out a manual it's easy to go over it and say "your teacher hates pork"...or whatever and say "he doesn't seem very good at teaching you to draw the transcendent which you "the drawer" say is a more essential element to His being".

To reply "well _you have never labored_ in trying to draw both the immanent and the transcendent at once!" is a bit of a churlish response. Yet, it is essentially what a disciple believes. No excuse being made here for that...no appeal to a leniency, after all, it is we who have come holding and preaching such..."God is above all but has fully appeared in flesh as a Son". I cannot say you'r wrong, if holding skeptical opposition to say "then show me" (or us). "Show us how this transcendent One, comes _down._ As_ you say _He has._" _Show me how he would have any interest in dust. 

Presenting what is often called the manual (and of which_ I am not ashamed_) many have learned has its own matters in which to contend. But, I am not in debt to the manual, except to this very point of entrance: "There is something given for all bad drawers, all bad represent-ers, all poor show-ers". I see that from beginning to end. But...it comes only by admission...and that is _the price_ of _my_ admission (do I say it must be yours?) to me a simple confession of what is made irrefutably true to me (and if me alone, so be it) "I am a very bad represent-er" 

Now, to some who could say "ahh you paid a price for something you say is free!" I can only occupy the place where things seem paradoxical and absurd in trying to hold to a both appearing untenable. I see a price already paid that enables me to respond in truth (with what appears as a repayment) "I'm the poor representation". And represent-er. But, in that light it's no cost at all, no real payment, at all, or even repayment...the one who paid the price has also made it to me _of no cost _to admit such. To Him alone...if there be any owing...is owed.  I no longer "owe it to men" to be a good drawer, indeed, the more I put myself in that debt to man, the more I manifestly deny the very thing that has made the appearance to me of the perfect representation, of no use or matter. God forbid! He came for the sick, not the well.

_If_ I claim the presence of the physician, I would be rather the fool to try to deny "someone is sick in the house". As though..."O, now I am the perfect representer, made fit in all things to show". Yeah, I could take that silly burden, and no doubt have. Trying to pretend that _my need_ of the physician is manifestly deniable by a now "such good representing". I'd rather have his presence, than by subterfuge and seeming convenience...deny him.

But, this is not my, or your first rodeo. I know now what would tell me..."you must really be a sicko to find such ease in occupying the place of ready admission of being so sick!" Kinda like "tell me how it affects the psyche to think oneself as the worst of all". Tell me what "psychological effects" it has. The truth of it is quite other. I am more fit to tell you what the terrible price is for thinking rather, one is better than another. I am really far more familiar with that...sickness.

What this physician speaks to others...is not my business, if he has told them to not eat pork, not play with themselves, or long for a view of an ankle (leading up)...is his business. He's made it clear to me, "you, follow me". I no more know whether his appearing to another might be to say "you my friend, are the bees knees, and are doing perfect in all". But don't infer from that that my recognition of my estate is due to his shaming me with reproach. I just can no longer lie very well about what I see in his light. That, I'm allowed to, even encouraged to, be free in. A thing I was once too terrified to ever concede...someone is a better man than...me. Cause to admit this, means I must be subject to him, and that friend...was all_ this rebel _ever hated in creation. Being subject.

Maybe no one else...ever...has ever desired to be "object of all". I just can't deny that's the place I once occupied in _all desire. _All...lust. Yeah...that's sick, friend. If I am the only one who has ever needed de-throning...so be it. If that was the mechanism of invite to him...to not allow such a silly vanity to go on (as I have heard others on here express..."I simply cannot let a lie stand!") so be it. Whatever it took to cause him to break down my door...thanks be to God. His presence that testifies of my dire need...is something of which I am not ashamed. He's so easy on the eyes...but isn't given to graven images. That's when he gets hard to look at...through eyes that believe they can "capture him".

So, I am more glad to be a poor sketcher, the poorest represenation...and representer, than to think I can adequately show him in fullness...and be found a liar. He does that Himself....shows Himself.

No one is subject to me. Or my will. But first, I must be glad I am not. If that's not made true to me...I'm just another peddler selling shackles.

Sin is a forgiven thing. It has to be...because He is true.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yea I don’t get the “heard the audible” voice of God folks. I’ve actually heard some say that. I’m skeptical in that area.



Don't be skeptical.  It happens.  It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice.  They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> I don't know if in any way you are responding to what I had mentioned in conjunction with Bullet's statement, or just Bullet's (as yet un-recovered by me) proposition. I'm not trying to "hold" Bullet to anything previous, and as he seems to pretty well state where he is now (which may be entirely consistent with what was said then) I'm happy to accept that.
> 
> God knows I have often heard him say, more or less, "If there is a God he knows my address" along with a stand that implies to me "it's the grossest of arrogance to imagine that if there is a God, any could be more privy to his mind or workings than another." And for whatever reasons...arrogance seems to be judged a condemn-able thing. Like it would be self evidently...wrong.
> 
> ...


Was great up until the
"One could ask..." paragraph (but nobody did ask) where you used it as a segway to expound upon your earlier started "drawings" thoughts just to get them fully out there.....then more question and answer session with yourself conversation.
If you ask yourself something and then answer it, it isn't REALLY like someone else asking you and you are replying with an educated factual reply that answers their questions. The way you bring it up and answer it almost seems like a cover to make assertions seem like legitimate answers to questions that nobody is really asking.
Because, well...Nobody is asking those questions for good reason.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don't be skeptical.  It happens.  It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice.  They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.


There ya go. That type of testimony will definitely remove all doubt.

Hans, The Fly in your Ointment can still hear you and reply for the benefit of the others, despite you smashing your radio in frustrated defeat. ~Roy


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don't be skeptical.  It happens.  It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice.  They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.


I’m skeptical of the “audible” voice claims, not the God speaking to people. 

God is a spirit with no flesh and bones.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don't be skeptical.  It happens.  It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice.  They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.


Its interesting to me that folks always "hear" or "see" or whatever... the god they just so happen to believe in. Its never one they don't.


----------



## j_seph (Feb 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting to me that folks always "hear" or "see" or whatever... the god they just so happen to believe in. Its never one they don't.



Now your catching on!!!!!! There is only one God to hear!!!!


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2019)

j_seph said:


> View attachment 958768
> Now your catching on!!!!!! There is only one God to hear!!!!


The light bulb would be brighter if that wasn't true across the religious board.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2019)

j_seph said:


> View attachment 958768
> Now your catching on!!!!!! There is only one God to hear!!!!


Honest, THAT is your point???
You just made the case for EVERY god that is heard worldwide.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting to me that folks always "hear" or "see" or whatever... the god they just so happen to believe in. Its never one they don't.



For you it will be.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 11, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m skeptical of the “audible” voice claims, not the God speaking to people.
> 
> God is a spirit with no flesh and bones.



Why would you be skeptical of an audible voice?  The Bible is chock full of examples, and I would be willing to bet if you asked some people in your church you would be surprised at how frequent it happens.

If anything, I’m skeptical of people hearing voices in their head.  Those are the ones I have to question in others and in myself.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why would you be skeptical of an audible voice?  The Bible is chock full of examples, and I would be willing to bet if you asked some people in your church you would be surprised at how frequent it happens.
> 
> If anything, I’m skeptical of people hearing voices in their head.  Those are the ones I have to question in others and in myself.






SemperFiDawg said:


> If anything, I’m skeptical of people hearing voices in their head.  Those are the ones I have to question in others and in myself.





Spotlite said:


> I’m skeptical of the “audible” voice claims, not the God speaking to people.
> 
> God is a spirit with no flesh and bones.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For you it will be.


Hopefully they will formally introduce themselves because Im not going to just pick one out of the ~3000 or so gods man has claimed to exist.
But you had a pretty witty comeback none the less


----------



## 660griz (Feb 12, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don't be skeptical.  It happens.  It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice.  They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.


Yea. And a virgin got pregnant from a spirit. A man lived in a fish for 3 days.
Some folks will believe anything.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 12, 2019)

660griz said:


> Yea. And a virgin got pregnant from a spirit. A man lived in a fish for 3 days.
> Some folks will believe anything.



Don’t worry Brother.  One day you will believe it too.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don’t worry Brother.  One day you will believe it too.


About as much as you will believe in Zeus...


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> About as much as you will believe in Zeus...


That's what I find so ridiculous about these type of "oh you will" claims.
At the same time its being said, they are denying all the other gods.
Prove your god exists and then you will at least have half a leg to stand on.
Its nothing more than school yard boasting.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That's what I find so ridiculous about these type of "oh you will" claims.
> At the same time its being said, they are denying all the other gods.
> Prove your god exists and then you will at least have half a leg to stand on.
> Its nothing more than school yard boasting.


Yeah, elementary school boasting...like K-4


----------



## 660griz (Feb 12, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don’t worry Brother.  One day you will believe it too.


I did believe until my brain was fully developed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Feb 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That's what I find so ridiculous about these type of "oh you will" claims.
> At the same time its being said, they are denying all the other gods.
> Prove your god exists and then you will at least have half a leg to stand on.
> Its nothing more than school yard boasting.



yawn.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That's what I find so ridiculous about these type of "oh you will" claims.
> At the same time its being said, they are denying all the other gods.
> Prove your god exists and then you will at least have half a leg to stand on.
> Its nothing more than school yard boasting.


That’s not what he’s meaning by that. Our belief is that every knee shall bow. It’s not meant to sound “bully”.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> That’s not what he’s meaning by that. Our belief is that every knee shall bow. It’s not meant to sound “bully”.


Bully???.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> That’s not what he’s meaning by that. Our belief is that every knee shall bow. It’s not meant to sound “bully”.


I didn't take it as bullying.
More like "Oh yeah, well my #2 pencil is bigger than yours" or "My Dad can beat up your Dad".


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2019)

660griz said:


> I did believe until my brain was fully developed.


Well that was kind of harsh


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Bully???.





WaltL1 said:


> I didn't take it as bullying.
> More like "Oh yeah, well my #2 pencil is bigger than yours" or "My Dad can beat up your Dad".


Well on second thought,  maybe bullying isn’t the correct term. 

But it’s not even meant to be “my Dad can beat up your Dad”. It’s just a statement that we believe everyone will “acknowledge” God either now, or during Judgement. 

Of course we realize the other side of the argument if “we are wrong”.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Well that was kind of harsh


I know right?  I really tried to find a kindler way of putting it and still be accurate. Just couldn't do it.
While it seems harsh, it is based on facts.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well on second thought,  maybe bullying isn’t the correct term.
> 
> But it’s not even meant to be “my Dad can beat up your Dad”. It’s just a statement that we believe everyone will “acknowledge” God either now, or during Judgement.
> 
> Of course we realize the other side of the argument if “we are wrong”.


I honestly think that you are part of a very small group that even considers  that you could be wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well on second thought,  maybe bullying isn’t the correct term.
> 
> But it’s not even meant to be “my Dad can beat up your Dad”. It’s just a statement that we believe everyone will “acknowledge” God either now, or during Judgement.
> 
> Of course we realize the other side of the argument if “we are wrong”.


It isnt considered anything to do with bullying, or who's dad is tougher(than can be tested if necessary)
It is more like one kid not only bragging about how cool his Best friend is(who nobody ever saw or meets INCLUDING the kid making the claims) but also asserting what will happen to others when they meet his friend.
Then the same kid scoffs at the idea of Billy having a different best friend because, well, there can be only one super cool best friend...and he is MINE!!!
Same schoolyard kid usually has the fastest bicycle that he never shows anyone or is seen riding and he has a beautiful older girlfriend....oh but she lives by his grandmother who lives in another state...far away....


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It isnt considered anything to do with bullying, or who's dad is tougher(than can be tested if necessary)
> It is more like one kid not only bragging about how cool his Invisible friend is(who nobody ever saw or meets INCLUDING the kid making the claims) but also asserting what will happen to others when they meet this Invisible friend.
> Then the same kid scoffs at the idea of Billy having a different invisible friend because, well, there can be only one Invisible friend...and he is MINE!!!
> Same schoolyard kid usually has the fastest bicycle that he never shows anyone or is seen riding and he has a beautiful older girlfriend....oh but she lives by his grandmother who lives in another state...far away....


Yes that's probably a far better example.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well on second thought,  maybe bullying isn’t the correct term.
> 
> But it’s not even meant to be “my Dad can beat up your Dad”. It’s just a statement that we believe everyone will “acknowledge” God either now, or during Judgement.
> 
> Of course we realize the other side of the argument if “we are wrong”.


Understood.
But note the difference in your statement and this statement -


> Don’t worry Brother.  One day you will believe it too.


One is "what we believe is..."
The other is "here is what you are going to believe...".
I would imagine if you were told "if you do this dance its going to rain" as though it was a fact, you would probably say "nah probably not".


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes that's probably a far better example.


I even changed Invisible friend to Best friend....even though the "friend" only exists in the kids mind....like the bike and girlfriend..


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 12, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Understood.
> But note the difference in your statement and this statement -
> 
> One is "what we believe is..."
> ...


Yea I can see that too. I think what we believe is so common to us that we may not realize how it sounds to others at times.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It isnt considered anything to do with bullying, or who's dad is tougher(than can be tested if necessary)
> It is more like one kid not only bragging about how cool his Best friend is(who nobody ever saw or meets INCLUDING the kid making the claims) but also asserting what will happen to others when they meet his friend.
> Then the same kid scoffs at the idea of Billy having a different best friend because, well, there can be only one super cool best friend...and he is MINE!!!
> Same schoolyard kid usually has the fastest bicycle that he never shows anyone or is seen riding and he has a beautiful older girlfriend....oh but she lives by his grandmother who lives in another state...far away....


But in reality if the other kid met my best friend he’d be best friends with him too cause my best friend  wants more friends. Maybe they’ll meet


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But in reality if the other kid met my best friend he’d be best friends with him too cause my best friend  wants more friends. Maybe they’ll meet


Spotlite, I will drive to your house if you will have your best friend meet me In Person.

See, that is the problem here....your best friend is invisible. Can you see other religions best friends? Can you meet them? Do you believe those other believers when they speak for their best friend? Do you honestly believe that those other believers know what their best friend wants, thinks, or would do? 

In order to meet your best friend, I have to play pretend.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, I will drive to your house if you will have your best friend meet me In Person.
> 
> See, that is the problem here....your best friend is invisible. Can you see other religions best friends? Can you meet them? Do you believe those other believers when they speak for their best friend? Do you honestly believe that those other believers know what their best friend wants, thinks, or would do?
> 
> In order to meet your best friend, I have to play pretend.


Yea but we are taking about a spirit. If someone told me they “saw” God, I’m most likely ignoring them and writing them off as in need of help.

I don’t know what other believers think, feel or experience. I only know what I experience and feel that intertwines and agrees with many many others. And, I know what the skeptics think, or even use an explanations to what they say is really happening and they are not even close, and I wouldn’t expect them to be.

Other than that, I have no issues with anyone referring to him as my invisible fried. But I know the difference between Bob and God.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yea but we are taking about a spirit. If someone told me they “saw” God, I’m most likely ignoring them and writing them off as in need of help.
> 
> I don’t know what other believers think, feel or experience. I only know what I experience and feel that intertwines and agrees with many many others. And, I know what the skeptics think, or even use an explanations to what they say is really happening and they are not even close, and I wouldn’t expect them to be.
> 
> Other than that, I have no issues with anyone referring to him as my invisible fried. But I know the difference between Bob and God.


A Spirit....Saw God equals nuts...taken by a spirit equals believable...
You can no more introduce me to a spirit than you can any god in the flesh or apparition.
Spirit is just another fancy word to replace Invisible.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, I will drive to your house...........



If you ever wind up in this neck of the woods, hit me up. We will drown some minnows, pink worms and crickets. 

I put 700 cats in one of my ponds on my lease last spring and there are plenty of bass that need taken out. Plenty of lips that need ripped.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> A Spirit....Saw God equals nuts...taken by a spirit equals believable...
> You can no more introduce me to a spirit than you can any god in the flesh or apparition.
> Spirit is just another fancy word to replace Invisible.



You’re right, I can’t. That’s why I struggle with debates. There is a fine line there where we forget that it’s not our job to convince.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If you ever wind up in this neck of the woods, hit me up. We will drown some minnows, pink worms and crickets.
> 
> I put 700 cats in one of my ponds on my lease last spring and there are plenty of bass that need taken out. Plenty of lips that need ripped.


I do appreciate the kind offer.


----------



## Israel (Feb 13, 2019)

660griz said:


> I did believe until my brain was fully developed.


LOL...whose gunna argue with that? Who can?

The_ defective mind_ theory of faith...or perhaps more kindly attributable to immaturity.
What can't be dismissed so? Not yet...whole enough...not yet grown enough? Not yet...real....or valid enough...yet.

Who's to reply?

Sure, I been around what most of you might call religious folks long enough to know there's a way of phrasing in opposition, a way of dispute that thinly veils "you are not yet quite as good as we are". Yeah, no doubt I've worn that T shirt, too. But really...who hasn't?

Not "smart" enough...studied enough, intelligent enough to say you know...what you believe you know.The valid vs the invalid. Pick a side, almost everything lends itself to such argument. Ain't it wonderful? There's provision for all men, of all time...to play there.

But, when the prizes eventually tarnish (as they all do) or become so dust laden (is it the wise who see what that first speck portends in settling there...or the fool?) the "game" itself gets displayed for what it is...

Anyway...till I hear the ref call "time", a man would be even more the fool if he didn't enjoy the role he's assigned.

I got my eye on you, too.

Might as well admit...by communication...by speaking...you really were "asking for it".


----------



## ky55 (Feb 13, 2019)

660griz said:


> I know right?  I really tried to find a kindler way of putting it and still be accurate. Just couldn't do it.
> While it seems harsh, it is based on facts.



I don’t think it’s harsh at all.


660griz said:


> I know right?  I really tried to find a kindler way of putting it and still be accurate. Just couldn't do it.
> While it seems harsh, it is based on facts.



Nah, I don’t think it’s even the least bit harsh. 

*


----------



## Israel (Feb 14, 2019)

ky55 said:


> I don’t think it’s harsh at all.
> 
> 
> Nah, I don’t think it’s even the least bit harsh.
> ...



Why would you when it's of such utility?

And how could it be argued against?

Ya end up looking like Fredo...(not that I am particularly opposed to his appearance...he's probably a very well drawn representation of me)

But that doesn't change (nor could I expect it to) what seems most plain of all, men's deep affection for their own character. So that when it appears to them insulted (the all that has made contribution, in their eyes, to its forming) it's far more usual to find their compelled opposition represented. "I'm not crazy" "I'm not defective" "I don't have an immature brain" "I'm not unintelligent" "I'm not uninformed" "I'm not immoral" And thereby find themselves on stage arguing in the theater of the absurd.

As is commonly expressed, and not without salience "prisons are full of innocent men". 

The believer in Jesus Christ is quite otherwise. He cannot deny the light that has shown him defect, lest found denying defect, he deny_ that light. _Admitting defect is one of the parts _written for him._

Yes, I am remarkably immature in any answer to your contention. I am _the defective_ that responds to you. You may "want better", even think you have a _right_ to _the better_ and better response (how many times has that been trotted out?) but...when you get on this stage, you can only speak the lines assigned and according to _your character_, you don't decide who's cued by your lines of dialogue, anymore than I, or any other does.

And, the characters are displayed. If my delivery of these lines seems simply too perfectly played, even too convincing...too _well formed_ to _seem in all _then as the most artificial, well, I've had some excellent coaches on stage with me. Hats off to your bravura performances! Who but the very strongest could resist emulations?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2019)

Oyyy


----------



## Brother David (Feb 19, 2019)




----------



## bullethead (Feb 19, 2019)

Brother David said:


>


Says the guy who posts 5 DAYS after the thread has already died.


----------



## Spotlite (Feb 19, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Says the guy who posts 5 DAYS after the thread has already died.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 19, 2019)




----------



## atlashunter (Apr 21, 2019)

I don’t know why believers are so impressed by that verse in Proverbs. Every cult worth it’s salt proclaims itself to be the one true religion and warns followers that non-believers are fools.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 22, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I don’t know why believers are so impressed by that verse in Proverbs. Every cult worth it’s salt proclaims itself to be the one true religion and warns followers that non-believers are fools.


Human nature. If you can convince a believer of whatever group that everybody else is a fool for believing something different then its easier to dismiss them and what they believe. Its a form of control. "You are too smart to listen to that nonsense so you just stick with us and don't pay attention to them or what they believe".
To be fair its a tactic that is used in lots of areas and not just religion. It probably would only take us a minute or two to find an Atheist site that uses the same tactic.
You are smarter/better if you buy this and not that, if you hunt this way but not that way, if you watch this news channel but not that one, if you live here but not there... the examples are endless.
It should be a big flashing warning sign when you are encouraged to dismiss rather than to examine for yourself.


----------



## Israel (Apr 22, 2019)

If one needs to handle that verse it might best be served in understanding that light does not discriminate.

If a heart is dis-closable, than any and all hearts are equally in sight as to what is spoken there, and what is heard there. And the light the believer ascribes to, is without limit to searching depths.

So God knows the why (before we do) of the why we may resort to any particular verse, word. or assertion. This verse must be first sobering to the believer...otherwise it's like using a scattergun at the picnic trying to hit the snake on the blanket, where your kids are also sitting.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

"So god knows..."
Priceless


----------



## Israel (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> "So god knows..."
> Priceless


Indeed.


----------

