# Madman and Blaise Pascal....



## ambush80

The Madman is in the house!!!!

 "Originally Posted by Madman View Post
What are the odds "any choice of god" being correct?"

This seemed like the most objective source I could find:

"Over 2,500"

https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Gods-Over-Deities-World/dp/0816029091

Here's a compiled list, though it says that that's not all of them:

https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them

Odds of picking the right one?  Approximately 1 in 2,500.  Of course the option that no god(s) exist should be factored in, as well as the possibility of any permutation of some of them existing.  Looks like long odds.


----------



## JB0704

Hope he sees this one.....it'll be a good'n to follow


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> The Madman is in the house!!!!
> 
> "Originally Posted by Madman View Post
> What are the odds "any choice of god" being correct?"
> 
> This seemed like the most objective source I could find:
> 
> "Over 2,500"
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Gods-Over-Deities-World/dp/0816029091
> 
> Here's a compiled list, though it says that that's not all of them:
> 
> https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them
> 
> Odds of picking the right one?  Approximately 1 in 2,500.  Of course the option that no god(s) exist should be factored in, as well as the possibility of any permutation of some of them existing.  Looks like long odds.



It may be worse than that, the Hindus alone have about 3.5 million to choose from, so just for jun let's say we write the name of each god, that humans worship, on a paper and throw it in a bucket, stir it up REAL good, and pull out a name.  By chance you would have 1 in 3,502,500 of pulling out the particular god you worship.

Correct?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> It may be worse than that, the Hindus alone have about 3.5 million to choose from, so just for jun let's say we write the name of each god, that humans worship, on a paper and throw it in a bucket, stir it up REAL good, and pull out a name.  By chance you would have 1 in 3,502,500 of pulling out the particular god you worship.
> 
> Correct?



Then you have to consider the combinatorial permutations, but that is correct.  There will be a 1 in (whatever that immense number is) chance that you get it right.


----------



## Madman

I read the page:
https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them

Some pretty revealing comments.  One I liked was from an "atheist" who claimed he did not believe in the Christian God for the same reason we do not believe in other religion's gods.

Here is why I don't believe in some of the other religion's gods.

Isaiah 44:9-20

So that takes a lot out of the 3,502,500.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I read the page:
> https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them
> 
> Some pretty revealing comments.  One I liked was from an "atheist" who claimed he did not believe in the Christian God for the same reason we do not believe in other religion's gods.
> 
> Here is why I don't believe in some of the other religion's gods.
> 
> Isaiah 44:9-20



Yes. You have a book that you believe is telling the truth.  Basically you are saying that you have some insider knowledge that eliminates the possibility of those other gods, essentially making the odds of yours being 100%.

We/they (believers of a different stripe) simply disagree with the value of your "insider knowledge".  It's always of a nature such that "You won't understand until you believe", assuming that the error is with the searcher, as a "proper" search must always lead to the same conclusion you have come to,  or the more logically consistent "You can't understand because you weren't meant to". 

Tell me in detail how you were convinced so clearly that you could do nothing else but helplessly believe. 

As an aside, I realized that strangely enough, one of the biggest red flags to me about people of faith is their unshakable conviction (that goes for most things).  I would believe that someone has truly put in some hard yards if they said "I could be wrong".


----------



## Madman

A quick note on Paschal's wager.  The history behind that is pretty much as follows: 

It was not a theological argument, people were always asking why they should believe in a god.

Paschal had a journal of thoughts that were not published until after his death, I believe they were called "The Reflections", anyway in one reflection he penned;

"If you don’t know if God exist then your “best” bet is that he does.  If you are wrong then you have lost nothing."

I cannot say I agree with the logic if carried out to it's logical conclusion, because if God does not exist then you have lost out on a lot of sensual pleasures in this relatively short life.


----------



## ambush80

Your edit mirrors my post exactly and succinctly.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Yes. You have a book that you believe is telling the truth.  Basically you are saying that you have some insider knowledge that eliminates the possibility of those other gods, essentially making the odds of yours being 100%.
> 
> We/they (believers of a different stripe) simply disagree with the value of your "insider knowledge".  It's always of a nature such that "You won't understand until you believe", assuming that the error is with the searcher, as a "proper" search must always lead to the same conclusion you have come to,  or the more logically consistent "You can't understand because you weren't meant to".
> 
> Tell me in detail how you were convinced so clearly that you could do nothing else but helplessly believe.
> 
> As an aside, I realized that strangely enough, one of the biggest red flags to me about people of faith is their unshakable conviction (that goes for most things).  I would believe that someone has truly put in some hard yards if they said "I could be wrong".



There is a lot in there.  I would like to start somewhere considerably more basic.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> A quick note on Paschal's wager.  The history behind that is pretty much as follows:
> 
> It was not a theological argument, people were always asking why they should believe in a god.
> 
> Paschal had a journal of thoughts that were not published until after his death, I believe they were called "The Reflections", anyway in one reflection he penned;
> 
> "If you don’t know if God exist then your “best” bet is that he does.  If you are wrong then you have lost nothing."
> 
> I cannot say I agree with the logic if carried out to it's logical conclusion, because if God does not exist then you have lost out on a lot of sensual pleasures in this relatively short life.



It's not just that (which could be significant).  It shaped the way that you view your place in the universe and how you interacted with it, including the people and creatures.  How many times have you heard people say that they won't hang out with their muslim/atheist/homosexual/ family members because of their faith.  I won't even bring up the things that faith based belief can cause someone to do.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> There is a lot in there.  I would like to start somewhere considerably more basic.



You start.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> It's not just that (which could be significant).  It shaped the way that you view your place in the universe and how you interacted with it, including the people and creatures.  How many times have you heard people say that they won't hang out with their muslim/atheist/homosexual/ family members because of their faith.  I won't even bring up the things that faith based belief can cause someone to do.



Don't confuse people with Christ.  

Luke 7:
33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”


We need TRUE teaching.  He does not call us to neglect them, he calls us not to enter into their lifestyle.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> You start.



First let me say, could I be wrong about my beliefs?  Of course I could be wrong about my beliefs; however I also have come believe that the chance of that is so infinitesimally small it really does not exist.

I would also like to add that I believe my early upbringing was not so different from yours,  I attended church and heard cute stories about how Jesus loves me, big fish, and people being turned into pillars of salt, How Christ died on the cross for my sins, because after all I was terrible sinner.  I do remember one time while visiting my grandmother, the preacher preached me into he11 and I had no way out, that affected me for many weeks.

And I will say, am I wrong about some of my beliefs, probably yes, but I have only been refining them for about 20 years, so I need more work. 

I did not start with the Christian Bible as my basis for belief just as I did not begin my elementary school math with integral calculous or finite math, so just as I started school with addition and subtraction and my multiplication tables I started my spiritual life wondering if there is a god.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Tell me in detail how you were convinced so clearly that you could do nothing else but helplessly believe.




I don't helplessly believe, I believe it is the most reasonable belief.

1 Peter 3:15 	but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> It shaped the way that you view your place in the universe and how you interacted with it, including the people and creatures.



EXACTLY!!!  But I did not come to how it SHOULD shape my view of the universe, how I SHOULD interact with it, and how I SHOULD treat and care for people, creatures, and the environment, until I was considerably farther along on my journey.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> First let me say, could I be wrong about my beliefs?  Of course I could be wrong about my beliefs; however I also have come believe that the chance of that is so infinitesimally small it really does not exist.
> 
> I would also like to add that I believe my early upbringing was not so different from yours,  I attended church and heard cute stories about how Jesus loves me, big fish, and people being turned into pillars of salt, How Christ died on the cross for my sins, because after all I was terrible sinner.  I do remember one time while visiting my grandmother, the preacher preached me into he11 and I had no way out, that affected me for many weeks.
> 
> And I will say, am I wrong about some of my beliefs, probably yes, but I have only been refining them for about 20 years, so I need more work.
> 
> I did not start with the Christian Bible as my basis for belief just as I did not begin my elementary school math with integral calculous or finite math, so just as I started school with addition and subtraction and my multiplication tables I started my spiritual life wondering if there is a god.



Do you mind if we hang on the blue for a while?  What is your evidence?  Is it revelation?


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> I started my spiritual life wondering if there is a god.



Then what happened. What made you decide for sure there was a God?
What made you decide on the Christian God?
What about the other millions of Gods turned you off?

Was it a "What's it gonna hurt to believe what the majority believe?", moment?
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, your quote from Paschal opened the door a little.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Do you mind if we hang on the blue for a while?  What is your evidence?  Is it revelation?



Sure.

Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

1) The very existence of anything. Nothing comes from nothing. 
_Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." _

2) information science.  Code/language is evidence of a code writer.  The human gnome is a code.  
_"Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them." _

3) Natural law. Moral law. Everyone has a sense of the moral law, where did that come from? 
_Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets._

4) How could I leave out thermodynamics.  Everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.  What wound it up? What turned it lose? 
_Isaiah 51:6 "Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
    and look at the earth beneath;
for the heavens vanish like smoke,
    the earth will wear out like a garment,
    and they who dwell in it will die in like manner,"_

I don't see the belief in an all powerful, self sufficient, being as a revelation, I believe it is evident.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Sure.
> 
> Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
> 
> 1) The very existence of anything. Nothing comes from nothing.
> _Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." _
> 
> 2) information science.  Code/language is evidence of a code writer.  The human gnome is a code.
> _"Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
> in the image of God he created him;
> male and female he created them." _
> 
> 3) Natural law. Moral law. Everyone has a sense of the moral law, where did that come from?
> _Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets._
> 
> 4) How could I leave out thermodynamics.  Everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.  What wound it up? What turned it lose?
> _Isaiah 51:6 "Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
> and look at the earth beneath;
> for the heavens vanish like smoke,
> the earth will wear out like a garment,
> and they who dwell in it will die in like manner,"_
> 
> I don't see the belief in an all powerful, self sufficient, being as a revelation, I believe it is evident.



What do you think of the notion that humans are programmed by evolution to seek god(s) (agency, really)?  Is that possible?  And if so, does it say anything about the veracity of said god(s)?


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> What do you think of the notion that humans are programmed by evolution to seek god(s) (agency, really)?  Is that possible?  And if so, does it say anything about the veracity of said god(s)?



I believe humans are programmed by God to desire better. 
_Genesis 1:26  Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
_

I believe we are the only creatures who live in despair.

We have been given the capacity to understand our condition, pain, suffering, illness, guilt, and we desire a life without it, and can imagine a life without it, but we are incapable of a final solution in of our self.


----------



## Madman

What would be the evolutionary motivation behind a belief?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> What would be the evolutionary motivation behind a belief?



Oh gosh.....

I'd have to point you to a reading list that could explain it in detail but I'll try to paraphrase as best as I can; the way that I understood what I read.  

Attaching agency to natural phenomena was important for survival because over reacting to a coil of rope  in a dark room, mistaking it for a snake is a good thing. So is reacting to a rustle in the bushes.  Even if you're wrong about the agency of the phenomena, it's better to over react as if there were a real threat, and we do this subconsciously.  This got extrapolated to "The volcano is angry.  That's why we don't have any rain and crops."   

Then there's superstition which is basically attributing causality where none exists; blowing on dice, spitting on your crankbait, "Remember when we threw that girl in there and the crops came back?".  Combine these things along with tribalism (which served very good purposes and can be argued to serve good purposes now) and you get religion (and college football).

That's the crappiest Readers Digest version of it but that's what I'm capable of on the fly.


----------



## ambush80

I'll add for clarity that the way that we over react to natural phenomena in immediate threat situations is a good thing because we don't have time to see if it's a snake or a tiger.  

We also detect patterns very well.  That's highly beneficial.  Observing weather patterns and game movements is a good thing.  Patterns can lead one to infer design and designer where none is necessary, instead they arise from "the available chemistry set" like bullethead's sig line.  

One can still presuppose a god and he can be made to fit in quite well with any of this information, especially when you make his nature and intentions vague or mystical.  It neither confirms or denies a creator, but it also shows that one isn't necessary to explain why we look for one.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Combine these things along with tribalism (which served very good purposes and can be argued to serve good purposes now) and you get religion.



I don't want this to turn into 'go read this' and 'I'll go read that'.  Let's operate off the Reader's Digest version.

Lets you and I "give reasons" for the hope that we have.  (I added the red because I think we all have hope.)

I don't see what you described as evolutionary, I see that as societal.  One society got rain by throwing a child in the fire, another by dancing. Some got it by prayer. Sometimes none of them got anything, but they kept trying until they got what the wanted then they credited what they wanted too. That is custom.
Evolutionary insinuates "cooked into the genes".

I believe the story from Acts 17 is the perfect example of that.  Paul saw that the Epicureans worship many gods even one they called the unknown god, (Cover all the bases)


----------



## Madman

This is how Islam came about,  Mohammad's tribe worshiped Allah the moon god.  Mohammad won battles, successfully raided caravans, and therefore forced those he defeated to worship his god, because his god made him stronger then those he defeated.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I don't want this to turn into 'go read this' and 'I'll go read that'.  Let's operate off the Reader's Digest version.
> 
> Lets you and I "give reasons" for the hope that we have.  (I added the red because I think we all have hope.)
> 
> I don't see what you described as evolutionary, I see that as societal.  One society got rain by throwing a child in the fire, another by dancing. Some got it by prayer. Sometimes none of them got anything, but they kept trying until they got what the wanted then they credited what they wanted too. That is custom.
> Evolutionary insinuates "cooked into the genes".
> 
> I believe the story from Acts 17 is the perfect example of that.  Paul saw that the Epicureans worship many gods even one they called the unknown god, (Cover all the bases)



This:

_"I don't want this to turn into 'go read this' and 'I'll go read that'.  Let's operate off the Reader's Digest version."_

and then this:

_"I believe the story from Acts 17 is the perfect example of that.  Paul saw that the Epicureans worship many gods even one they called the unknown god, (Cover all the bases)"_

I'll agree to not using books.  We both have read things that make sense to us and that we believe to bear the truth.  Lets just assume that we have internalized that information and proceed to discuss it in our own words.  

_"I don't see what you described as evolutionary, I see that as societal.  One society got rain by throwing a child in the fire, another by dancing. Some got it by prayer. Sometimes none of them got anything, but they kept trying until they got what the wanted then they credited what they wanted too. That is custom.
Evolutionary insinuates "cooked into the genes"."_

If a person gets rewarded for a specific action they will recognize a correlation.  If a person is rewarded at random, they might do the last thing that they did before they got rewarded or they might do the last, last thing they did before they got rewarded.  That's how superstition is built.

Should we use this definition of hope:

: to want something to happen or be true and think that it could happen or be true


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> We also detect patterns very well.  That's highly beneficial.  Observing weather patterns and game movements is a good thing.  Patterns can lead one to infer design and designer where none is necessary, instead they arise from "the available chemistry set" like bullethead's sig line.



But the sig line gives no origin for the available chemistry set.



ambush80 said:


> One can still presuppose a god and he can be made to fit in quite well with any of this information, especially when you make his nature and intentions vague or mystical.  It neither confirms or denies a creator.  But it also shows that one isn't necessary to explain why we look for one.



I see nothing vague or mystical about nature.  It is very deliberate, it works well together, it seems to have design, even if I choose not to acknowledge it.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> This:
> 
> _"I don't want this to turn into 'go read this' and 'I'll go read that'.  Let's operate off the Reader's Digest version."_
> 
> and then this:
> 
> _"I believe the story from Acts 17 is the perfect example of that.  Paul saw that the Epicureans worship many gods even one they called the unknown god, (Cover all the bases)"_
> 
> I'll agree to not using books.  We both have read things that make sense to us and that we believe to bear the truth.  Lets just assume that we have internalized that information and proceed to discuss it in our own words.



That was from memory, I gave a reference in case you wanted to put it in context. I gave my reader's digest messed up version.



ambush80 said:


> _"I don't see what you described as evolutionary, I see that as societal.  One society got rain by throwing a child in the fire, another by dancing. Some got it by prayer. Sometimes none of them got anything, but they kept trying until they got what the wanted then they credited what they wanted too. That is custom.
> Evolutionary insinuates "cooked into the genes"."_
> 
> If a person gets rewarded for a specific action they will recognize a correlation.  If a person is rewarded at random, they might do the last thing that they did before they got rewarded or they might do the last, last thing they did before they got rewarded.  That's how superstition is built.



Then do we agree we are talking about superstition and societal motivation and not evolution?



ambush80 said:


> Should we use this definition of hope:
> 
> : to want something to happen or be true and think that it could happen or be true



I believe so.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> That was from memory, I gave a reference in case you wanted to put it in context. I gave my reader's digest messed up version.
> 
> 
> 
> Then do we agree we are talking about superstition and societal motivation and not evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe so.




We don't have to talk about evolution anymore. We can focus on superstition.  It exists and we understand how it works.  You can say god made us superstitious but that doesn't prove it's true.  You argument seems to be leaning towards "God's fingerprints".  The only reason to bring up evolution is to show how these things could have developed without a designer.  If you don't believe that evolution works the way that it's understood to then that's another thread.

Hope ties well into the other thread that you revived.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> If you don't believe that evolution works the way that it's understood to then that's another thread.



Hold on how exactly is evolution understood?


----------



## Madman

Darwin showed that sometimes the finch had a long sharp beak because conditions were such that it needed that type to survive, those with short stubby beaks died off leaving the genetic profile for long skinny beaks as the dominate trait, however, at the end of the day they were still finches.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Hold on how exactly is evolution understood?



The traits that are best for survival get passed on.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Darwin showed that sometimes the finch had a long sharp beak because conditions were such that it needed that type to survive, those with short stubby beaks died off leaving the genetic profile for long skinny beaks as the dominate trait, however, at the end of the day they were still finches.



I sure would like to talk about Pascal again.....


----------



## Madman

You asked how I came to be a theist, I am explaining it, and I have yet to see how evolution answers my questions.

I don't believe God made us superstitious, I see things that the atheist can not explain.

How does the atheist explain moral law?


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> The traits that are best for survival get passed on.



I don't see that in mankind.  Why do humans take care of the weakest?  Why when we hear a man in danger we run to help?

There must be some overriding, moral, code that calls us to be more then what you call survival instincts.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> I sure would like to talk about Pascal again.....



What about Pascal?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> You asked how I came to be a theist, I am explaining it, and I have yet to see how evolution answers my questions.
> 
> I don't believe God made us superstitious, I see things that the atheist can not explain.
> 
> How does the atheist explain moral law?



Someone I was discussing veganism with asked me where I get my morals.  I answered "I form my morality by listening to the little prompts that were hardwired to my consciousness and subconscious by evolution and process them with my capacity to reason."

It's taken me a long time to be able to describe concisely the methodology that I've just always taken for granted.  It's actually the method that made me realize that my faith based beliefs were wrong.  I agree with the notion that humans want to find causality and agency and that we're tribal and superstitious.  With all this in mind (using my ability to reason) I understand how and why god(s) came to be.  

Whatever questions evolution doesn't answer maybe are answered by something else.  Maybe by quantum mechanics.  Maybe they're as of yet unanswerable.  Being an atheist, I've had to come to grips with being able to say "I don't know" to some things and that was hard, because one of the most comforting things about faith based belief is that you can say "I know".  "I know why I'm here, I know where I'm going" but you don't.  "I don't know" is ultimately more honest to me than taking an answer from a dubious source.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> What about Pascal?



If we discount your "Insider information" then the odds are that neither of us is right.  Agreed?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I don't see that in mankind.  Why do humans take care of the weakest?  Why when we hear a man in danger we run to help?
> 
> There must be some overriding, moral, code that calls us to be more then what you call survival instincts.



I know that I empathize.  I know that heroism is looked favorably upon.  I know how I can lose myself; my personal identity, in a team effort.  I know about reciprocal altruism.  I know about these things because I've experienced them first hand. These are all survival instincts.  Survival for the group and the team and the species.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> If we discount your "Insider information" then the odds are that neither of us is right.  Agreed?



If we discount your "Insider Information" from books then the odds are that neither of us is correct?  Agreed?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> If we discount your "Insider Information" from books then the odds are that neither of us is correct?  Agreed?




That's right.  It doesn't matter how many books I read to the contrary, the Paraguayan Whistling Tree Frog God might actually be real (Russel's Tea Pot).  If the Tree Frog God proscribes some certain behavior, as recorded in a book of traditional wisdoms, should I obey because it says so?


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> I know that I empathize.  I know that heroism is looked favorably upon.  I know how I can lose myself; my personal identity, in a team effort.  I know about reciprocal altruism.  I know about these things because I've experienced them first hand. These are all survival instincts.  Survival for the group and the team and the species.



On the one hand I hear you say that "tribal" instincts cause you to help the tribe, on the other hand "survival" instincts help you survive, but you have yet to explain the base moral code that causes you to override one instinct or the other.  Why do people risk their lives by creating a human chain to save a woman they do not know at great pearl to themselves?  What would cause their tribal instinct to override their survival instinct.

Neither tribalism nor survivalism  can override themselves or each other.  Some other "code" must be acting and I can not see where evolution answers the question.

The white keys on piano can not tell themselves when to play, and the black keys on the piano can not tell themselves nor the white keys when to play, something outside must cause the striking of the correct key at the right time.  In this case it would be the sheet of music.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> On the one hand I hear you say that "tribal" instincts cause you to help the tribe, on the other hand "survival" instincts help you survive, but you have yet to explain the base moral code that causes you to override one instinct or the other.  Why do people risk their lives by creating a human chain to save a woman they do not know at great pearl to themselves?  What would cause their tribal instinct to override their survival instinct.
> 
> Neither tribalism nor survivalism  can override themselves or each other.  Some other "code" must be acting and I can not see where evolution answers the question.



"I empathize. I know that heroism is looked favorably upon. I know how I can lose myself; my personal identity, in a team effort. I know about reciprocal altruism.  These are all survival instincts. Survival for the group and the team and the species."

Either you don't believe that these well documented phenomena are in play or you don't see how they answer the question.  



Madman said:


> The white keys on piano can not tell themselves when to play, and the black keys on the piano can not tell themselves nor the white keys when to play, something outside must cause the striking of the correct key at the right time.  In this case it would be the sheet of music.



You're very eloquently equating two things that are nothing alike.  There's much more disorder in the universe than order.  And that patterns have formed is the result of the laws of nature.  You can say that "someone" put the laws of nature in play but you can't prove it.  You can't even honestly imply it.  It's not a tornado randomly blowing through a junkyard and making a watch. Random processes could have caused a protein to form that gave rise to life that evolved into a being that can make a watch.  It could have happened that way or maybe not.  Like I said, I feel like I'm being more honest when I say "I don't know".

See,  if believers used that word "could" more often I would believe that they're being honest because that's the actual state of our knowledge and always will be.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> On the one hand I hear you say that "tribal" instincts cause you to help the tribe, on the other hand "survival" instincts help you survive, but you have yet to explain the base moral code that causes you to override one instinct or the other.  Why do people risk their lives by creating a human chain to save a woman they do not know at great pearl to themselves?  What would cause their tribal instinct to override their survival instinct.
> 
> Neither tribalism nor survivalism  can override themselves or each other.  Some other "code" must be acting and I can not see where evolution answers the question.
> 
> The white keys on piano can not tell themselves when to play, and the black keys on the piano can not tell themselves nor the white keys when to play, something outside must cause the striking of the correct key at the right time.  In this case it would be the sheet of music.


Survival is the moral code. Tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago your behavior in the tribe, clan, group decided whether or not you were able to stay in that group. Choking the life out of someone may have been your first instinct but the possibility of being banished from the group for that action led to making a wiser decision that seems compassionate on the surface, but in reality it  was made to keep you alive within the group instead of banished from the group and almost certain death.
No food, no shelter, no group protection will help your morals quite a bit.
Tens of thousands of years of that will leave an impression that is used elsewhere now.

Then again society is loaded with people who ignore those instincts and go for whatever pleases them with no regard to consequences. The punishment is much less than death so it is easier to not be as accommodating to others in modern societies. In the USA getting kicked out of your family usually doesn't mean a death sentence, you can crash on a buddies couch, do three months in jail or make ends meet in any number if ways.. In a tribe on the african plains, you may be more inclined to behave in ways that allow you to stay with the group because the half way house is a tree branch that leopards like to sleep on also.

The entire world is filled with examples of each.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> That's right.  It doesn't matter how many books I read to the contrary, the Paraguayan Whistling Tree Frog God might actually be real (Russel's Tea Pot).  If the Tree Frog God proscribes some certain behavior, as recorded in a book of traditional wisdoms, should I obey because it says so?



Glad we agree that there are books written by people that we believe to be reputable, therefore we believe what they say.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Glad we agree that there are books written by people that we believe to be reputable, therefore we believe what they say.



Yup.  A book that claims supernatural origin is tough for me to get behind.  Is that fair?


----------



## ambush80

Madman,

Have you seen my tread in the PF about wrongful execution?  I'm curious as to why believers haven't entered the conversation since they should have pretty well formed opinions, based on their faith, about it.  JB was the only one.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> "I empathize. I know that heroism is looked favorably upon. I know how I can lose myself; my personal identity, in a team effort. I know about reciprocal altruism.  These are all survival instincts. Survival for the group and the team and the species."
> 
> Either you don't believe that these well documented phenomena are in play or you don't see how they answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> You're very eloquently equating two things that are nothing alike.  There's much more disorder in the universe than order.  And that patterns have formed is the result of the laws of nature.  You can say that "someone" put the laws of nature in play but you can't prove it.  You can't even honestly imply it.  It's not a tornado randomly blowing through a junkyard and making a watch. Random processes could have caused a protein to form that gave rise to life that evolved into a being that can make a watch.  It could have happened that way or maybe not.  Like I said, I feel like I'm being more honest when I say "I don't know".
> 
> See,  if believers used that word "could" more often I would believe that they're being honest because that's the actual state of our knowledge and always will be.



The "well documented phenomena" are just that, a documentation of an occurrence.  All I am trying to present is a possible how and why "how".

The "tribal instinct" and the "self-preservation instinct" seem to override each other much too often when instinct would scream for the opposite for there not to be some greater moral code, some sheet of music that says "no; do not strike the black key strike the white key, it is the correct one to strike".

If evolution/survival, is the only answer, then we would never rescue an OLD woman from the river, evolution would tell us she is not worth the risk.

If non-believers would just say "could" more often then I would believe that they're being honest because that's the actual state of our knowledge and always will be.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Madman,
> 
> Have you seen my tread in the PF about wrongful execution?  I'm curious as to why believers haven't entered the conversation since they should have pretty well formed opinions, based on their faith, about it.  JB was the only one.



no but it is off this topic.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> no but it is off this topic.



Yeah, sorry.   Should have asked in PM.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> The "well documented phenomena" are just that, a documentation of an occurrence.  All I am trying to present is a possible how and why "how".



We look for agency (the tiger in the bushes). It's jumping to conclusions, really, because it helped us survive.  

We are superstitious because seeking causality was adaptive.

We look for patterns because it helped us get game.  The patterns are there given the "available chemistry set".   

Try to deduce how these things might have led us to come up with the idea of god(s).  Were you able to do it?  Are the patterns really god's fingerprint?  Must they be without a doubt?

We formed tribes because it was better to be in a group than alone and we made our tribes distinctive from one another by our culture and our gods.



Madman said:


> The "tribal instinct" and the "self-preservation instinct" seem to override each other much too often when instinct would scream for the opposite for there not to be some greater moral code, some sheet of music that says "no; do not strike the black key strike the white key, it is the correct one to strike".
> 
> If evolution/survival, is the only answer, then we would never rescue an OLD woman from the river, evolution would tell us she is not worth the risk.



Morality is fluid.  Eskimos used to put old women on ice flows, indeed, they went willingly.  People eat each other.  The only thing that none of them seem to do is regularly have sex with their immediate family. I'm guessing that's hardwired and yet we have a story in the Bible that honors just that.  It's a survival story.  Is that nature or man changing nature?

Soldiers jump on grenades because they believe that the team is greater than themselves.  People risk their lives to save others because of empathy.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Yup.  A book that claims supernatural origin is tough for me to get behind.  Is that fair?



Yes it is. Since you do not appear to believe in the super natural, it seems to me as though you need ANY reason to discount it.  Is that fair?


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> We are superstitious because seeking causality was adaptive.


  Not sure I understand.



ambush80 said:


> We look for patterns because it helped us get game.  The patterns are there given the "available chemistry set".



I still need to understand where the "available chemistry set" came from.



ambush80 said:


> Try to deduce how these things might have led us to come up with the idea of god(s).  Were you able to do it?  Are the patterns really god's fingerprint?  Must they be without a doubt?


Order shows intelligence.   Science, observation, etc., states NOTHING moves from a state of order to disorder.





ambush80 said:


> We formed tribes because it was better to be in a group than alone and we made our tribes distinctive from one another by our culture and our gods.


  Or we formed tribes because we were designed to be in relationship.





ambush80 said:


> Morality is fluid.  Eskimos used to put old women on ice flows, indeed, they went willingly.  People eat each other.  The only thing that none of them seem to do is regularly have sex with their immediate family. I'm guessing that's hardwired and yet we have a story in the Bible that honors just that.  It's a survival story.  Is that nature or man changing nature?



In some instances it is fluid.  If an old woman chooses to kill herself for the good of others that is her choice.  I doubt she would be willing to do that for complete strangers, but only for those she loved, however, there does appear to be some innate right and wrong for EVERYONE.  A thief will steal from you but becomes furious because you stole from him and he will be the first to tell you that stealing is wrong.   



ambush80 said:


> Soldiers jump on grenades because they believe that the team is greater than themselves.  People risk their lives to save others because of empathy.



They believe their brothers are important and the mission is important.

I believe your definition of empathy flies in the face of "survival instincts".


----------



## Madman

As an addition.  Why do people argue?  It is not because of tribal instinct or survival instinct it is because they truly believe that there is some ultimate good/bad - right/wrong that they are arguing for or against.

Where does that come from?  I have never seen my dogs having a moral argument, they fight over food or if they don't want to be bothered.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Yes it is. Since you do not appear to believe in the super natural, it seems to me as though you need ANY reason to discount it.  Is that fair?



I don't need ANY reason to discount it.  I only need reasons to believe in it.  Discounting it is the default position.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> I don't need ANY reason to discount it.  I only need reasons to believe in it.  Discounting it is the default position.



Fair enough.  the human gnome, logic, morality, there are three.

I need reason to believe in the origin of the "available chemistry set", something from nothing, love, where order out of disorder comes from, spontaneous generation of life, humans from pond scum.  

It was a much easier life when I was "not sure", all I had to say was "I don't know".  I thank the great early men of science that they searched for answers to what they saw, and how it fit with reality.

It seems as though we have gone about as far as you are willing to go so I will say this.

Do you treat your children as though they are the bio-mechanical result of "the available chemistry set"?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Fair enough.  the human gnome, logic, morality, there are three.
> 
> I need reason to believe in the origin of the "available chemistry set", something from nothing, love, where order out of disorder comes from, spontaneous generation of life, humans from pond scum.
> 
> It was a much easier life when I was "not sure", all I had to say was "I don't know".  I thank the great early men of science that they searched for answers to what they saw, and how it fit with reality.
> 
> It seems as though we have gone about as far as you are willing to go so I will say this.
> 
> Do you treat your children as though they are the bio-mechanical result of "the available chemistry set"?


What creator excuse do you use to explain the actions of humans who treat their children worse than they would treat pond scum/available chemistry set?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Fair enough.  the human gnome, logic, morality, there are three.



Are you saying that you can't even imagine how those things can arise without a designer?  Do you have all the information necessary to come to that conclusion?



Madman said:


> I need reason to believe in the origin of the "available chemistry set", something from nothing, love, where order out of disorder comes from, spontaneous generation of life, humans from pond scum.



Why do you need a reason? What if the reality is that you can't find a reason?  Do you latch on to an explanation just because you like it?   




Madman said:


> It was a much easier life when I was "not sure", all I had to say was "I don't know".  I thank the great early men of science that they searched for answers to what they saw, and how it fit with reality.



It is easy to say I don't know.  It's hard to try and find an answer.  It's easy to latch on to traditional thinking.  The difficulty of the endeavor doesn't necessarily equate to it's value. 



Madman said:


> It seems as though we have gone about as far as you are willing to go so I will say this.
> 
> Do you treat your children as though they are the bio-mechanical result of "the available chemistry set"?



I understand that my daughter is the result of natural processes that may not have supernatural origin.  I don't think that she is "special" in any way, not anymore than a rock on Jupiter.  She and a rock on Jupiter are equally amazing.  I love her because I've evolved to and I do it deeply.   If she's the result of random chance, that doesn't diminish the love I feel for her in the least.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Are you saying that you can't even imagine how those things can arise without a designer?  Do you have all the information necessary to come to that conclusion?



I can imagine all types of fanciful reasons.  I can imagine given enough monkeys on enough typewriters given enough time will eventually write all the great sonnets, (oh yeah, what language did they write them in and who developed the language?) 
My imagination is very fertile.

You claim to only believe what you can see and can be tested with science yet you use empathy to fill in holes in your argument, claim something came from nothing, that order comes from disorder.  That is just too simple for me.





ambush80 said:


> Why do you need a reason? What if the reality is that you can't find a reason?  Do you latch on to an explanation just because you like it?



"Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have." 

I look at what is available, as do more and more scientist and engineers, and from that evidence I must admit that there is something "higher" than I am.




ambush80 said:


> It is easy to say I don't know.  It's hard to try and find an answer.  It's easy to latch on to traditional thinking.  The difficulty of the endeavor doesn't necessarily equate to it's value.



Most everything you believe, you believe on faith.  You have never seen quarks and the bonds created by protons and electrons, yet you faithfully follow, at the same time you ridicule those who believe in a being greater then themselves.  





ambush80 said:


> I understand that my daughter is the result of natural processes that may not have supernatural origin.  I don't think that she is "special" in any way, not anymore than a rock on Jupiter.  She and a rock on Jupiter are equally amazing.  I love her because I've evolved to and I do it deeply.   If she's the result of random chance, that doesn't diminish the love I feel for her in the least.



You and she are no more special then a "rock on Jupiter" yet you and she can love, and the rock can not.

At least you are consistent, rocks evolve into people.

Please don't tell your daughter that she is no more special than a rock.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I can imagine all types of fanciful reasons.  I can imagine given enough monkeys on enough typewriters given enough time will eventually write all the great sonnets, (oh yeah, what language did they write them in and who developed the language?)
> My imagination is very fertile.



I don't want to talk about infinity because it's out of my pay grade but isn't logical to believe that given infinite time that all permutations of all realities will come to pass, including monkeys writing Shakespeare in all languages known and unknown? That's completely a probability question.   It's also a philosophical issue in the sense that infinity is a philosophical assertion.  If you allow it with a being (which I can argue is quite bizarre) you should be able to allow it with any other unknown quantities.  That's just logical.  Can you give me a reason why the unknown quantity must necessarily be a conscious creature?

Here's a good example of how randomness can result in order.  Start at 13:00 but watch the whole thing because it's cool.:





Madman said:


> You claim to only believe what you can see and can be tested with science yet you use empathy to fill in holes in your argument, claim something came from nothing, that order comes from disorder.  That is just too simple for me.



What question did I answer with "empathy" that it didn't correctly answer?  Where did empathy , love, etc. come from?  They evolved because they were useful.  



Madman said:


> "Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have."
> 
> I look at what is available, as do more and more scientist and engineers, and from that evidence I must admit that there is something "higher" than I am.



Do you have all the information?  Me neither.  Neither of us should be ready to give definitive answers.  I still don't know why you think that everything came to be because of a "guy".  Why does it have to be a "guy"?

Do you know about those rocks in the desert that zig zag around leaving tracks when no one is looking?  If you were a caveman and you saw that phenomena you might deduce that they were moved by a "guy".  It had to be a "guy". Stuff doesn't just move around by itself.  Is that a fair assumption?

http://nypost.com/2014/08/29/scientists-solve-the-mystery-of-death-valleys-moving-rocks/




Madman said:


> Most everything you believe, you believe on faith.  You have never seen quarks and the bonds created by protons and electrons, yet you faithfully follow, at the same time you ridicule those who believe in a being greater then themselves.



I know some people at Georgia Tech.  I'm sure if I tried hard enough that I could get someone to show me quark trails.  You can come too, if you want.  Do you think that the scientists that discovered the things that you list have misinterpreted the findings?  Do you think that they're making too great of assumptions about what they found?  That's possible.  They would be the first to tell you so.  



Madman said:


> You and she are no more special then a "rock on Jupiter" yet you and she can love, and the rock can not.
> 
> At least you are consistent, rocks evolve into people.
> 
> Please don't tell your daughter that she is no more special than a rock.



Love is a product of it's usefulness.  And it's wonderfully useful.  Saying that "rocks" evolve into people is a bit disingenuous. Rocks are a very specific type of matter. I believe that life could have come from inert matter. I've seen theories that show how and they seem plausible to me.  Every science book and every science show talking about the origins of life will start by saying "We don't know....."  but _you_ know, because you were told how in a very strange book.   The claims in that book are way weirder than any claim about quarks or evolution and there's little evidence to confirm them, don't you agree?  Is it true that said book makes claims about reality that are extremely counter to what all of mankind can readily observe?  

I expose my daughter to as much information as I can.  She goes to Sunday school occasionally.  She has heard the stories.  
"As far as you know" is an important phrase to she and I when we discuss truth claims.  She will tell you that as far as she knows, people don't rise from the dead.    As far as she knows, the moon wasn't stolen by the Wolf and swallowed by the Raven.  How would I get her to consider those things as a possibilities?  I would have to talk about things that I don't understand.  I would have to tell her to trust the _only_ source from where those ideas came from.  Do you see how crazy that is?  

What if I came home and told her "Sweetheart, I  just read a book about a dragon and I believe that it's true".  What do you think it would take for me to get her to believe me?  What would she have to do in her mind to throw away all that she understands about reality and accept what I said is true?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> The Madman is in the house!!!!
> 
> "Originally Posted by Madman View Post
> What are the odds "any choice of god" being correct?"
> 
> This seemed like the most objective source I could find:
> 
> "Over 2,500"
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Gods-Over-Deities-World/dp/0816029091
> 
> Here's a compiled list, though it says that that's not all of them:
> 
> https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them
> 
> Odds of picking the right one?  Approximately 1 in 2,500.  Of course the option that no god(s) exist should be factored in, as well as the possibility of any permutation of some of them existing.  Looks like long odds.



So because everyone believes in a God, there isn't one.  Makes perfect sense.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> So because everyone believes in a God, there isn't one.  Makes perfect sense.



Firstly, not everyone believes in god(s) and you know that.  That was disingenuous.   At one time everybody in the world believed that the world was flat.  Is that where your argument is headed?  

I've tried to show how man's propensity to believe in mystical forces can be explained by evolutionary advantage.  Why don't you go through the argument I've made point by point and refute them?  Have I said anything untrue?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I don't want to talk about infinity because it's out of my pay grade but isn't logical to believe that given infinite time that all permutations of all realities will come to pass, including monkeys writing Shakespeare in all languages known and unknown? That's completely a probability question.   It's also a philosophical issue in the sense that infinity is a philosophical assertion.  If you allow it with a being (which I can argue is quite bizarre) you should be able to allow it with any other unknown quantities.  That's just logical.  Can you give me a reason why the unknown quantity must necessarily be a conscious creature?
> 
> Here's a good example of how randomness can result in order.  Start at 13:00 but watch the whole thing because it's cool.:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What question did I answer with "empathy" that it didn't correctly answer?  Where did empathy , love, etc. come from?  They evolved because they were useful.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have all the information?  Me neither.  Neither of us should be ready to give definitive answers.  I still don't know why you think that everything came to be because of a "guy".  Why does it have to be a "guy"?
> 
> Do you know about those rocks in the desert that zig zag around leaving tracks when no one is looking?  If you were a caveman and you saw that phenomena you might deduce that they were moved by a "guy".  It had to be a "guy". Stuff doesn't just move around by itself.  Is that a fair assumption?
> 
> http://nypost.com/2014/08/29/scientists-solve-the-mystery-of-death-valleys-moving-rocks/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know some people at Georgia Tech.  I'm sure if I tried hard enough that I could get someone to show me quark trails.  You can come too, if you want.  Do you think that the scientists that discovered the things that you list have misinterpreted the findings?  Do you think that they're making too great of assumptions about what they found?  That's possible.  They would be the first to tell you so.
> 
> 
> 
> Love is a product of it's usefulness.  And it's wonderfully useful.  Saying that "rocks" evolve into people is a bit disingenuous. Rocks are a very specific type of matter. I believe that life could have come from inert matter. I've seen theories that show how and they seem plausible to me.  Every science book and every science show talking about the origins of life will start by saying "We don't know....."  but _you_ know, because you were told how in a very strange book.   The claims in that book are way weirder than any claim about quarks or evolution and there's little evidence to confirm them, don't you agree?  Is it true that said book makes claims about reality that are extremely counter to what all of mankind can readily observe?
> 
> I expose my daughter to as much information as I can.  She goes to Sunday school occasionally.  She has heard the stories.
> "As far as you know" is an important phrase to she and I when we discuss truth claims.  She will tell you that as far as she knows, people don't rise from the dead.    As far as she knows, the moon wasn't stolen by the Wolf and swallowed by the Raven.  How would I get her to consider those things as a possibilities?  I would have to talk about things that I don't understand.  I would have to tell her to trust the _only_ source from where those ideas came from.  Do you see how crazy that is?
> 
> What if I came home and told her "Sweetheart, I  just read a book about a dragon and I believe that it's true".  What do you think it would take for me to get her to believe me?  What would she have to do in her mind to throw away all that she understands about reality and accept what I said is true?



The One with whom we have to do...is not creature.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> The One with whom we have to do...is not creature.



So say you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Firstly, not everyone believes in god(s) and you know that.



Collectively everyone does.  There's only a scant percentage of you guys that believe there's no nose on your face and are convinced because you hold to this lie you are smarter than everyone else.



ambush80 said:


> Have I said anything untrue?



Your premise to start with.........then everything else you use to support it.


----------



## drippin' rock

SemperFiDawg said:


> Collectively everyone does.  There's only a scant percentage of you guys that believe there's no nose on your face and are convinced because you hold to this lie you are smarter than everyone else.QUOTE]
> 
> Christians love to be persecuted.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Collectively everyone does.  There's only a scant percentage of you guys that believe there's no nose on your face and are convinced because you hold to this lie you are smarter than everyone else.



Then it's not "everyone".  People believe things that are wrong regardless of if they're smart or stupid.  I've found that it takes less effort to convince stupid people or the uneducated (like children) of falsehoods.  That's just my experience.





SemperFiDawg said:


> Your premise to start with.........then everything else you use to support it.



What are the correct odds of you being right and why?


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Someone I was discussing veganism with asked me where I get my morals.  I answered "I form my morality by listening to the little prompts that were hardwired to my consciousness and subconscious by evolution and process them with my capacity to reason."



I still don't understand how you formed your "morality by listening to the little prompts that were hardwired to my consciousness and subconscious by evolution and process them with my capacity to reason."

On the one hand you claim that evolution has wired in the survival of the fittest, and then on the other it has also hardwired in what you call tribal instincts, but nowhere have you explained where evolution has wired in some overriding program that tells you which one to react to.

If evolution wired survival into us, then you would always flee danger, yet we see more often then not there appears to be some overriding moral cause to "do what is right" even in the face of what evolution is taught to have overcome.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> I don't want to talk about infinity because it's out of my pay grade



Then that should stop the discussion right there, but you know the statment is not true.



ambush80 said:


> Here's a good example of how randomness can result in order.  Start at 13:00 but watch the whole thing because it's cool.:



interesting video.  My imagination is pretty good also.
at around 19:20 he reveals the truth of what he believes." Molecules appear out of nothing".  



ambush80 said:


> Love is a product of it's usefulness.  And it's wonderfully useful.  Saying that "rocks" evolve into people is a bit disingenuous. Rocks are a very specific type of matter. I believe that life could have come from inert matter.


  Are rocks not inert matter?




ambush80 said:


> but _you_ know, because you were told how in a very strange book.


No I came to my belief system because of what I witness in the world.
God is visible through His creation and I was without excuse.




ambush80 said:


> I expose my daughter to as much information as I can.  She goes to Sunday school occasionally.  She has heard the stories.
> "As far as you know" is an important phrase to she and I when we discuss truth claims.  She will tell you that as far as she knows, people don't rise from the dead.    As far as she knows, the moon wasn't stolen by the Wolf and swallowed by the Raven.  How would I get her to consider those things as a possibilities?  I would have to talk about things that I don't understand.  I would have to tell her to trust the _only_ source from where those ideas came from.  Do you see how crazy that is?



But as far as she knows she evolved from a rock, I mean inert material?



ambush80 said:


> What if I came home and told her "Sweetheart, I  just read a book about a dragon and I believe that it's true".


Do you see evidence of a dragon that you can show her?
What if you told my son "I read a book by a man that believes, something came from nothing?"  and I believe it is true.



ambush80 said:


> What do you think it would take for me to get her to believe me?  What would she have to do in her mind to throw away all that she understands about reality and accept what I said is true?



What do you think it would take for him to throw away all that he believes and all that he has been trained as an electrical engineer and understands about reality and all that he has observed and accept what you said to be true?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> What creator excuse do you use to explain the actions of humans who treat their children worse than they would treat pond scum/available chemistry set?



Sin


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Morality is fluid.



I just keep finding tasty morsels that you write but I do not think you believe.

There is no one who will accept being lied to, or stolen from , or murdered. 

Everyone has the same moral base, have you never heard two people arguing?  They are arguing because they both believe they are standing on the moral high ground.

That is one reason I believe there is an arbiter of truth/morals.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> I still don't understand how you formed your "morality by listening to the little prompts that were hardwired to my consciousness and subconscious by evolution and process them with my capacity to reason."
> 
> On the one hand you claim that evolution has wired in the survival of the fittest, and then on the other it has also hardwired in what you call tribal instincts, but nowhere have you explained where evolution has wired in some overriding program that tells you which one to react to.
> 
> If evolution wired survival into us, then you would always flee danger, yet we see more often then not there appears to be some overriding moral cause to "do what is right" even in the face of what evolution is taught to have overcome.


Madman, do you ever get goose bumps when you are in a tense situation or when you are startled?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Sin



Sin, like purposely having your kid crucified sin?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Madman, do you ever get goose bumps when you are in a tense situation or when you are startled?



Don't confuse the physical contraction of muscles when you get cold with some overriding moral code that tells you to run toward danger.

You claim evolution is the answer to tribal instincts, and at the same time you claim evolution is the answer for self preservation, but you can't explain the overriding moral code that tells you to run toward danger.  

There must be something beyond what you call evolution that tells the human psyche the proper way to respond.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Sin, like purposely having your kid crucified sin?



“To try to explain truth to him who loves it not, is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation. “
			Richard Weaver


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Don't confuse the physical contraction of muscles when you get cold with some overriding moral code that tells you to run toward danger.
> 
> You claim evolution is the answer to tribal instincts, and at the same time you claim evolution is the answer for self preservation, but you can't explain the overriding moral code that tells you to run toward danger.
> 
> There must be something beyond what you call evolution that tells the human psyche the proper way to respond.


Those muscles contracted to make the hair stand up so humans appeared larger. We no longer have that much hair but we still have the muscles and both they and the little hair we still have act the same way.


Fight or flight responce is well studied. Well documented. And well explained.
I know you like to read.
http://evolution.about.com/od/Overview/fl/Fight-or-Flight-and-Evolution.htm


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Fight or flight responce is well studied. Well documented. And well explained.
> I know you like to read.
> http://evolution.about.com/od/Overview/fl/Fight-or-Flight-and-Evolution.htm



Very good, you just presented an article that describes what evolutionist call fight or flight.

Now juxtapose that article with http://raymondinegypt.tripod.com/articles-05/tribal-instinct.htm

an article about tribalism. 

You call them both evolutionary, one tells a person to fight or run, the other tells a person to do what is best for the group, both are moral codes and both are good, you claim they are evolutionary, I claim they have been designed into the human psyche.  

How do you explain the overriding moral code that cancels out the self preservation "evolutionary moral code" and tells the "tribal moral code" to kick in?

It cannot be either of those codes, it must be something outside, another code that overrides the desire to save ones self for another or visa-versa.

Where does the outside codex come from?

As a side note: it is pretty convenient how evolution thought that we don't need the long hair all over our bodies but still keeps the involuntary muscle reflex to make it stand up.

My dog has that ability but his is not involuntary, it is very voluntary, don't believe me, walk down my driveway one day and see if he can't make that hair stand up.

Don't see how humans survived if evolution can't even get voluntary vs. involuntary.  I guess I should count my blessings that my breathing and heart function developed as involuntary.  

When you evolve from a rock you take what you can get.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Very good, you just presented an article that describes what evolutionist call fight or flight.
> 
> Now juxtapose that article with http://raymondinegypt.tripod.com/articles-05/tribal-instinct.htm
> 
> an article about tribalism.
> 
> You call them both evolutionary, one tells a person to fight or run, the other tells a person to do what is best for the group, both are moral codes and both are good, you claim they are evolutionary, I claim they have been designed into the human psyche.
> 
> How do you explain the overriding moral code that cancels out the self preservation "evolutionary moral code" and tells the "tribal moral code" to kick in?
> 
> It cannot be either of those codes, it must be something outside, another code that overrides the desire to save ones self for another or visa-versa.
> 
> Where does the outside codex come from?
> 
> As a side note: it is pretty convenient how evolution thought that we don't need the long hair all over our bodies but still keeps the involuntary muscle reflex to make it stand up.
> 
> My dog has that ability but his is not involuntary, it is very voluntary, don't believe me, walk down my driveway one day and see if he can't make that hair stand up.
> 
> Don't see how humans survived if evolution can't even get voluntary vs. involuntary.  I guess I should count my blessings that my breathing and heart function developed as involuntary.
> 
> When you evolve from a rock you take what you can get.



Humans are not exclusive to the examples you give or for the actions you want explained. 
An anatomy class will explain to you where those muscles are located, how those muscles act, why, and all the multiple  functions they perform. We have them because we need them for other things in addition to raising our hair. Which, by the way, we still have hair.
You can pretend that we all came from two modern humans in a garden, but reality has proven that as not being the case. We had more hair, we slept in trees, we had tails and organs and teeth and all kinds of vestigal organs we no longer have...and despite your denial, every now and then your designer must leave his position for a smoke break and his quality control goes down hill. "His" designs somehow let a few of these old traits come on through and babies are born with tails, covered with hair and have many of our old traits shine through.
Your dog is no different than any human. Both can voluntarily raise their own hackles, puff out their chest or show their teeth. Dont believe me? Walk down my driveway one night. I'll act like your dog and you can decide whether or not you want to stick around OR you can replay the scenario five minutes later after you end up in an area with no recollection of how you got there because your body may just decide for you that it did not want to stick around long enough to find out what happened next.

You give an either/or scenario and ignore the dozens of other answers that directly refute your claims. I give you examples. You give unsubstantiated claims with zero evidence to back it up. 

Evolution doesnt think. Some rocks know this, others apparently do not.
Your designer must have sprinkled a little bit more fanaticism on some rocks more than others....just going from your article....


----------



## bullethead

Locally here the news reported that a dog stayed with a little girl while the house was on fire and did not leave her side until rescuers got to her. The dog died from the injuries sustained from the fire/smoke.
Is it the same outside "codex" that you speak of that was ingrained in that dog on what to do?
Does that same designer give it to some humans and animals but not all?
Do Christians get a preferred "codex" on who runs and who stays? Do God's chosen people tend to lean towards one or the other?  Evolutionary or Tribal...which does god dole out more and to who?


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> Locally here the news reported that a dog stayed with a little girl while the house was on fire and did not leave her side until rescuers got to her. The dog died from the injuries sustained from the fire/smoke.
> Is it the same outside "codex" that you speak of that was ingrained in that dog on what to do?
> Does that same designer give it to some humans and animals but not all?
> Do Christians get a preferred "codex" on who runs and who stays? Do God's chosen people tend to lean towards one or the other?  Evolutionary or Tribal...which does god dole out more and to who?



It's a miracle. It was an angel in dog form.


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> It's a miracle. It was an angel in dog form.



Oh most certainly.

The dog could have run but because it did not we now have undeniable proof that a grand designer ingrained  a certain quality in that particular dog. There is just absolutely no other explanation.


Unless....that "codex" is what separates humans from all the other animals...then that theory is blown....


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Do Christians get a preferred "codex" on who runs and who stays? Do God's chosen people tend to lean towards one or the other?  Evolutionary or Tribal...which does god dole out more and to who?



Thanks, nothing like a good ad hominem fallacy.  Stick to the argument and leave your sophomoric remarks for your buddies.

I knew your "atheism" is really a problem with Christians.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Locally here the news reported that a dog stayed with a little girl while the house was on fire and did not leave her side until rescuers got to her. The dog died from the injuries sustained from the fire/smoke.



What is your point?  Did the dog save her? Apparently not you said it "did not leave her side until rescuers got to her".

Did the dog stay because of some overriding moral code?

or was the dog loyal?  My master stays, I stay.  My master leaves I leave.

Don't read too much into a dog's actions.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Thanks, nothing like a good ad hominem fallacy.  Stick to the argument and leave your sophomoric remarks for your buddies.
> 
> I knew your "atheism" is really a problem with Christians.


No answers to pertinent questions.  Freshmen....always wanting to avoid the hard work...


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> What is your point?  Did the dog save her? Apparently not you said it "did not leave her side until rescuers got to her".
> 
> Did the dog stay because of some overriding moral code?
> 
> or was the dog loyal?  My master stays, I stay.  My master leaves I leave.
> 
> Don't read too much into a dog's actions.


 The dog stayed when he could have ran. A designer given trait No different than what you are claiming was given to humans.

So....the story about your dog shouldn't be taken seriously then. 10-4.

Don't read too much into human actions, you may find yourself making things up for answers you cannot understand, or refuse to.


----------



## bullethead

bullethead said:


> Humans are not exclusive to the examples you give or for the actions you want explained.
> An anatomy class will explain to you where those muscles are located, how those muscles act, why, and all the multiple  functions they perform. We have them because we need them for other things in addition to raising our hair. Which, by the way, we still have hair.
> You can pretend that we all came from two modern humans in a garden, but reality has proven that as not being the case. We had more hair, we slept in trees, we had tails and organs and teeth and all kinds of vestigal organs we no longer have...and despite your denial, every now and then your designer must leave his position for a smoke break and his quality control goes down hill. "His" designs somehow let a few of these old traits come on through and babies are born with tails, covered with hair and have many of our old traits shine through.
> Your dog is no different than any human. Both can voluntarily raise their own hackles, puff out their chest or show their teeth. Dont believe me? Walk down my driveway one night. I'll act like your dog and you can decide whether or not you want to stick around OR you can replay the scenario five minutes later after you end up in an area with no recollection of how you got there because your body may just decide for you that it did not want to stick around long enough to find out what happened next.
> 
> You give an either/or scenario and ignore the dozens of other answers that directly refute your claims. I give you examples. You give unsubstantiated claims with zero evidence to back it up.
> 
> Evolution doesnt think. Some rocks know this, others apparently do not.
> Your designer must have sprinkled a little bit more fanaticism on some rocks more than others....just going from your article....


I gave you all that Madman, and all you have in return is that I shouldn't trust dogs....


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> I knew your "atheism" is really a problem with Christians.



This is a perfect example of another of your knowledge claims that shows precisely what you actually do not know.

1. I am not an atheist. I have explained that numerous times in here.
2. In here, it is Christians that I deal with by the largest of majority, and they are the ones telling me all about their in depth knowledge of a god that none of them have ever met, spoken to, or  have ever actually seen evidence of. Their knowledge of a god is as accurate as your knowledge of me...and I actually exist.
3. You try to play the poor martyred Christians card when in truth all I am doing is asking you some direct questions about the way YOUR claims operate . Since you cannot and do not provide any credible factual answers you play the religious race card and hope it covers your tracks. My family are Christians. My friends are Christians. The majority of the people who frequent my business are Christians. And the area I live in is overwhelmingly Christian. Regarding the opposing views I face in here with just you alone as one example, who should I be asking about this god you claim to know and worship and talk to and answer for if not a Christian? It always goes well for the questions you can fake your answers to and that only lasts to a point, but it always gets to a point where the questions eventually obliterate your ability to have any credible answers for and then you play the " you don't like Christians card". 
I like some Christians, I love some other Christians and can't stand some others and in each case it has nothing to do with them being a Christian. They just happen to be of a certain religion, or like a certain color of crayon, or follow a certain football team etc etc etc and all of those things are just in addition to what makes them likeable, loveable, or otherwise. The truth is that I hold them all to the same standard as I do everyone else and that is that if you make a claim back it up. Personal guesses, gut feelings or If it is not A or B then it HAS to be C only count if you can back them up.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I still don't understand how you formed your "morality by listening to the little prompts that were hardwired to my consciousness and subconscious by evolution and process them with my capacity to reason."



I have natural reactions to things, A crying baby, someone calling for help, the idea of having sex with my sister, the smell of cooking bacon, etc...  Instantly I'll have a reaction.   That's the little prompt.  I have the capacity to reason so I process the information given to me by the prompt and make a decision based on the circumstance.  I suppose the prompt is more like a reflex but you can call it an intuition.  Where does it come from.  I believe I've offered naturalistic explanations ad nauseum.  I believe that natural selection; adaptation, mutation, etc. can get you froma single celled organism to a motile organism to a thinking creature and I can defend why I believe it to be possible.  



Madman said:


> On the one hand you claim that evolution has wired in the survival of the fittest, and then on the other it has also hardwired in what you call tribal instincts, but nowhere have you explained where evolution has wired in some overriding program that tells you which one to react to.
> 
> If evolution wired survival into us, then you would always flee danger, yet we see more often then not there appears to be some overriding moral cause to "do what is right" even in the face of what evolution is taught to have overcome.



Not every soldier jumps on a grenade.  Not everyone rushes into a burning building.  People are wired differently.  Some people want to kill, torture and eat other people. How should one rightly account for those facts?   

I think I said this before, in fact I'm certain of it but I'll say it again in hopes that you will absorb it and acknowledge it and then you can argue against it:

Tribalism is advantageous for the individual and the species as a whole.  It's good that some people have traits that make them highly selfless and that some have traits that make them highly selfish.  An example can be seen in the the mating and egg protecting patterns of our beloved bluegill.  It's a pretty compelling argument against an objective morality.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I just keep finding tasty morsels that you write but I do not think you believe.
> 
> There is no one who will accept being lied to, or stolen from , or murdered.
> 
> Everyone has the same moral base, have you never heard two people arguing?  They are arguing because they both believe they are standing on the moral high ground.
> 
> That is one reason I believe there is an arbiter of truth/morals.



Have you ever heard a Palestinian arguing with an Israeli?  Do they have the same moral base?


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever heard a Palestinian arguing with an Israeli?  Do they have the same moral base?



yes I have heard them argue and yes they have the same moral base.

Neither of them wants to be the victim of what they believe to be theft or murder, they don't want to be lied too, etc.  That is the reason for the argument, they are both standing on what they believe to be the higher moral ground.

Have you ever met a prisoner?  Everyone in prison has a moral foundation, even the burglar believes it is wrong for someone to steal from HIM.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Not every soldier jumps on a grenade.  Not everyone rushes into a burning building.  People are wired differently.  Some people want to kill, torture and eat other people. How should one rightly account for those facts?



No every soldier does not jump on a grenade and not everyone runs into a burning building, and no one exalts, cowardice and no one exalts lying.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> yes I have heard them argue and yes they have the same moral base.
> 
> Neither of them wants to be the victim of what they believe to be theft or murder, they don't want to be lied too, etc.  That is the reason for the argument, they are both standing on what they believe to be the higher moral ground.
> 
> Have you ever met a prisoner?  Everyone in prison has a moral foundation, even the burglar believes it is wrong for someone to steal from HIM.



They believe they were gifted a certain piece of dirt by their opposing gods.  It's evidence that their religions were man made, and it's more evidence for subjective morality than objective.

Some cultures enjoy a deception when conducting business, in fact they will take it as an affront if you don't try to haggle.  If you lied to them well and end up making a good deal for yourself you are admired for your business acumen.  Your examples show how influenced you are by your culture; a very fluid basis for morality.

The impulse to possess materials and not let anyone take them from you is linked to survival.  It can be tempered with conscious effort.  Sharing is also an evolved trait.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> No every soldier does not jump on a grenade and not everyone runs into a burning building, and no one exalts, cowardice and no one exalts lying.



Heroism is exalted but no one blames the people that run away, moved more by self preservation than tribalism, survival of the species, high empathy.  

Would you call bluffing in poker a form of lying?  How about juking, misdirection, or pump faking in sports?  The ability to be deceptive is seen as evidence of cleverness in certain circumstances.  You keep trying to demonstrate an objective moral code when there is none.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> They believe they were gifted a certain piece of dirt by their opposing gods.



I missed the part where Allah gave Ishmael land.  I would have to go back and look but I believe the Koran states that God gave Israel the land. 



ambush80 said:


> Some cultures enjoy a deception when conducting business, in fact they will take it as an affront if you don't try to haggle.  If you lied to them well and end up making a good deal for yourself you are admired for tour business acumen.  Your examples show how influenced by your culture; a very fluid basis for morality.



Not if you lied to them only if they lied to you.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Heroism is exalted but no one blames the people that run away, moved more by self preservation than tribalism, survival of the species, high empathy.



You are using the exception to make the rule, cowardice is rebuffed in all societies in general.

Your Survival of the species, still does not explain what has been presented, if for no other reason then it conflicts with your self preservation.  

Understanding how another feels, is an evolutionary process?

I believe "Evolution" is the god of the non-believer.
It is the crutch so easily leaned upon.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> You are using the exception to make the rule, cowardice is rebuffed in all societies in general.
> 
> Your Survival of the species, still does not explain what has been presented, if for no other reason then it conflicts with your self preservation.
> 
> Understanding how another feels, is an evolutionary process?
> 
> I believe "Evolution" is the god of the non-believer.
> It is the crutch so easily leaned upon.



I'm not going to re-state what I've said several times now about the relationship between self preservation and preservation of the species.  Tell you what, why don't you paraphrase what you think my argument is in your own words, then we can discuss it.

Yes.  A case for the roots of empathy can be traced to our ancestors and demonstrated by our closest relatives.

Evolution offers an explanation of how creatures evolved. It explains a natural process.  It's not a God.  It's not an entity.  Some believers in God believe that the process described by evolution to be a good explanation for what we have observed scientifically.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Then that should stop the discussion right there, but you know the statment is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> interesting video.  My imagination is pretty good also.
> at around 19:20 he reveals the truth of what he believes." Molecules appear out of nothing".
> 
> Are rocks not inert matter?
> 
> 
> 
> No I came to my belief system because of what I witness in the world.
> God is visible through His creation and I was without excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as far as she knows she evolved from a rock, I mean inert material?
> 
> 
> Do you see evidence of a dragon that you can show her?
> What if you told my son "I read a book by a man that believes, something came from nothing?"  and I believe it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think it would take for him to throw away all that he believes and all that he has been trained as an electrical engineer and understands about reality and all that he has observed and accept what you said to be true?




I really want to respond to all this.   I'll try this evening.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Then that should stop the discussion right there, but you know the statement is not true.



I can talk about infinity as a philosophical proposition.  It doesn't get me anywhere near to certainty about it.  I can't even begin to comprehend infinity as a mathematical concept.  There are people who spend all their time doing just that and I admire them for their efforts.  

What do you know of infinity and where do you know about it from?  Is it a good source?  



Madman said:


> interesting video.  My imagination is pretty good also.
> at around 19:20 he reveals the truth of what he believes." Molecules appear out of nothing".
> 
> Are rocks not inert matter?



If you google "Matter from nothing" you get alot of links.  I've looked at alot of them.  They are all saying "This is how it could have happened".  They use alot of math and a lot of physics.  I don't necessarily understand the entirety of what they claim to have concluded or how they got there, but on a basic level I understand the methods that they employed to get there.  Those methods seem incredibly sound to me.   

Allow me to attempt to describe what I believe are your methods are for determining how all the matter got here.  You believe that there must be a God because the Universe appears to you to have been designed.  Something designed implies a designer.  You believed that this designing creature is eternal and infinite and at some point in infinity it willed matter into existence.  Is that about right?

You know who this designer is and what He thinks because of a book.  I would point out that the same book reveals how the Creator feels about masturbation and how to cure leprosy with the blood of dead birds.  An odd book, indeed.  I find it hard to use it as a guide to inform me about natural phenomena. As a matter of fact, I feel compelled to discount any claims it makes about knowledge of natural phenomena.  There's just so much that flies in the face of what we understand to be true. 

Yes. Rocks are inert matter but they're already organized in a way that they would not likely result in life.  A oily glob of material in a pool full of the building blocks of RNA is also inert but it can be theorized how such matter might give rise to a cell and life.  I know you know the difference.  Remember, I'm just saying that's a possibility.  The reasons that people believe that such a thing could happen is that they have built their theories on similar observable phenomena.  If you don't believe that it's a possibility you might say why.   

Again, let me see if I can state your position clearly.  God willed life into existence and the reason you believe this is because it couldn't have been any other way.  No way, no how. 

As an aside,  You've never answered why you believe it must have been a creature that started everything. Why_ necessarily_ a being?





Madman said:


> No I came to my belief system because of what I witness in the world.
> God is visible through His creation and I was without excuse.



Tell me some of these undeniable signs of creation.  Remember the word "undeniable" is pivotal here, it can't _possibly_ be anything else.  It should be so obvious that there should be no uncertainty.  

Here's some interesting info.  Pick one of them and we can discuss it until we are both satisfied:

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm




Madman said:


> But as far as she knows she evolved from a rock, I mean inert material?



I think I covered the difference between some kinds of inert materials and others.  If I didn't, tell me why.  If I did, don't use the word "rock" anymore in this context.




Madman said:


> Do you see evidence of a dragon that you can show her?



Historicity.  Lots of dragons in history, across cultures and time periods.  More importantly, faith.  If I believe it by faith, then if she will believe it, it's because she trusts me with no other evidence necessary than my word or because she wants to believe it as well.  She will have adopted my faith without examining it on her own.  I think I did well to instill in her the value of requiring better evidence for extraordinary claims.  I think it will serve her well.



Madman said:


> What if you told my son "I read a book by a man that believes, something came from nothing?"  and I believe it is true.



Your son and my daughter can Google "Matter from nothing".  They can learn to do the math and learn to understand the chain of physics principles that those ideas arose from.  We have a Bible and a Koran and The Upanishads as well as some Native American Mythology handy if they want to cross reference.  Maybe they will try their hand at calculating infinity.  That would please me.  And in doing so, maybe they will understand "In the beginning..." in a different, more informed way than their predecessors.  That would also please me.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, I don't think it's true, I think it's possible.  Please take this to heart going forward.  Please.

By the way, do you take offense at me calling Native American traditional wisdoms "mythology"?



Madman said:


> What do you think it would take for him to throw away all that he believes and all that he has been trained as an electrical engineer and understands about reality and all that he has observed and accept what you said to be true?



Again, again, again, again....I never said it was true.    Considering the plausibility/implausibility of something like this is really the only rational position to take.

I would love to hear how his understanding of electrical engineering reinforces WITHOUT A DOUBT his faith based beliefs.  What are these things that he has observed and understands that necessarily point to a creator.

Look, if a brain surgeon can believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, then that indicates to me that a degree in a science based field is no insurance against false belief.

I'd love to discuss this with you point by point.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I can talk about infinity as a philosophical proposition.  It doesn't get me anywhere near to certainty about it.  I can't even begin to comprehend infinity as a mathematical concept.  There are people who spend all their time doing just that and I admire them for their efforts.
> 
> What do you know of infinity and where do you know about it from?  Is it a good source?
> 
> 
> 
> If you google "Matter from nothing" you get alot of links.  I've looked at alot of them.  They are all saying "This is how it could have happened".  They use alot of math and a lot of physics.  I don't necessarily understand the entirety of what they claim to have concluded or how they got there, but on a basic level I understand the methods that they employed to get there.  Those methods seem incredibly sound to me.
> 
> Allow me to attempt to describe what I believe are your methods are for determining how all the matter got here.  You believe that there must be a God because the Universe appears to you to have been designed.  Something designed implies a designer.  You believed that this designing creature is eternal and infinite and at some point in infinity it willed matter into existence.  Is that about right?
> 
> You know who this designer is and what He thinks because of a book.  I would point out that the same book reveals how the Creator feels about masturbation and how to cure leprosy with the blood of dead birds.  An odd book, indeed.  I find it hard to use it as a guide to inform me about natural phenomena. As a matter of fact, I feel compelled to discount any claims it makes about knowledge of natural phenomena.  There's just so much that flies in the face of what we understand to be true.
> 
> Yes. Rocks are inert matter but they're already organized in a way that they would not likely result in life.  A oily glob of material in a pool full of the building blocks of RNA is also inert but it can be theorized how such matter might give rise to a cell and life.  I know you know the difference.  Remember, I'm just saying that's a possibility.  The reasons that people believe that such a thing could happen is that they have built their theories on similar observable phenomena.  If you don't believe that it's a possibility you might say why.
> 
> Again, let me see if I can state your position clearly.  God willed life into existence and the reason you believe this is because it couldn't have been any other way.  No way, no how.
> 
> As an aside,  You've never answered why you believe it must have been a creature that started everything. Why_ necessarily_ a being?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me some of these undeniable signs of creation.  Remember the word "undeniable" is pivotal here, it can't _possibly_ be anything else.  It should be so obvious that there should be no uncertainty.
> 
> Here's some interesting info.  Pick one of them and we can discuss it until we are both satisfied:
> 
> http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I covered the difference between some kinds of inert materials and others.  If I didn't, tell me why.  If I did, don't use the word "rock" anymore in this context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historicity.  Lots of dragons in history, across cultures and time periods.  More importantly, faith.  If I believe it by faith, then if she will believe it, it's because she trusts me with no other evidence necessary than my word or because she wants to believe it as well.  She will have adopted my faith without examining it on her own.  I think I did well to instill in her the value of requiring better evidence for extraordinary claims.  I think it will serve her well.
> 
> 
> 
> Your son and my daughter can Google "Matter from nothing".  They can learn to do the math and learn to understand the chain of physics principles that those ideas arose from.  We have a Bible and a Koran and The Upanishads as well as some Native American Mythology handy if they want to cross reference.  Maybe they will try their hand at calculating infinity.  That would please me.  And in doing so, maybe they will understand "In the beginning..." in a different, more informed way than their predecessors.  That would also please me.
> 
> Again, and I can't stress this enough, I don't think it's true, I think it's possible.  Please take this to heart going forward.  Please.
> 
> By the way, do you take offense at me calling Native American traditional wisdoms "mythology"?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, again, again, again....I never said it was true.    Considering the plausibility/implausibility of something like this is really the only rational position to take.
> 
> I would love to hear how his understanding of electrical engineering reinforces WITHOUT A DOUBT his faith based beliefs.  What are these things that he has observed and understands that necessarily point to a creator.
> 
> Look, if a brain surgeon can believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, then that indicates to me that a degree in a science based field is no insurance against false belief.
> 
> I'd love to discuss this with you point by point.


Kudos ambush.


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> Kudos ambush.



Yep. Me too. 
 Ambush, I know you enjoy this, but at what point do you throw up your hands and walk away?  Seems like the same things are said over and over and over here.  Then along stumbles another fervent convert to piously shout that carbon dating is ob da Debil.  You have more stamina than me, my friend.


----------



## ambush80

drippin' rock said:


> Yep. Me too.
> Ambush, I know you enjoy this, but at what point do you throw up your hands and walk away?  Seems like the same things are said over and over and over here.  Then along stumbles another fervent convert to piously shout that carbon dating is ob da Debil.  You have more stamina than me, my friend.




As long as someone wants to pitch, I'll bat.  I can be convinced.  I can change my mind.  Someone might come up with an apologist argument that I haven't heard yet.  I imagine as religion becomes more secular that the kinds of reasons for belief that might make sense to me will become more common.  Some of the guys here are awesome to discuss with.  They don't get emotional and they regard reason and rationality highly.

In _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion_ by Jonathan Haidt, he makes a strong argument for the utility of religions and religious thoughts.  I can imagine a "religion" of sorts that has the best parts and leaves the nonsense and divisive parts in the past.  Even the very vocal atheist Sam Harris believes in the utility of examining a "spiritual" life.  He wrote about it in _Waking Up_.  I put spiritual in quotes because for now it's the only word that describes a particular state of consciousness that seems unique to being human. (That might be wrong.  Watching my dog roll in the grass on a sunny day makes me think she knows whats up).  Unfortunately, the word drags some archaic baggage around with it.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> As long as someone wants to pitch, I'll bat.  I can be convinced.  I can change my mind.  Someone might come up with an apologist argument that I haven't heard yet.  I imagine as religion becomes more secular that the kinds of reasons for belief that might make sense to me will become more common.  Some of the guys here are awesome to discuss with.  They don't get emotional and they regard reason and rationality highly.
> 
> In _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion_ by Jonathan Haidt, he makes a strong argument for the utility of religions and religious thoughts.  I can imagine a "religion" of sorts that has the best parts and leaves the nonsense and divisive parts in the past.  Even the very vocal atheist Sam Harris believes in the utility of examining a "spiritual" life.  He wrote about it in _Waking Up_.  I put spiritual in quotes because for now it's the only word that describes a particular state of consciousness that seems unique to being human. (That might be wrong.  Watching my dog roll in the grass on a sunny day makes me think she knows whats up).  Unfortunately, the word drags some archaic baggage around with it.



I know you and the others here are probably doing the best that you are capable of doing to understand the "spiritual" side of life with the faculties available to you.(the mind and reasoning etc.) And I might add, are often brilliant in your doing so.
I have to remind you,even though you have heard this with your ears probably a blue gillion times, that until the Holy Spirit comes to take up residence inside you, the spiritual realm is unreasonable to you,unthinkable,and unbelievable.
I'm not telling you to do anything different because of this.I'm only declaring to you "what's up",from a sincere(I trust) motive of a person who has this witness, to one who seemingly does not....yet.(I hope)

My .02 for the day.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I know you and the others here are probably doing the best that you are capable of doing to understand the "spiritual" side of life with the faculties available to you.(the mind and reasoning etc.) And I might add, are often brilliant in your doing so.
> I have to remind you,even though you have heard this with your ears probably a blue gillion times, that until the Holy Spirit comes to take up residence inside you, the spiritual realm is unreasonable to you,unthinkable,and unbelievable.
> I'm not telling you to do anything different because of this.I'm only declaring to you "what's up",from a sincere(I trust) motive of a person who has this witness, to one who seemingly does not....yet.(I hope)
> 
> My .02 for the day.



I understand your belief.  I really do.  I will wholeheartedly admit that it would take a supernatural occurrence for me to believe in the supernatural.  

Allow me if you will to state why I think what you believe is dangerous.  You believe that you have been gifted with Divine Providence.  You believe that God is moving your hands and guiding your life. He speaks directly to you and tells you what to do.  You know what you know with all your being. You cannot be reasoned with. 

Suicide bombers feel the same way.  

Is that a true statement or a false one?  Don't say "Well, they believe in the wrong God or Satan is the one they hear".  They believe with all their being, as do you, that they are righteous and that they are NOT mistaken.  

It's powerful stuff and it taints everything you do.


----------



## ambush80

Welder,

Click on the link and go to #43 _What Do Jihadists Really Want _ and Jump to 36:40 up to 37:55.  Listen for a little over a minute and see if you recognize anything.

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg

Any thoughts?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I know you and the others here are probably doing the best that you are capable of doing to understand the "spiritual" side of life with the faculties available to you.(the mind and reasoning etc.) And I might add, are often brilliant in your doing so.
> I have to remind you,even though you have heard this with your ears probably a blue gillion times, that until the Holy Spirit comes to take up residence inside you, the spiritual realm is unreasonable to you,unthinkable,and unbelievable.
> I'm not telling you to do anything different because of this.I'm only declaring to you "what's up",from a sincere(I trust) motive of a person who has this witness, to one who seemingly does not....yet.(I hope)
> 
> My .02 for the day.


Although you believe there is a specific "order" in which this happens -
1. You are given this gift of spirituality
2. Then it all makes sense, is reasonable, tthinkable and believable it also equally possible the order is reversed.
In other words were people who believe in Bigfoot given a gift?
People who believe in ghosts given a gift?
Do people who once believed a god or gods existed  but now dont were given a gift but then had it taken away?
How about Satan worshippers? Given a gft?
Some people believe things that some people dont. Some people used to believe things that they dont any more.
They only "gift" that they were given is information, feelings,  etc that sways them one way or the other.
Its interesting to me that pride, arrogence etc is a sin while at the same time believing "Im special I was given a gift that you werent therefor I can understand and you cant".


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Although you believe there is a specific "order" in which this happens -
> 1. You are given this gift of spirituality
> 2. Then it all makes sense, is reasonable, tthinkable and believable it also equally possible the order is reversed.
> In other words were people who believe in Bigfoot given a gift?
> People who believe in ghosts given a gift?
> Do people who once believed a god or gods existed  but now dont were given a gift but then had it taken away?
> How about Satan worshippers? Given a gft?
> Some people believe things that some people dont. Some people used to believe things that they dont any more.
> They only "gift" that they were given is information, feelings,  etc that sways them one way or the other.
> Its interesting to me that pride, arrogence etc is a sin while at the same time believing "Im special I was given a gift that you werent therefor I can understand and you cant".



Walt,  See my post above yours with the link.  In the podcast he says the same thing you do.

Also,  where does Welder's viewpoint leave all those people who say "Seek earnestly with all your heart for the Lord and he will reveal himself to you"?

Welder, don't be afraid to say that those people are just plain reading the Bible wrong or that they are being misled by Satan if that's what you believe.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> Click on the link and go to #43 _What Do Jihadists Really Want _ and Jump to 36:40 up to 37:55.  Listen for a little over a minute and see if you recognize anything.
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg
> 
> Any thoughts?



It won't work on my mobile device.
I will have to look tonight.

But, let me say that the difference is those with the indwelling Holy Spirit are not led by that Spirit to do those horrible acts.
If and when your supernatural occurrance happens,you will see why I say that.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> It won't work on my mobile device.
> I will have to look tonight.
> 
> But, let me say that the difference is those with the indwelling Holy Spirit are not led by that Spirit to do those horrible acts.
> If and when your supernatural occurrance happens,you will see why I say that.



You mean those led in the _right_ way.  Your way.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Walt,  See my post above yours with the link.  In the podcast he says the same thing you do.
> 
> Also,  where does Welder's viewpoint leave all those people who say "Seek earnestly with all your heart for the Lord and he will reveal himself to you"?
> 
> Welder, don't be afraid to say that those people are just plain reading the Bible wrong or that they are being misled by Satan if that's what you believe.


I will check the podcast out.
As for Welders (and others) viewpoint, its just one of the many contradictions. You cant believe both "seek earnestly with all your heart...." AND "you have to be given a gift".
Unless your positon is anybody who seeks with all their heart receives the gift.
Which then blows the whole prechosen, elect thing out of the water.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I will check the podcast out.
> As for Welders (and others) viewpoint, its just one of the many contradictions. You cant believe both "seek earnestly with all your heart...." AND "you have to be given a gift".
> Unless your positon is anybody who seeks with all their heart receives the gift.
> Which then blows the whole prechosen, elect thing out of the water.



This is my favorite Christian non sequitur (you'll love this, Welder.  My gift to you).   My mom told me that predestination is like standing in front of two doors, one for Belief in Christ and the other for Belief in anything else.  Above the doors is a sign that says "Choose".  If you walk through the Christ door and look backward you will see a sign that says "You have been chosen".

Now, my mom is an educated woman but prone to superstition.  Even so, I can't understand why she thinks that makes any sense.  Perhaps the ability to make sense of nonsense is the gift that Welder is talking about.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I will check the podcast out.
> As for Welders (and others) viewpoint, its just one of the many contradictions. You cant believe both "seek earnestly with all your heart...." AND "you have to be given a gift".
> Unless your positon is anybody who seeks with all their heart receives the gift.
> Which then blows the whole prechosen, elect thing out of the water.



Nope.Yall have it all twisted up into a mess in your own minds.

If you are an elect person,you had nothing to do with that.That was a done deal before you were born.
If you are elect,some time in your life,the Holy Spirit comes and indwells within you.
You then are influenced by the Spirit to do good things(fruits).
These fruits are not what elected you,they are only evidence of it.
Many people are able to feign these fruits but without the Spirit given faith,those "fruits" are false.

When the bible says "seek the Lord with all your heart",that is being told to people who have been enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> When the bible says "seek the Lord with all your heart",that is being told to people who have been enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit.



Why would Holy Spirit enabled folks have to be told to seek the Lord with all their heart?


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Why would Holy Spirit enabled folks have to be told to seek the Lord with all their heart?



Because they are not robots.They still are prone to slip and fall.They need help.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Why would Holy Spirit enabled folks have to be told to seek the Lord with all their heart?



'Cause welder makes it up as he goes  and in ways that only he has himself convinced it all makes sense. Logic and common sense cannot figure in to his process because they screw things up.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Nope.Yall have it all twisted up into a mess in your own minds.
> 
> If you are an elect person,you had nothing to do with that.That was a done deal before you were born.
> If you are elect,some time in your life,the Holy Spirit comes and indwells within you.
> You then are influenced by the Spirit to do good things(fruits).
> These fruits are not what elected you,they are only evidence of it.
> Many people are able to feign these fruits but without the Spirit given faith,those "fruits" are false.
> 
> When the bible says "seek the Lord with all your heart",that is being told to people who have been enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit.


Read what you wrote.
Now you are saying the elect are only given the ability to seek.
Seeking doesnt gaurantee finding. 
That contradicts your many posts stating what the elect are.
I will agree someone has their beliefs twisted up into a mess.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Because they are not robots.They still are prone to slip and fall.They need help.



"Because they are not robots..."
According to you their path was chosen before they were born, they are acting exactly as planned. Robots indeed.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> 'Cause welder makes it up as he goes  and in ways that only he has himself convinced it all makes sense. Logic and common sense cannot figure in to his process because they screw things up.



Bullet! Whatsup!

Really though,all sarcasm aside.
I do agree about the logic part.

What do you find to be the most illogical about it?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Read what you wrote.
> Now you are saying the elect are only given the ability to seek.
> Seeking doesnt gaurantee finding.
> That contradicts your many posts stating what the elect are.
> I will agree someone has their beliefs twisted up into a mess.



If you are seeking,its because you are already found.
You are just seeking to be closer.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> "Because they are not robots..."
> According to you their path was chosen before they were born, they are acting exactly as planned. Robots indeed.



Their destiny is already planned.(the ending)
They can go the hard way,or the better way,but they will get to the same place regardless.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Nope.Yall have it all twisted up into a mess in your own minds.
> 
> If you are an elect person,you had nothing to do with that.That was a done deal before you were born.
> If you are elect,some time in your life,the Holy Spirit comes and indwells within you.
> You then are influenced by the Spirit to do good things(fruits).
> These fruits are not what elected you,they are only evidence of it.
> Many people are able to feign these fruits but without the Spirit given faith,those "fruits" are false.
> 
> When the bible says "seek the Lord with all your heart",that is being told to people who have been enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit.





welderguy said:


> Because they are not robots.They still are prone to slip and fall.They need help.





welderguy said:


> Bullet! Whatsup!
> 
> Really though,all sarcasm aside.
> I do agree about the logic part.
> 
> What do you find to be the most illogical about it?





welderguy said:


> If you are seeking,its because you are already found.
> You are just seeking to be closer.



This is why I keep participating in the discussions.  It's truly like talking to a Flat Earther.

What else could be more important?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> This is why I keep participating in the discussions.  It's truly like talking to a Flat Earther.
> 
> What else could be more important?



WAIT !!!
The earth is flat!?!???


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> If you are seeking,its because you are already found.
> You are just seeking to be closer.


Its amazing what you come up with to pound a square peg into a round hole.
As an aside its dumbfounding to me how you dismiss any and all those who may commit their entire lives to your god but dont fit into your customized views of how it all "works".
Its arrogance at its highest order considering you cant prove squat.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Bullet! Whatsup!
> 
> Really though,all sarcasm aside.
> I do agree about the logic part.
> 
> What do you find to be the most illogical about it?


 An invisible being that uses another invisible ghost to do his work. Both of which nobody has ever seen, heard from, conversed with or have ever made their intentions or actions clear. And to top it off YOU (and many others)
 not only have never had any better insight into these fabricated beings but you elect yourself as a spokesperson for the No Shows as to how it all works while the very next believer (the two of you each thinking the other is less elected than the first) is telling you how you are wrong.
Is it a center ring circus act and the spotlight is on you.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> An invisible being that uses another invisible ghost to do his work. Both of which nobody has ever seen, heard from, conversed with or have ever made their intentions or actions clear. And to top it off YOU (and many others)
> not only have never had any better insight into these fabricated beings but you elect yourself as a spokesperson for the No Shows as to how it all works while the very next believer (the two of you each thinking the other is less elected than the first) is telling you how you are wrong.
> Is it a center ring circus act and the spotlight is on you.




That's what's so dangerous about belief.  You don't have to make a cogent argument.  All you have to do is say "God told me so".  That kind of person cannot be reasoned with (but it's interesting to "reason" along with them).


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Its amazing what you come up with to pound a square peg into a round hole.
> As an aside its dumbfounding to me how you dismiss any and all those who may commit their entire lives to your god but dont fit into your customized views of how it all "works".
> Its arrogance at its highest order considering you cant prove squat.



That's why all those threads in the Spiritual Discussion and Study get locked down and so many people get banded in there.  They're all right because God told them so.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> That's what's so dangerous about belief.  You don't have to make a cogent argument.  All you have to do is say "God told me so".  That kind of person cannot be reasoned with (but it's interesting to "reason" along with them).


Yep.
And yet if i mentioned a god, Their god, TOLD me to be the way I am they wouldnt believe it. They do not believe any other religions god exists, and they cannot agree any specifics of the christian god among themselves, yet each individual thinks they have a better grasp than the next.
I honesty love the exercise in psychology.


----------



## welderguy

Soooo....
What each one of you are saying is that it's all foolishness to you.Right?

I already knew that.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Soooo....
> What each one of you are saying is that it's all foolishness to you.Right?
> 
> I already knew that.



No, we wanted to see your reply so that we could  possibly be challenged by an intelligent counter argument. 
Or. 
Be entertained by a reply that is totally void of any factual statements and avoids the direct and specific points made against your statements.

Door #2 it is.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Soooo....
> What each one of you are saying is that it's all foolishness to you.Right?
> 
> I already knew that.


I dont believe a belief in God is "foolish".
The vast majority of the arguments, that are backed up by nothing and claimed to be true/fact are.


----------



## ambush80

Welder,  

Is it possible that Jeffrey Dahmer was one of the elect?  Is it possible that while he was in prison being raped to death with a broom handle that as he drew his last breath, he had the quickening of the spirit that he was always meant to have and was called home to Heaven?

I'm not asking if you know, just if you think that it's possible.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> Is it possible that Jeffrey Dahmer was one of the elect?  Is it possible that while he was in prison being raped to death with a broom handle that as he drew his last breath, he had the quickening of the spirit that he was always meant to have and was called home to Heaven?
> 
> I'm not asking if you know, just if you think that it's possible.



Yes.it sure is possible.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I dont believe a belief in God is "foolish".
> The vast majority of the arguments, that are backed up by nothing and claimed to be true/fact are.



I feel that way about your claim of it being nothing.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> No, we wanted to see your reply so that we could  possibly be challenged by an intelligent counter argument.
> Or.
> Be entertained by a reply that is totally void of any factual statements and avoids the direct and specific points made against your statements.
> 
> Door #2 it is.



In other words you wanted your ears tickled.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Yes.it sure is possible.



That's fantastic.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> That's fantastic.



What's even more fantastic is its a possibility for you too.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> What's even more fantastic is its a possibility for you too.



I'm not using the word fantastic the way you think I am.

But if you're right, then I have nothing to worry about, no reason to sweat about my salvation, no reason to try to figure anything out on my own, no reason to read the Bible, no reason to repent or pray.  If I was born holding the right ticket, I will have eternal pleasure regardless of how many children I kill, eat and rape (in that order) today.


A washing over of calm and serenity has just overcome me.  I think I'll go plan dinner.  Thank you.  Thank you, Welder for putting my mind at ease.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I'm not using the word fantastic the way you think I am.
> 
> But if you're right, then I have nothing to worry about, no reason to sweat about my salvation, no reason to try to figure anything out on my own, no reason to read the Bible, no reason to repent or pray.  If I was born holding the right ticket, I will have eternal pleasure regardless of how many children I kill, eat and rape (in that order) today.
> 
> 
> A washing over of calm and serenity has just overcome me.  I think I'll go plan dinner.  Thank you.  Thank you, Welder for putting my mind at ease.



Ha. possibility and certainty are two different things my strange little friend.
Was Jeffrey Dahmer called by the Holy Spirit? Don't know.
Was the thief on the cross called by the Holy Spirit? Yes,for certain.
Have you been called by the Holy Spirit? If you have,then you know.

If you have,you'll most likely change your dinner plans.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Ha. possibility and certainty are two different things my strange little friend.
> Was Jeffrey Dahmer called by the Holy Spirit? Don't know.
> Was the thief on the cross called by the Holy Spirit? Yes,for certain.
> Have you been called by the Holy Spirit? If you have,then you know.
> 
> If you have,you'll most likely change your dinner plans.



You cannot be certain there was a thief on a cross outside of a fable....
Tall claims require tall evidence.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You cannot be certain there was a thief on a cross outside of a fable....
> Tall claims require tall evidence.



The same One who inspired the writing of the account of the thief is the same One who lives inside me.So what more evidence do I need?
You,on the other hand,I can't help you there.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Ha. possibility and certainty are two different things my strange little friend.
> Was Jeffrey Dahmer called by the Holy Spirit? Don't know.
> Was the thief on the cross called by the Holy Spirit? Yes,for certain.
> Have you been called by the Holy Spirit? If you have,then you know.
> 
> If you have,you'll most likely change your dinner plans.


I remember the thief saying that Joshua said there was no god. That is certain.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Ha. possibility and certainty are two different things my strange little friend.
> Was Jeffrey Dahmer called by the Holy Spirit? Don't know.
> Was the thief on the cross called by the Holy Spirit? Yes,for certain.
> Have you been called by the Holy Spirit? If you have,then you know.
> 
> If you have,you'll most likely change your dinner plans.



None of my concern.  If my name is in the book of life, it's time to enjoy a nice Chianti, some fava beans and the company of my neighbor's son.  The quickening will come or it won't, right?  No way for me to know if and when anyway.  I'm just a tool; a vessel cast by The Potter or assembled like a robot.


----------



## ambush80

Welder,

According to you, the only thing I know for certain is that I don't know if I'm elect or not.  Even then I don't know when the quickening might come.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> The same One who inspired the writing of the account of the thief is the same One who lives inside me.So what more evidence do I need?
> You,on the other hand,I can't help you there.



And no one can reason with you, right?

What you know exceeds the boundaries of reason, is that correct?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> None of my concern.  If my name is in the book of life, it's time to enjoy a nice Chianti, some fava beans and the company of my neighbor's son.  The quickening will come or it won't, right?  No way for me to know if and when anyway.  I'm just a tool; a vessel cast by The Potter or assembled like a robot.



There's a very important key that you are missing here.
"The goodness of God leads you to repentance"

When you are quickened,you are transformed.There is something in you that wars against the sinful temptations.

Part of you will still want to do evil,but another part says theres something much better.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> There's a very important key that you are missing here.
> "The goodness of God leads you to repentance"
> 
> When you are quickened,you are transformed.There is something in you that wars against the sinful temptations.
> 
> Part of you will still want to do evil,but another part says theres something much better.


If you need a belief in God to motivate you to do good instead of evil its probably good for all of us that you believe in God.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> There's a very important key that you are missing here.
> "The goodness of God leads you to repentance"
> 
> When you are quickened,you are transformed.There is something in you that wars against the sinful temptations.
> 
> Part of you will still want to do evil,but another part says theres something much better.


That is more proof that you just make things up as you go along.
If you need a god in order to be good then you have bigger problems.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> If you need a belief in God to motivate you to do good instead of evil its probably good for all of us that you believe in God.



Ha Walt!! I should have read down one more post before i replied!!


----------



## welderguy

Walt and bullet,
I know yall don't really understand it,and you will turn it into something its not, but I'm honestly saying that without Jesus' righteousness imputed on my behalf,I am rotten to the core.There would be NO goodness in me aside from Him.
I shutter to think of what I am capable of without the love of Christ.

"For the love of Christ constraineth me"


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Walt and bullet,
> I know yall don't really understand it,and you will turn it into something its not, but I'm honestly saying that without Jesus' righteousness imputed on my behalf,I am rotten to the core.There would be NO goodness in me aside from Him.
> I shutter to think of what I am capable of without the love of Christ.
> 
> "For the love of Christ constraineth me"


By your standards id be getting cannonized this weekend instead of mother theresa and  jesus is not a factor. 
Do not take our disagreement for not understanding. I/we fully understand, we just disagree because the facts do not support your side.


----------



## ambush80

Welder,
Please answer this:



ambush80 said:


> And no one can reason with you, right?
> 
> What you know exceeds the boundaries of reason, is that correct?





welderguy said:


> There's a very important key that you are missing here.
> "The goodness of God leads you to repentance"
> 
> When you are quickened,you are transformed.There is something in you that wars against the sinful temptations.
> 
> Part of you will still want to do evil,but another part says theres something much better.



I'm not missing anything.  

I don't know if I'm elect.  If I am elect, I don't know when the quickening will happen.  I might get quickened in prison as I'm being raped to death like Jeffrey Dahmer.

In the mean time, I get to hang out with you.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> Please answer this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not missing anything.
> 
> I don't know if I'm elect.  If I am elect, I don't know when the quickening will happen.  I might get quickened in prison as I'm being raped to death like Jeffrey Dahmer.
> 
> In the mean time, I get to hang out with you.



Sure,I can be reasoned with...by reasonable men.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> If you need a belief in God to motivate you to do good instead of evil its probably good for all of us that you believe in God.



Amen. 
Like I have said before, some folks NEED religion.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> By your standards id be getting cannonized this weekend instead of mother theresa and  jesus is not a factor.
> Do not take our disagreement for not understanding. I/we fully understand, we just disagree because the facts do not support your side.



I think if you could be completely honest about yourself(which would involve being completely stripped of your pride),then you would see my side a little clearer.
You are not as good as you think you are.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt and bullet,
> I know yall don't really understand it,and you will turn it into something its not, but I'm honestly saying that without Jesus' righteousness imputed on my behalf,I am rotten to the core.There would be NO goodness in me aside from Him.
> I shutter to think of what I am capable of without the love of Christ.
> 
> "For the love of Christ constraineth me"



Ohhhhh now I get it. Dang that was complicated.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Amen.
> Like I have said before, some folks NEED religion.



And people that are not sick don't need a physician.


----------



## Baroque Brass

Please enlighten me...what does it mean to be quickened?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I think if you could be completely honest about yourself(which would involve being completely stripped of your pride),then you would see my side a little clearer.
> You are not as good as you think you are.


Again, this is more crystal clear evidence that you, and madman above, do not have a clue on what you claim...yet you go on and on like you know what you are talking about without anything but hopeful wishes and blind guesses. I do not think you are in any position to question anyone's honesty without a look into your own.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Again, this is more crystal clear evidence that you, and madman above, do not have a clue on what you claim...yet you go on and on like you know what you are talking about without anything but hopeful wishes and blind guesses. I do not think you are in any position to question anyone's honesty without a look into your own.



So you don't think Im being honest when I admit to you that Im rotten to the core without Jesus?
Why would anyone say that if they thought differently?
Its certainly not flattering.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> So you don't think Im being honest when I admit to you that Im rotten to the core without Jesus?
> Why would anyone say that if they thought differently?
> Its certainly not flattering.


I am positive that you have a condition that allows you read and comprehend only what you want to.  Lets call it selective comprehension.
I am of the opinion that you truly  believe that you are rotten to the core without Jesus. I also believe that you are able to get through life with Jesus as your crutch. I am glad that works for you. 
I also in no way shape or form think Jesus or any diety actually does a single thing for you. I am convinced that you do these things all by yourself and attribute your accomplishments to Jesus. So be it.

I am positive you are dishonest with yourself because you make your assessments and claims about me, who i am ,what i do, without actually knowing anything about me...only what you piece together from the limited information you read in here and then assemble in your own special way that makes sense to you. You take limited information and make final decisions. Since you do not and cannot have detailed information about me and yet you talk like you do, it is the perfect example of how you do the same with a 2000 year old dead guy that has even less evidence of existence than I do. And you think this character in print is inside you and guides you and makes you the person you are today. 
Good luck with that welder.
Your dishonesty lies within your claims about things that you have no knowledge of and act as if you do.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I am positive that you have a condition that allows you read and comprehend only what you want to.  Lets call it selective comprehension.
> I am of the opinion that you truly  believe that you are rotten to the core without Jesus. I also believe that you are able to get through life with Jesus as your crutch. I am glad that works for you.
> I also in no way shape or form think Jesus or any diety actually does a single thing for you. I am convinced that you do these things all by yourself and attribute your accomplishments to Jesus. So be it.
> 
> I am positive you are dishonest with yourself because you make your assessments and claims about me, who i am ,what i do, without actually knowing anything about me...only what you piece together from the limited information you read in here and then assemble in your own special way that makes sense to you. You take limited information and make final decisions. Since you do not and cannot have detailed information about me and yet you talk like you do, it is the perfect example of how you do the same with a 2000 year old dead guy that has even less evidence of existence than I do. And you think this character in print is inside you and guides you and makes you the person you are today.
> Good luck with that welder.
> Your dishonesty lies within your claims about things that you have no knowledge of and act as if you do.



I'm not at all surprised by your reaction.The most perfectly onest person who ever walked the face of the earth got the same reaction when He told them they were rotten to the core.It was true then and it is still true today.All men are rotten to the core without Jesus' imputed righteousness.I don't need to know you to be certain of that.If you are human,it applies to you.
You can say I'm dishonest all you want,and I'd have to agree(its part of my rottenness)but in the end it's you who is in denial of your own depravity,not me.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm not at all surprised by your reaction.The most perfectly onest person who ever walked the face of the earth got the same reaction when He told them they were rotten to the core.It was true then and it is still true today.All men are rotten to the core without Jesus' imputed righteousness.I don't need to know you to be certain of that.If you are human,it applies to you.
> You can say I'm dishonest all you want,and I'd have to agree(its part of my rottenness)but in the end it's you who is in denial of your own depravity,not me.


I hope your psychiatrist's name is Jesus.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm not at all surprised by your reaction.The most perfectly onest person who ever walked the face of the earth got the same reaction when He told them they were rotten to the core.It was true then and it is still true today.All men are rotten to the core without Jesus' imputed righteousness.I don't need to know you to be certain of that.If you are human,it applies to you.
> You can say I'm dishonest all you want,and I'd have to agree(its part of my rottenness)but in the end it's you who is in denial of your own depravity,not me.


Welder i would like to better understand what kind of a person Bullet is. Please give me 5 examples of his depravity. And im talking Bullet specifically.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Welder i would like to better understand what kind of a person Bullet is. Please give me 5 examples of his depravity. And im talking Bullet specifically.



Yes, i would like to know also!


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Welder i would like to better understand what kind of a person Bullet is. Please give me 5 examples of his depravity. And im talking Bullet specifically.



Walt,I think you've missed my point.Its not about what a "good person" you and I think we are.It's about our standing before a holy God; whether or not you have imputed righteousness by Jesus' blood.That is the ONLY thing that justifies anyone.
I'm sure bullet has lived a very moral life and is a good person by man's standards(no doubt better than mine), but that simply is not enough in God's eyes.You must be washed clean by His sacrifice or you are as filthy as any other that's unwashed.

I never meant any insult to you or bullet's moral conduct.I respect you guys as fellow human beings that are in the same struggles of life on this cursed planet.We are equals.None of us are any better than the other.Don't you agree?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Walt,I think you've missed my point.Its not about what a "good person" you and I think we are.It's about our standing before a holy God; whether or not you have imputed righteousness by Jesus' blood.That is the ONLY thing that justifies anyone.
> I'm sure bullet has lived a very moral life and is a good person by man's standards(no doubt better than mine), but that simply is not enough in God's eyes.You must be washed clean by His sacrifice or you are as filthy as any other that's unwashed.
> 
> I never meant any insult to you or bullet's moral conduct.I respect you guys as fellow human beings that are in the same struggles of life on this cursed planet.We are equals.None of us are any better than the other.Don't you agree?



So,
You are telling us what a god wants. You are telling us what is good and acceptable in the eyes of a god.

You are unable to name 5 things about me and we have talked for over a year,  how can you possibly know anything about a god let alone speak for this god and tell us what it wants?

It is you that has missed a point.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt,I think you've missed my point.Its not about what a "good person" you and I think we are.It's about our standing before a holy God; whether or not you have imputed righteousness by Jesus' blood.That is the ONLY thing that justifies anyone.
> I'm sure bullet has lived a very moral life and is a good person by man's standards(no doubt better than mine), but that simply is not enough in God's eyes.You must be washed clean by His sacrifice or you are as filthy as any other that's unwashed.
> 
> I never meant any insult to you or bullet's moral conduct.I respect you guys as fellow human beings that are in the same struggles of life on this cursed planet.We are equals.None of us are any better than the other.Don't you agree?


Blah blaah blah
You told Bullet he was in denial of his own depravity. To say that you must have knowledge of depraved acts that Bullet has done . I asked you for some examples.
Its a really simple and very direct question to your statement.
Its baffleing to me that the question doesnt enter your mind "how can I honestly say that to Bullet yet I cant even specify what those acts are".


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> So,
> You are telling us what a god wants. You are telling us what is good and acceptable in the eyes of a god.
> 
> You are unable to name 5 things about me and we have talked for over a year,  how can you possibly know anything about a god let alone speak for this god and tell us what it wants?
> 
> It is you that has missed a point.



How do you know? Do you know this God?
How do you know if I do or do not know this God?
See how this works both ways?

I don't need to name 5 things about you because I am not your judge.God is.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> How do you know? Do you know this God?
> How do you know if I do or do not know this God?
> See how this works both ways?
> 
> I don't need to name 5 things about you because I am not your judge.God is.



It works one way.

If you actually know this god and talk to this god and speak for this god you would have come up with 5 easy answers that we asked for. If you wanted to show off a little and really put me in my place you could have given me 5 answers that only I (and the god you talk to) know about and that would have been undeniable.
Instead you revert back to grade school playground tactics and avoid the real issues.

You make precise statements and precise claims and not once, ever in fact, have you actually backed even one of them up.  You are untruthful and know it but you are in so deep that you continue the charades.
I wish you the best. You need a god.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> It works one way.
> 
> If you actually know this god and talk to this god and speak for this god you would have come up with 5 easy answers that we asked for. If you wanted to show off a little and really put me in my place you could have given me 5 answers that only I (and the god you talk to) know about and that would have been undeniable.
> Instead you revert back to grade school playground tactics and avoid the real issues.
> 
> You make precise statements and precise claims and not once, ever in fact, have you actually backed even one of them up.  You are untruthful and know it but you are in so deep that you continue the charades.
> I wish you the best. You need a god.



I don't have to show you your depravity because you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

I still kinda like you though.Ironically

When you simmer down a little we'll talk some more.Ok


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I don't have to show you your depravity because you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
> 
> I still kinda like you though.Ironically
> 
> When you simmer down a little we'll talk some more.Ok



Welder it isnt about liking anyone.
It is all about backing up your claims.
Still you have done nothing.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder it isnt about liking anyone.
> It is all about backing up your claims.
> Still you have done nothing.



You're right It isn't about liking anyone.It's all about loving everyone.That's what Jesus said for us to do.
Paul said when we love our enemies,it's like heaping coals of fire on their head.
What are your thoughts on this?
Do you try to love your enemies?
If so,how do you go about doing that?
Or do you find the whole concept just foolish?


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> Walt,I think you've missed my point.Its not about what a "good person" you and I think we are.It's about our standing before a holy God; whether or not you have imputed righteousness by Jesus' blood.That is the ONLY thing that justifies anyone.
> I'm sure bullet has lived a very moral life and is a good person by man's standards(no doubt better than mine), but that simply is not enough in God's eyes.You must be washed clean by His sacrifice or you are as filthy as any other that's unwashed.
> 
> I never meant any insult to you or bullet's moral conduct.I respect you guys as fellow human beings that are in the same struggles of life on this cursed planet.We are equals.None of us are any better than the other.Don't you agree?




 I reject this philosophy with every fiber of my being. It goes directly against what I know in my heart to be true. I am good the way I am.  I am not filthy, I am not evil, I am not a sinner.  This planet is not cursed. Our existence is what WE make it. Our morality is what WE decide is best. I am not a groveler. There is no one to which I need to bow.


----------



## welderguy

drippin' rock said:


> I reject this philosophy with every fiber of my being. It goes directly against what I know in my heart to be true. I am good the way I am.  I am not filthy, I am not evil, I am not a sinner.  This planet is not cursed. Our existence is what WE make it. Our morality is what WE decide is best. I am not a groveler. There is no one to which I need to bow.



Sounds really similar to someone else:

"In the day you eat thereof, ye shall NOT surely die."

He was a liar.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You're right It isn't about liking anyone.It's all about loving everyone.That's what Jesus said for us to do.
> Paul said when we love our enemies,it's like heaping coals of fire on their head.
> What are your thoughts on this?
> Do you try to love your enemies?
> If so,how do you go about doing that?
> Or do you find the whole concept just foolish?


No I do not love my enemies.

Do you worship Jesus or Paul?

Why do you emulate Paul when his love and Jesus's love for their enemies mean two different things?


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> Sounds really similar to someone else:
> 
> "In the day you eat thereof, ye shall NOT surely die."
> 
> He was a liar.



Riiiiiight.  The talking snake.

 When I take this tone, I am accused of calling believers ignorant. Well..........

When grown men insist on treating fairy tales as true real life, I am unable to hold the conversation any longer.


----------



## welderguy

drippin' rock said:


> Riiiiiight.  The talking snake.
> 
> When I take this tone, I am accused of calling believers ignorant. Well..........
> 
> When grown men insist on treating fairy tales as true real life, I am unable to hold the conversation any longer.



Its just as well.
I'll catch up with you lightweights later.
Right now I gotta murder birds.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Sure,I can be reasoned with...by reasonable men.



In your opinion, can a man be reasonable and deny The Christ?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> In your opinion, can a man be reasonable and deny The Christ?



Not according to 2 Thess.3:2

2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Not according to 2 Thess.3:2
> 
> 2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.



Did you listen to the link I posted?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Did you listen to the link I posted?



Yes,I did.

Here's my honest take.
I believe every person has a built in need to believe in something(with their mind).It helps to explain those things in life that we cannot explain.There are some that think they reject ALL gods,saying that everything has a logical and reasonable explanation,we just haven't found it yet.These people have actually made man their god.
So there are really no true atheists by definition,in my estimation.

Now,I know the question that's burning in your mind is how do I know,from the list of ALL those gods,that the one I believe in is the true creator and cause of all things in existence? The answer is the gift of faith.(A proper concept of faith is essential here)
The faith that I'm talking about has nothing to do with the mind(reason,logic,IQ).It is an exclusive gift given only to God's people.(I realize if you don't have this gift,you have just vehemently turned me off,but hear me out)
This is one thing that makes THE difference and distinguishes the God over all the other gods.The other gods are believed with the mind.The one true God is also believed with the mind but more essentially,with faith.

Those who have been given faith know exactly what I'm talking about.But those void of this faith only think I'm talking about a wishful hope,which is nowhere near what I'm talking about.

This gift of faith that I speak of can be given to deaf people,mentally incapacitated people,unborn people,comatose people...there's no limitation.Because it's ministered by the Holy Spirit,and He goes wherever He wills.
(The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.John 3:8)


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Yes,I did.
> 
> Here's my honest take.
> I believe every person has a built in need to believe in something(with their mind).It helps to explain those things in life that we cannot explain.There are some that think they reject ALL gods,saying that everything has a logical and reasonable explanation,we just haven't found it yet.These people have actually made man their god.
> So there are really no true atheists by definition,in my estimation.
> 
> Now,I know the question that's burning in your mind is how do I know,from the list of ALL those gods,that the one I believe in is the true creator and cause of all things in existence? The answer is the gift of faith.(A proper concept of faith is essential here)
> The faith that I'm talking about has nothing to do with the mind(reason,logic,IQ).It is an exclusive gift given only to God's people.(I realize if you don't have this gift,you have just vehemently turned me off,but hear me out)
> This is one thing that makes THE difference and distinguishes the God over all the other gods.The other gods are believed with the mind.The one true God is also believed with the mind but more essentially,with faith.
> 
> Those who have been given faith know exactly what I'm talking about.But those void of this faith only think I'm talking about a wishful hope,which is nowhere near what I'm talking about.
> 
> This gift of faith that I speak of can be given to deaf people,mentally incapacitated people,unborn people,comatose people...there's no limitation.Because it's ministered by the Holy Spirit,and He goes wherever He wills.
> (The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.John 3:8)


The gapeing hole in your theory is that faith is not a physical thing. You cant pick it up and look at it. Your gift of faith wasnt wrapped up in a box and you opened it, picked it up and installed it.
Your own Bible tells you what faith is. The hope for....
Hope lives in your mind. Its a desire. A wish. A need. All of those things are products of your mind.
Spin it however you want. Call faith a gift if you want to. 
If you didnt have a brain would it still be possible to believe?
Your faith is exactly the same faith as a person of a different religions faith. You just have faith in something different.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Yes,I did.
> 
> Here's my honest take.
> I believe every person has a built in need to believe in something(with their mind).It helps to explain those things in life that we cannot explain.There are some that think they reject ALL gods,saying that everything has a logical and reasonable explanation,we just haven't found it yet.These people have actually made man their god.
> So there are really no true atheists by definition,in my estimation.
> 
> Now,I know the question that's burning in your mind is how do I know,from the list of ALL those gods,that the one I believe in is the true creator and cause of all things in existence? The answer is the gift of faith.(A proper concept of faith is essential here)
> The faith that I'm talking about has nothing to do with the mind(reason,logic,IQ).It is an exclusive gift given only to God's people.(I realize if you don't have this gift,you have just vehemently turned me off,but hear me out)
> This is one thing that makes THE difference and distinguishes the God over all the other gods.The other gods are believed with the mind.The one true God is also believed with the mind but more essentially,with faith.
> 
> Those who have been given faith know exactly what I'm talking about.But those void of this faith only think I'm talking about a wishful hope,which is nowhere near what I'm talking about.
> 
> This gift of faith that I speak of can be given to deaf people,mentally incapacitated people,unborn people,comatose people...there's no limitation.Because it's ministered by the Holy Spirit,and He goes wherever He wills.
> (The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.John 3:8)



That's the best post you've ever made.  Thank you for that well thought response.

I think that I understand where the inclination to believe in God(s) comes from.  The information that I've taken as knowledge leads me to believe that there needn't have been a supernatural source for the inclination.  I'm not saying that there couldn't have been one, just that I haven't been convinced of one.  I recognize that what you experienced is evidence enough for you.

What I'd like to know is if you can recognize that the exact same experience that leads you to know God with such certainty is the same experience that leads people to believe in other Gods.  They feel it in their souls.  (There's also all that cultural and indoctrination influence, but we can talk about that some other time).

How do you know that the quickening isn't a mental, intellectual revelation? How do you know that it's not an idea that you heard about and applied to yourself?  I used to jokingly say "I never knew I had existential dilemmas until I heard about them".  Could belief in God be the same thing?  Is it possible that you had the idea of God in your head and then tried to find evidence of it in your life?  The term Existential Dilemma gave a term to something that I was experiencing.  Could "God" be a catch all term that you use to define a mental process that you're experiencing?

Thanks again for the thoughtful response.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> That's the best post you've ever made.  Thank you for that well thought response.
> 
> I think that I understand where the inclination to believe in God(s) comes from.  The information that I've taken as knowledge leads me to believe that there needn't have been a supernatural source for the inclination.  I'm not saying that there couldn't have been one, just that I haven't been convinced of one.  I recognize that what you experienced is evidence enough for you.
> 
> What I'd like to know is if you can recognize that the exact same experience that leads you to know God with such certainty is the same experience that leads people to believe in other Gods.  They feel it in their souls.  (There's also all that cultural and indoctrination influence, but we can talk about that some other time).
> 
> How do you know that the quickening isn't a mental, intellectual revelation? How do you know that it's not an idea that you heard about and applied to yourself?  I used to jokingly say "I never knew I had existential dilemmas until I heard about them".  Could belief in God be the same thing?  Is it possible that you had the idea of God in your head and then tried to find evidence of it in your life?  The term Existential Dilemma gave a term to something that I was experiencing.  Could "God" be a catch all term that you use to define a mental process that you're experiencing?
> 
> Thanks again for the thoughtful response.



That is a very good and understandable question.

I am running out the door,but my quick response is this(I'd like to elaborate more later)
When I was quickened,changes began to take place in me that were so drastically different from the way I was before.And what solidified it to my mind is the fact that I knew it was not myself making these changes,because part of me was still resisting them.Up until that time,I did not have this struggle inside.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Yes,I did.
> 
> Here's my honest take.
> I believe every person has a built in need to believe in something(with their mind).It helps to explain those things in life that we cannot explain.There are some that think they reject ALL gods,saying that everything has a logical and reasonable explanation,we just haven't found it yet.These people have actually made man their god.
> So there are really no true atheists by definition,in my estimation.
> 
> Now,I know the question that's burning in your mind is how do I know,from the list of ALL those gods,that the one I believe in is the true creator and cause of all things in existence? The answer is the gift of faith.(A proper concept of faith is essential here)
> The faith that I'm talking about has nothing to do with the mind(reason,logic,IQ).It is an exclusive gift given only to God's people.(I realize if you don't have this gift,you have just vehemently turned me off,but hear me out)
> This is one thing that makes THE difference and distinguishes the God over all the other gods.The other gods are believed with the mind.The one true God is also believed with the mind but more essentially,with faith.
> 
> Those who have been given faith know exactly what I'm talking about.But those void of this faith only think I'm talking about a wishful hope,which is nowhere near what I'm talking about.
> 
> This gift of faith that I speak of can be given to deaf people,mentally incapacitated people,unborn people,comatose people...there's no limitation.Because it's ministered by the Holy Spirit,and He goes wherever He wills.
> (The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.John 3:8)



If faith was unique to just christians i would say that you have something different and special. Same goes for inner feelings, personal relationships,  etc etc. Every believer  that worshipped any god can and has claimed the same things you do. And to top it off you base yours off of religions and gods that came before yours. You just do not take the time to learn how your religion came to be.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That is a very good and understandable question.
> 
> I am running out the door,but my quick response is thisI'd like to elaborate more later)
> When I was quickened,changes began to take place in me that were so drastically different from the way I was before.And what solidified it to my mind is the fact that I knew it was not myself making these changes,because part of me was still resisting them.Up until that time,I did not have this struggle inside.



How do you know Satan has not been fooling you the whole way?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> If faith was unique to just christians i would say that you have something different and special. Same goes for inner feelings, personal relationships,  etc etc. Every believer  that worshipped any god can and has claimed the same things you do. And to top it off you base yours off of religions and gods that came before yours. You just do not take the time to learn how your religion came to be.



Welder,

This is the point that I would like you to elaborate more on as well.  Do you accept that other people's experiences are as authentic and genuine as yours?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> How do you know Satan has not been fooling you the whole way?



A Muslim would tell him (and us) that that is exactly what is happening and I would imagine that Welder would say that's what happening to a Muslin or a Hindu or a Wiccan.  "Anybody who doesn't believe in the same God as me is being tricked by Satan".

I can understand that.  What I don't understand is how, knowing that that dynamic is in effect for all parties, how can one be so certain that THEY are right?  If myself and half the world thought that something is blue and the other half of the world thought that something is red, wouldn't it behoove me to consider that it might actually be red?  Wouldn't  it behoove me to investigate why contradictory positions exist? Wouldn't it be logical for me to consider the possibility that my experience is subjective and not the absolute truth?


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> Yes,I did.
> 
> Here's my honest take.
> I believe every person has a built in need to believe in something(with their mind).It helps to explain those things in life that we cannot explain.There are some that think they reject ALL gods,saying that everything has a logical and reasonable explanation,we just haven't found it yet.These people have actually made man their god.
> So there are really no true atheists by definition,in my estimation.
> 
> Now,I know the question that's burning in your mind is how do I know,from the list of ALL those gods,that the one I believe in is the true creator and cause of all things in existence? The answer is the gift of faith.(A proper concept of faith is essential here)
> The faith that I'm talking about has nothing to do with the mind(reason,logic,IQ).It is an exclusive gift given only to God's people.(I realize if you don't have this gift,you have just vehemently turned me off,but hear me out)
> This is one thing that makes THE difference and distinguishes the God over all the other gods.The other gods are believed with the mind.The one true God is also believed with the mind but more essentially,with faith.
> 
> Those who have been given faith know exactly what I'm talking about.But those void of this faith only think I'm talking about a wishful hope,which is nowhere near what I'm talking about.
> 
> This gift of faith that I speak of can be given to deaf people,mentally incapacitated people,unborn people,comatose people...there's no limitation.Because it's ministered by the Holy Spirit,and He goes wherever He wills.
> (The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.John 3:8)



What you have created here is an unarguable platform.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> A Muslim would tell him (and us) that that is exactly what is happening and I would imagine that Welder would say that's what happening to a Muslin or a Hindu or a Wiccan.  "Anybody who doesn't believe in the same God as me is being tricked by Satan".
> 
> I can understand that.  What I don't understand is how, knowing that that dynamic is in effect for all parties, how can one be so certain that THEY are right?  If myself and half the world thought that something is blue and the other half of the world thought that something is red, wouldn't it behoove me to consider that it might actually be red?  Wouldn't  it behoove me to investigate why contradictory positions exist? Wouldn't it be logical for me to consider the possibility that my experience is subjective and not the absolute truth?


That's dangerous thinking my friend. Its far more comfortable to ignore and deny. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Yes,I did.
> 
> Here's my honest take.
> I believe every person has a built in need to believe in something(with their mind).It helps to explain those things in life that we cannot explain.There are some that think they reject ALL gods,saying that everything has a logical and reasonable explanation,we just haven't found it yet.These people have actually made man their god.
> So there are really no true atheists by definition,in my estimation.



This isn't quite right.  Even if I don't believe in a God that doesn't mean that I believe that man is God......because I don't believe in God.

Gosh.  I can't believe I would have to explain that.  

Look at the definition of God.  It's not as if I attribute those qualities to man because I don't believe in God.  Do you not see how incorrect your thinking on that point is?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That's dangerous thinking my friend. Its far more comfortable to ignore and deny. Ignorance is bliss.



He can understand what I'm saying, even if he denies the rock solid logic of it. Anyway, he already said in so many words that he doesn't care about logic when it comes to his faith.  His faith is beyond reason.  Hopefully a young lurker will see what's happening for what it is.


----------



## ambush80

drippin' rock said:


> What you have created here is an unarguable platform.



Yes it is.  The best one can hope for is that he recognizes that believers of every other religion are doing the exact same thing he is.  When that light bulb goes on it might illuminate other realizations.


----------



## welderguy

I didn't tell all that to make an argument.It was purely my personal testimony in response to a question.You can believe me or not,its up to you.
Based on what I know from God's Spirit bearing witness to my spirit,He is truth and all others are false.I can't prove it to you,even though it has been proven to me.The same One Who proved it to me would have to prove it to you also.Then you would say "Ahh,so that's what welder was trying to tell us about."


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I didn't tell all that to make an argument.It was purely my personal testimony in response to a question.You can believe me or not,its up to you.
> Based on what I know from God's Spirit bearing witness to my spirit,He is truth and all others are false.I can't prove it to you,even though it has been proven to me.The same One Who proved it to me would have to prove it to you also.Then you would say "Ahh,so that's what welder was trying to tell us about."



I appreciate your honest testimony and I believe that it's very real to you.  What I want to know from you is if you recognize that the same way that you get your faith is that same way that people of other faiths get theirs.  Do you recognize that when they tell you that what you believe is false that they are feeling the exact same sense of revelation that you are?

If you can recognize, at very least  that fact, then I will know that you're a rational person.  Otherwise, just declare "I'm irrational and those other guys are irrational but we don't care".  You do that and we can just agree to disagree.  __


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> A Muslim would tell him (and us) that that is exactly what is happening and I would imagine that Welder would say that's what happening to a Muslin or a Hindu or a Wiccan.  "Anybody who doesn't believe in the same God as me is being tricked by Satan".
> 
> I can understand that.  What I don't understand is how, knowing that that dynamic is in effect for all parties, how can one be so certain that THEY are right?  If myself and half the world thought that something is blue and the other half of the world thought that something is red, wouldn't it behoove me to consider that it might actually be red?  Wouldn't  it behoove me to investigate why contradictory positions exist? Wouldn't it be logical for me to consider the possibility that my experience is subjective and not the absolute truth?


Ambush, it has been my experience that a lot of thought goes into religious beliefs but only to a point. When it gets to where critical thinking starts to cast doubt or at the very least bring up legitimate questions about beliefs I have found very few that do not revert back to their safe zone and start reciting bible verses, blaming the devil or telling others that they are unable to understand because they are not filled with a spirit..elect..chosen.. etc etc. 

When people tell me their god is so complex that human intelligence is incapable of grasping its knowledge, then in the next breath they tell me what their god means, how it thinks, and they understand their god so well that they elect themselves as a spokesperson I immediately know they "elect" themselves to be one of the chosen too. No god involved whatsoever.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> This isn't quite right.  Even if I don't believe in a God that doesn't mean that I believe that man is God......because I don't believe in God.
> 
> Gosh.  I can't believe I would have to explain that.
> 
> Look at the definition of God.  It's not as if I attribute those qualities to man because I don't believe in God.  Do you not see how incorrect your thinking on that point is?


And yet all the while welder puts his entire belief system on a book written by man, ungodlike. A book that took thousands of years to write and assemble, ungodlike. A book that starts as one religion and ends as another, ungodlike. A religion that has nothing unique and many things that it shares with other religions, ungodlike.
Welder worships man, he just wont admit it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I didn't tell all that to make an argument.It was purely my personal testimony in response to a question.You can believe me or not,its up to you.
> Based on what I know from God's Spirit bearing witness to my spirit,He is truth and all others are false.I can't prove it to you,even though it has been proven to me.The same One Who proved it to me would have to prove it to you also.Then you would say "Ahh,so that's what welder was trying to tell us about."


My god told me that people who are fooled by satan would say what you did word for word.

Dont ask me for proof. I cant give you any. But believe me, the super greatest One plus infinity told me so and therefore it is true.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Ambush, it has been my experience that a lot of thought goes into religious beliefs but only to a point. When it gets to where critical thinking starts to cast doubt or at the very least bring up legitimate questions about beliefs I have found very few that do not revert back to their safe zone and start reciting bible verses, blaming the devil or telling others that they are unable to understand because they are not filled with a spirit..elect..chosen.. etc etc.



Yeah, I recognize this as well.  When the thinking part gets hard, a believer need only "Lay it at the foot of the cross".  It's a brilliant boiler plate maneuver; indisputable and applicable universally.  OK.  I'll grant that it's true.  I'll grant that the Lord of the Universe  doesn't want us to understand, nay, we are incapable of understanding His methods.  Like you, I wonder: Why are they ALL, each one of them with opposing revelation, so Gosh darned SURE that they understand the inconceivable? 

Imagine what the world would be like if all the faith based believers recognized that they are all in the same boat, rowing with the same bent paddles.



bullethead said:


> When people tell me their god is so complex that human intelligence is incapable of grasping its knowledge, then in the next breath they tell me what their god means, how it thinks, and they understand their god so well that they elect themselves as a spokesperson I immediately know they "elect" themselves to be one of the chosen too. No god involved whatsoever.



Revelation is funny, ain't it? And it don't need no logical 'splainin.  If believers could just acknowledge that they are getting their revelation from the same place....what a wonderful world.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I appreciate your honest testimony and I believe that it's very real to you.  What I want to know from you is if you recognize that the same way that you get your faith is that same way that people of other faiths get theirs.  Do you recognize that when they tell you that what you believe is false that they are feeling the exact same sense of revelation that you are?
> 
> If you can recognize, at very least  that fact, then I will know that you're a rational person.  Otherwise, just declare "I'm irrational and those other guys are irrational but we don't care".  You do that and we can just agree to disagree.  __



Here's what you need to get out of your head.The categorizing of all the different groups of people.There are only two groups,period.
There's the "all that the Father hath given Me"(elect) and those to whom He says "I never knew you"(non-elect).
Every one of God's elect,at some point in their life will receive faith.Whether they had previously been atheists,or pagans,or even devil worshippers,it matters not.When they receive their faith,they are washed and their change begins(sanctification).

The non-elect do not EVER receive this faith,no matter what they do.They hate God and God's people because that's their nature and their purpose.God allows them to do many things contrary to Him because He is storing up wrath for the day of vengeance.And there won't be an eyedropper drop of mercy on them in that day.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Here's what you need to get out of your head.The categorizing of all the different groups of people.There are only two groups,period.
> There's the "all that the Father hath given Me"(elect) and those to whom He says "I never knew you"(non-elect).
> Every one of God's elect,at some point in their life will receive faith.Whether they had previously been atheists,or pagans,or even devil worshippers,it matters not.When they receive their faith,they are washed and their change begins(sanctification).
> 
> The non-elect do not EVER receive this faith,no matter what they do.They hate God and God's people because that's their nature and their purpose.God allows them to do many things contrary to Him because He is storing up wrath for the day of vengeance.And there won't be an eyedropper drop of mercy on them in that day.


So if there are only 2 groups, those that hate God and Gods people - the non elect, then that means that every person who loves God and Gods people are the Elect correct?
Im betting that if you choose to answer this simple, direct question you are going to contradict your "only 2 groups" theory.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Here's what you need to get out of your head.The categorizing of all the different groups of people.There are only two groups,period.
> There's the "all that the Father hath given Me"(elect) and those to whom He says "I never knew you"(non-elect).
> Every one of God's elect,at some point in their life will receive faith.Whether they had previously been atheists,or pagans,or even devil worshippers,it matters not.When they receive their faith,they are washed and their change begins(sanctification).
> 
> The non-elect do not EVER receive this faith,no matter what they do.They hate God and God's people because that's their nature and their purpose.God allows them to do many things contrary to Him because He is storing up wrath for the day of vengeance.And there won't be an eyedropper drop of mercy on them in that day.



Cue the Twilight Zone music


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> So if there are only 2 groups, those that hate God and Gods people - the non elect, then that means that every person who loves God and Gods people are the Elect correct?
> Im betting that if you choose to answer this simple, direct question you are going to contradict your "only 2 groups" theory.



1 John3:14
 "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death."

1 John3:16
"Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

1John3:23-24
 "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

" And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."


No contradiction that I can see.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> 1 John3:14
> "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death."
> 
> 1 John3:16
> "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."
> 
> 1John3:23-24
> "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."
> 
> " And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."
> 
> 
> No contradiction that I can see.


You are well aware that my question referred to what YOU said not to scripture.
You use some really dishonest tactics when you dont want to answer direct questions about something YOU said.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You are well aware that my question referred to what YOU said not to scripture.
> You use some really dishonest tactics when you dont want to answer direct questions about something YOU said.



John says it so much better than I can. I believe what he's saying just as if they are my own words, especially because I've experienced the things he's saying personally in my own life.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

ambush80 said:


> The Madman is in the house!!!!
> 
> "Originally Posted by Madman View Post
> What are the odds "any choice of god" being correct?"
> 
> This seemed like the most objective source I could find:
> 
> "Over 2,500"
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Gods-Over-Deities-World/dp/0816029091
> 
> Here's a compiled list, though it says that that's not all of them:
> 
> https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them
> 
> Odds of picking the right one?  Approximately 1 in 2,500.  Of course the option that no god(s) exist should be factored in, as well as the possibility of any permutation of some of them existing.  Looks like long odds.



If no Gods exist to fill the void of bringing moral order to this whimsical species of ours; To bring structure to a chaotic universe; Then where pray tell, do you suppose man, all men, acquired this insatiable desire to dominate, control and organize how others must act and think? Why can't we just go willy nilly about our business in a blaze' fashion merely surviving and enjoying the earth as it is?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> John says it so much better than I can. I believe what he's saying just as if they are my own words, especially because I've experienced the things he's saying personally in my own life.


Then maybe you should stck to regurgitating scrpture because when you present something from YOU then it is YOU that is going to be challenged.


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If no Gods exist to fill the void of bringing moral order to this whimsical species of ours; To bring structure to a chaotic universe; Then where pray tell, do you suppose man, all men, acquired this insatiable desire to dominate, control and organize how others must act and think? Why can't we just go willy nilly about our business in a blaze' fashion merely surviving and enjoying the earth as it is?



"Modern"humans have been around for about 200,000 years. How come the god you credit for creation has only been known for about 5000 years?   What pray tell, do you think humans were doing for 195,000 years prior and beyond?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Then maybe you should stck to regurgitating scrpture because when you present something from YOU then it is YOU that is going to be challenged.


Dont forget...it is his man made scripture that he hangs his every word on, even though he claims not to worship man.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

bullethead said:


> "Modern"humans have been around for about 200,000 years. How come the god you credit for creation has only been known for about 5000 years?   What pray tell, do you think humans were doing for 195,000 years prior and beyond?



It wasn't a "my God/your God" question. If you can move past being a butt hurt Atheist and look at the question objectively then maybe we can discuss it. 

To wit, man has created some kind of God to worship, or has demanded some manner of hierarchy within his tribal structure ( the need to dominate and legislate ) even 195,000 years ago.

Once again I ask, if there are no Gods, why is that?


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If no Gods exist to fill the void of bringing moral order to this whimsical species of ours; To bring structure to a chaotic universe; Then where pray tell, do you suppose man, all men, acquired this insatiable desire to dominate, control and organize how others must act and think? Why can't we just go willy nilly about our business in a blaze' fashion merely surviving and enjoying the earth as it is?


Maybe the answer is in your question.
How did our ancestors accomplish "merely surviving"?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe the answer is in your question.
> How did our ancestors accomplish "merely surviving"?



So the old quip; "Why can't we all just get along" is a moot point. Nature is not structured that way so it will never happen.


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If no Gods exist to fill the void of bringing moral order to this whimsical species of ours; To bring structure to a chaotic universe; Then where pray tell, do you suppose man, all men, acquired this insatiable desire to dominate, control and organize how others must act and think? Why can't we just go willy nilly about our business in a blaze' fashion merely surviving and enjoying the earth as it is?



Short answer: it evolved.

1. Self preservation makes us selfish and partial to our kin.  That drives us in very base ways to want to "Get what's mines" (Or turn what's yours into mines if I'm hungry enough).

2. Banding in groups was better for survival of the individual as well as the species.  Tribalism organized us into useful groups but started us on the path to organized warfare, an extension of "what's yours is mines".  At the same time, ideas like God(s) started to develop along with our more complicated brains.  It just so happens that organizing under the banner of a God(s) is a powerful reinforcer for tribalism.  Empathy also developed at this time because it too was useful for group dynamics.

A combination of all these forces seems to explain a whole lot of human behavior to me, even why someone would want to be Shaman/Preacher.  

If there were less people and they could spread out and have ample access to resources, there would be less desire to dominate, control and organize how others must act and think.


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So the old quip; "Why can't we all just get along" is a moot point. Nature is not structured that way so it will never happen.



I would say that the problem is that there are too many of us.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

ambush80 said:


> Short answer: it evolved.
> 
> 1. Self preservation makes us selfish and partial to our kin.  That drives us in very base ways to want to "Get what's mines" (Or turn what's yours into mines if I'm hungry enough).
> 
> 2. Banding in groups was better for survival of the individual as well as the species.  Tribalism organized us into useful groups but started us on the path to organized warfare, an extension of what's yours is mines.  At the same time, ideas like God(s) started to develop along with our more complicated brains.  It just so happens that organizing under the banner of a God(s) is a powerful reinforcer for tribalism.  Empathy also developed at this time because it too was useful for group dynamics.
> 
> A combination of all these forces seems to explain a whole lot of human behavior to me, even why someone would want to be Shaman/Preacher.
> 
> If there were less people and they could spread out and have ample access to resources, there would be less desire to dominate, control and organize how others must act and think.



Ok, let's shift from people to debunk some of your claims. Wolves have alpha males, lions have a leader of the pride, primates have dominate leaders; All dictate the order of the group and regulate it until such day as they are challenged and lose to another more dominate member.

Are we to apply all of those human traits to these animals?


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> It wasn't a "my God/your God" question. If you can move past being a butt hurt Atheist and look at the question objectively then maybe we can discuss it.
> 
> To wit, man has created some kind of God to worship, or has demanded some manner of hierarchy within his tribal structure ( the need to dominate and legislate ) even 195,000 years ago.
> 
> Once again I ask, if there are no Gods, why is that?



I discussed at length with Madman how I believe the impulse to create God(s) could have arisen in man.  In short, it's a combination of our adaptive instinct to_ infer agency_ (reacting like the coil of rope in a dark room is a snake or that the rustle in the bushes is a tiger) and it's messed up cousin _superstition_.

Here's an interesting piece on Inferring Agency:

http://web.mit.edu/cocosci/Papers/secret-agent-05.pdf


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Ok, let's shift from people to debunk some of your claims. Wolves have alpha males, lions have a leader of the pride, primates have dominate leaders; All dictate the order of the group and regulate it until such day as they are challenged and lose to another more dominate member.
> 
> Are we to apply all of those human traits to these animals?



You can only go so far in using other animals to know anything about humans.  Looking at primates is more useful since they are more like us.  What you can take away from observing animals is that they organize into hierarchies.  

It's not a matter of applying their ways to our ways.  It's a matter of recognizing that organizing in those ways is adaptive to similar species.  Organizing ourselves like dogs do won't be useful.


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> It wasn't a "my God/your God" question. If you can move past being a butt hurt Atheist and look at the question objectively then maybe we can discuss it.


My question was directed at you about your god.
I do not believe you are capable of carrying on a discussion when you blatantly ignore facts that have been given and you still ramble on as if they have not been established at all.
I am not an atheist.
I have nothing to be butt hurt about.
If you think I am either please back up your claims. 




Miguel Cervantes said:


> To wit, man has created some kind of God to worship, or has demanded some manner of hierarchy within his tribal structure ( the need to dominate and legislate ) even 195,000 years ago.


The start of religious activities has been well studied and documeted. It has been discussed in multiple threads in here and has been backed up with research.
To sum up what has been posted and discussed in here already...
When people/elders/relation/friends etc in early tribes died the living honored them by telling stories about them. The living referred to the deceased often for memories, decisions  (what would my father,  grandfather, uncle etc etc have done in this situation), guidance, help. Just like today (we all are guilty of doing this) people talk to the dead because their memories allow that person to still exist in their minds. Modern tribes still base their gods off of ancestors.
Through time, generations upon generations, these ancestors become greater than life through stories. They are retold and embellished. They are added to, subtracted from and enhanced. The dead are elevated to a greater status in death than they ever were when alive. They become legend.
As humans became more complex so did their stories. So did their "one-up-manship" . Real people became gods. Made up gods became better than the dead people. 



Miguel Cervantes said:


> Once again I ask, if there are no Gods, why is that?


Because they are made up. Fables. Fake. Products of our imaginations based off of needs furthered by our ability to create as our minds advanced and many times fueled by mans desire to rule over other men.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

ambush80 said:


> You can only go so far in using other animals to know anything about humans.  Looking at primates is more useful since they are more like us.  What you can take away from observing animals is that they organize into hierarchies.
> 
> It's not a matter of applying their ways to our ways.  It's a matter of recognizing that organizing in those ways is adaptive to similar species.  Organizing ourselves like dogs do won't be useful.



Of course it will. Though the population argument could be used against our ability to "just get along" it is for the most part bunk because since the beginning of time, whenever that was, man has quickly figured out that acting alone, as a sole survivor is next to impossible and that his chances exponentially increased when he was in with a group. Same goes for hunting. There are a plethora of cave drawings to prove that man was a pack (as in dogs) hunting animal, and he learned this from success vs failure, just as I am sure canines did.


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So the old quip; "Why can't we all just get along" is a moot point. Nature is not structured that way so it will never happen.



Correct. Who really gets along in 2016? We can go from a nation vs nation, down to neighbor vs neighbor. To species vs species.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

bullethead said:


> My question was directed at you about your god.
> I do not believe you are capable of carrying on a discussion when you blatantly ignore facts that have been given and you still ramble on as if they have not been established at all.



Then you disqualified yourself from the question right up front. Why even bother to respond at all if your only motivation is to address / attack the poster instead of the question at point. 

Now, who is incapable?


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Ok, let's shift from people to debunk some of your claims. Wolves have alpha males, lions have a leader of the pride, primates have dominate leaders; All dictate the order of the group and regulate it until such day as they are challenged and lose to another more dominate member.
> 
> Are we to apply all of those human traits to these animals?



It's hard to draw direct comparisons to us and other animals because we are uniquely more intellectually oriented then the rest of the animal kingdom, who still regard brute force and physical prowess as the main capitol for breeding access.


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So the old quip; "Why can't we all just get along" is a moot point. Nature is not structured that way so it will never happen.


Cant say never happen but again im struck with maybe the answer is in your question -
"and enjoying the earth as it is".
Maybe you enjoy deer hunting. Maybe "they"  enjoy deer watching. Every deer you kill decreases how many deer they can watch in their mind..


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then you disqualified yourself from the question right up front. Why even bother to respond at all if your only motivation is to address / attack the poster instead of the question at point.
> 
> Now, who is incapable?



I started a new question based off of your reply.
I responded because I could. 
If I do not address the poster about the poster  who do I ask?

Clearly, I am fully capable.
My guess at who is incapable would be the person that forgot to address the rest of my post and instead cherry picked one part in order to get out of having to answer to facts.


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Of course it will. Though the population argument could be used against our ability to "just get along" it is for the most part bunk because since the beginning of time, whenever that was, man has quickly figured out that acting alone, as a sole survivor is next to impossible and that his chances exponentially increased when he was in with a group. Same goes for hunting. There are a plethora of cave drawings to prove that man was a pack (as in dogs) hunting animal, and he learned this from success vs failure, just as I am sure canines did.



Yeah.  I said that.  

_"2. Banding in groups was better for survival of the individual as well as the species."_Post #212

Forming groups was adaptive.  Even in family groups/bands, when resources are scarce, alliances will be drawn along genetic lines.  There's a proverb that goes "My Brother and I against My Cousin; My Cousin and I against the Stranger" which illustrates this dynamic pretty well.  This might get blurry if you're trying to mate with a distant cousin. Your alliance might be to her and thus contradict the proverb but you know what I mean.


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Ok, let's shift from people to debunk some of your claims. Wolves have alpha males, lions have a leader of the pride, primates have dominate leaders; All dictate the order of the group and regulate it until such day as they are challenged and lose to another more dominate member.
> 
> Are we to apply all of those human traits to these animals?


"We" are animals. Primates to be exact.

Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Clade:	Synapsida
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Primates
Suborder:	Haplorhini
Family:	Hominidae
Genus:	Homo
Species:	H. sapiens


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Of course it will. Though the population argument could be used against our ability to "just get along" it is for the most part bunk because since the beginning of time, whenever that was, man has quickly figured out that acting alone, as a sole survivor is next to impossible and that his chances exponentially increased when he was in with a group. Same goes for hunting. There are a plethora of cave drawings to prove that man was a pack (as in dogs) hunting animal, and he learned this from success vs failure, just as I am sure canines did.



I would say that the impulse to do this was selected for because of its utility.  We and dogs don't really "decide" to do that, we evolved to.  Yes/No?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Cant say never happen but again im struck with maybe the answer is in your question -
> "and enjoying the earth as it is".
> Maybe you enjoy deer hunting. Maybe "they"  enjoy deer watching. Every deer you kill decreases how many deer they can watch in their mind..



If there are enough deer and just the right amount of humans the issue will never come up.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> If there are enough deer and just the right amount of humans the issue will never come up.


How about when the hunters and the watchers are each trying to do their thing in the same patch of woods?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> How about when the hunters and the watchers are each trying to do their thing in the same patch of woods?



Yeah, I suppose if they are unwilling to go to another patch of woods that's just as full of deer, that might be a problem.  But if going to the next patch of woods is easier and less dangerous then fighting, I think things would shake out peacefully.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> It's hard to draw direct comparisons to us and other animals because we are uniquely more intellectually oriented then the rest of the animal kingdom, who still regard brute force and physical prowess as the main capitol for breeding access.


Chimpanzee rituals.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...nimals-have-spiritual-experiences-yes-they-do
http://marketbusinessnews.com/chimpanzees-appear-practice-idol-worship-like-humans/127387


----------



## welderguy

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then you disqualified yourself from the question right up front. Why even bother to respond at all if your only motivation is to address / attack the poster instead of the question at point.
> 
> Now, who is incapable?



^^This^^

Ive learned that down here, the guage of the poignancy of my posts is measured by the intensity of the insults being hurled at me as a result of them.

would you say I evolved to better deal with the primates?


----------



## ambush80

Inferences are tricky to make across species.   There's the problem of anthropomorphism.   Until we can communicate with animals and they with us,  the actual meanings of their behaviors will always be a guess.  Maybe the chimps filling that tree with rocks are doing some kind of time keeping.  

I think this attitude AND it's inverse are prudent positions:
_
""Like Jane, I too would love to get into the mind and heart of a dog or a wolf even if I couldn't tell anyone about it afterwards — what an amazing experience it would be.

We can also ask if animals are religious (see for example; see also) and we will consider this question at a later date.

For now, let's keep the door open to the idea that animals can be spiritual beings and let's consider the evidence for such a claim. Meager as it is, available evidence says "Yes, animals can have spiritual experiences" and we need to conduct further research and engage in interdisciplinary discussions before we say that animals cannot and do not experience spirituality. _

There are other problems to consider.  Animals function with some significantly different degrees of capability than we do.  How would being able to hear heart beats change a spiritual experience?  How about being able to smell fear pheromones.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> ^^This^^
> 
> Ive learned that down here, the guage of the poignancy of my posts is measured by the intensity of the insults being hurled at me as a result of them.
> 
> would you say I evolved to better deal with the primates?



No one attacks you, only your arguments and no one has ever insulted you.  You should learn to distinguish between the two.  That's me talking to you as a friend.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> ^^This^^
> 
> Ive learned that down here, the guage of the poignancy of my posts is measured by the intensity of the insults being hurled at me as a result of them.
> 
> would you say I evolved to better deal with the primates?


 Neither you or miguel are innocent of what  each of you claim others are doing.
Both have used insults and have avoided the direct questions.
And then cry about it.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I would say that the impulse to do this was selected for because of its utility.  We and dogs don't really "decide" to do that, we evolved to.  Yes/No?



If decision is abnegated by the _fact_ of evolution, then any and all _other manifestation_ is owed rather...to what? Not that observance has in itself the means of disclosing a motive of choice (_that_ dog may be seen to hunt by itself...but we do not know if this is because it has somehow/somewhere at sometime been cut off from the pack...or is it, as it might be...always been a lone hunter...that "one" dog?) Does this make him not dog...or merely different dog...or actually, (if cut of from the pack) just same "dog" in a particular set of circumstance?
So, unless we can observe all, at all times, we are left with only what we do see...and there surmise according to our (some would say _own_) disposition.

We do however, make "best guesses"...don't we? That place where we have satisfied ourselves as to "seeing enough". 

Who could have convinced Alexander Fleming all the consequences the discovery of penicillin would have wrought in not even 100 years? Surely much in the saving...(if we look back)...but what of future?
What of a trail followed in seeking to save lives, that ends up costing so many more? "Super bugs" are no myth. Could antibiotics, even the whole of the medical system...be so flawed as to its ultimate cost being a thing from which man finds no return? What of "overpopulation"? I don't know if there is a _tipping point_ relative to it or not, or even if that point is reached already. (And here, my best guess is that many, if not most will reason "Why worry? we'll come up with _something_...)

But here we speak only in terms of what is measured in some plainly arguable _benefit_ to man. Could all of what appears benefit, or rather, once appeared benefit...be nothing more than a path initiated of self annihilation? (In short term man seeks to preserve himself...but in long term _unseen_, does quite the opposite?)

My _guess_ is that some, seeing the ice thickening on the wings, call for more fuel to the advantage of more thrust to keep the craft aloft. But fuel has the innate testimony of its own futility, it is, regardless of amount...by definition of itself as a thing...in limited supply. For fuel to be fuel, all that is "not fuel" defines its limits.

Do you remember addressing my post as lame...to which I also confessed to me it first appeared quite so also? How much since then.
I am me. My limits are defined by the all else _not me_. You are certainly, to me...a part of that "all else" that is not me. (There is spoon, there is dog, there is ignition coil...and there is Ambush, etc.)

But to yourself, you are not the _all else_...are you...at all? I would "guess" that to you, I am of a part of that _all else_. Yet...the me defined (as I would _guess_ the _you defined_) is really so much dependent upon itself being...as being under the obligation of information that comes from that _all else_. (Spoon does not tell me I am itself, therefore I am not spoon.) What does not tell me I am of itself...is then plainly (to me) other.
But, here is where I require patience. If me is plainly dependent upon "all else" for definiton of self in limit, yet finds in "itself" a rebellion to limit ( I will not guess whether you know this...you either do or do not) it will, to seek to satisfy/assuage/ammeliorate this _suffering_ in limit go to the "all else" for acquisition.
It will simultaneously extend itself into and take into "itself" from the all else. 

Affections extend out and bring in, and knowledge is brought in, then extended out...

But I must stop here, but not without saying this. In skimming posts as I sometimes do, I came across a discussion in which you said something like "if they admit  (contend?) all are under the same dynamic..."


"all under the same dynamic..."

This resonates in me in places (I will guess) you may not believe a believer has...or might be found in one as me in particular.


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> Neither you or miguel are innocent of what  each of you claim others are doing.
> Both have used insults and have avoided the direct questions.
> And then cry about it.



I said it before......

Christians love to be persecuted.


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> I said it before......
> 
> Christians love to be persecuted.



Certainly seems to be the case in here.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> ^^This^^
> 
> Ive learned that down here, the guage of the poignancy of my posts is measured by the intensity of the insults being hurled at me as a result of them.
> 
> would you say I evolved to better deal with the primates?


You think your posts are poignant because you dodge, deflect and ignore when the multitude of contradictions are pointed out.
Thats a very handy gift.


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> You think your posts are poignant because you dodge, deflect and ignore when the multitude of contradictions are pointed out.
> Thats a very handy gift.



Notice how none of his bretheren are here defending his posts?  I wonder if it's because they think it's a waste of time to post here or if they don't agree with his theology?  Or both


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> Notice how none of his bretheren are here defending his posts?  I wonder if it's because they think it's a waste of time to post here or if they don't agree with his theology?  Or both


Some of both and other reasons too..
Only a very small percentage agree with his understanding of who/what the Elect are, some think its a waste of time, some just arent interested in debating beliefs, some dont consort with heathens, im sure theres more........


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You think your posts are poignant because you dodge, deflect and ignore when the multitude of contradictions are pointed out.
> Thats a very handy gift.



Thankyou for pointing that out.I will try to work on that.
You are very intuitive for catching my many flaws,and I count you a valuable asset in my life.I hope someday you and I can iron out all of our differences and be in perfect harmony forever.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Thankyou for edstpointing that out.I will try to work on that.
> You are very intuitive for catching my many flaws,and I count you a valuable asset in my life.I hope someday you and I can iron out all of our differences and be in perfect harmony forever.


Im not interested in pointing out flaws. I have a boatload of them myself.
Im interested in intelligent discussion/debate.
Dodging, deflecting and ignoring is counter productive to that and very irritating because it reduces the discussion/debate to a waste of time. I dont learn anything from it and you dont learn anything from it.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Im not interested in pointing out flaws. I have a boatload of them myself.
> Im interested in intelligent discussion/debate.
> Dodging, deflecting and ignoring is counter productive to that and very irritating because it reduces the discussion/debate to a waste of time. I dont learn anything from it and you dont learn anything from it.



Amen Walt.
But the intelligent part may have weeded me out.

I feel like a Forrest Gump in a room full of Einsteins.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Amen Walt.
> But the intelligent part may have weeded me out.
> 
> I feel like a Forrest Gump in a room full of Einsteins.


Its a shame you think that way.
And what I got out of Forrest Gump is you dont have to appear as or be an Einstein to make very meaningful contributions.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> If decision is abnegated by the _fact_ of evolution, then any and all _other manifestation_ is owed rather...to what?



I can only speak for humans but I know that humans are capable of overriding their instincts and you know it too.  Why would you ask such a pointless question.  Am I misunderstanding your question?




Israel said:


> Not that observance has in itself the means of disclosing a motive of choice (_that_ dog may be seen to hunt by itself...but we do not know if this is because it has somehow/somewhere at sometime been cut off from the pack...or is it, as it might be...always been a lone hunter...that "one" dog?) Does this make him not dog...or merely different dog...or actually, (if cut of from the pack) just same "dog" in a particular set of circumstance?
> So, unless we can observe all, at all times, we are left with only what we do see...and there surmise according to our (some would say _own_) disposition.
> 
> We do however, make "best guesses"...don't we? That place where we have satisfied ourselves as to "seeing enough".



Yes. I rely on information that I've gathered myself or that I absorbed from a trusted source.




Israel said:


> Who could have convinced Alexander Fleming all the consequences the discovery of penicillin would have wrought in not even 100 years? Surely much in the saving...(if we look back)...but what of future?
> What of a trail followed in seeking to save lives, that ends up costing so many more? "Super bugs" are no myth. Could antibiotics, even the whole of the medical system...be so flawed as to its ultimate cost being a thing from which man finds no return? What of "overpopulation"? I don't know if there is a _tipping point_ relative to it or not, or even if that point is reached already. (And here, my best guess is that many, if not most will reason "Why worry? we'll come up with _something_...)



To worry about true threats to our existence is prudent.  Historically, we "come up with something". So far.



Israel said:


> But here we speak only in terms of what is measured in some plainly arguable _benefit_ to man. Could all of what appears benefit, or rather, once appeared benefit...be nothing more than a path initiated of self annihilation? (In short term man seeks to preserve himself...but in long term _unseen_, does quite the opposite?)



Absolutely.  The most timely example of this kind of threat is the development of Artificial Super Intelligence.



Israel said:


> My _guess_ is that some, seeing the ice thickening on the wings, call for more fuel to the advantage of more thrust to keep the craft aloft. But fuel has the innate testimony of its own futility, it is, regardless of amount...by definition of itself as a thing...in limited supply. For fuel to be fuel, all that is "not fuel" defines its limits.
> 
> Do you remember addressing my post as lame...to which I also confessed to me it first appeared quite so also? How much since then.
> I am me. My limits are defined by the all else _not me_. You are certainly, to me...a part of that "all else" that is not me. (There is spoon, there is dog, there is ignition coil...and there is Ambush, etc.)



I don't remember the specifics of what I called lame, but I imagine it had something to do with a declaration without any backing evidence.  You throw those out quite a bit you know, one of your favorites being "Jesus is Lord". 



Israel said:


> But to yourself, you are not the _all else_...are you...at all? I would "guess" that to you, I am of a part of that _all else_. Yet...the me defined (as I would _guess_ the _you defined_) is really so much dependent upon itself being...as being under the obligation of information that comes from that _all else_. (Spoon does not tell me I am itself, therefore I am not spoon.) What does not tell me I am of itself...is then plainly (to me) other.
> But, here is where I require patience. If me is plainly dependent upon "all else" for definition of self in limit, yet finds in "itself" a rebellion to limit ( I will not guess whether you know this...you either do or do not) it will, to seek to satisfy/assuage/ammeliorate this _suffering_ in limit go to the "all else" for acquisition.
> It will simultaneously extend itself into and take into "itself" from the all else.



Well, that's too bad for you.  Around my house, we understand that no one and nothing can bring us happiness but ourselves. It comes from within.



Israel said:


> Affections extend out and bring in, and knowledge is brought in, then extended out...
> 
> But I must stop here, but not without saying this. In skimming posts as I sometimes do, I came across a discussion in which you said something like "if they admit  (contend?) all are under the same dynamic..."
> 
> 
> "all under the same dynamic..."
> 
> This resonates in me in places (I will guess) you may not believe a believer has...or might be found in one as me in particular.



I believe that in the case of the person to whom that statement was directed at, that they do not admit that the process that lead them to revelation is the same dynamic that led others to different revelation.
In fact, he declared that the dynamic was not the same and that there was an unnameable, indescribably different dynamic at work in his revelation from those unlike him. As usual the boiler plate statement " I can't tell you about it but you'll know it when you get it" was added.   Sounds like a method of selling copper bracelets or Helicopter bass lures.

What do you think about that?  Do you agree with him?  Is your revelation from a true source and others' revelation from a false one?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Its a shame you think that way.
> And what I got out of Forrest Gump is you dont have to appear as or be an Einstein to make very meaningful contributions.



Amen Walt.

The value of Gump, his true gift, was his childlike honesty.

Welder, why did it take pages and pages of dialogue to get you to admit that you think that people who believe in other religions are getting fooled by Satan.  It was clear you believed it all along but for some reason you didn't want to admit it.  THAT should be an object of your investigation.

Note also how after you got that out in the open how much more zealous you are about that position. (That's not a good thing)


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Amen Walt.
> 
> The value of Gump, his true gift, was his childlike honesty.
> 
> Welder, why did it take pages and pages of dialogue to get you to admit that you think that people who believe in other religions are getting fooled by Satan.  It was clear you believed it all along but for some reason you didn't want to admit it.  THAT should be an object of your investigation.
> 
> Note also how after you got that out in the open how much more zealous you are about that position. (That's not a good thing)



I do not believe I ever made that statement.But, if I did,I shouldn't have.

I think,to say that,would be giving Satan too much credit.God is the One who blinds and He is the One that gives sight.
It is true,Satan tempts.But he cannot rule someone's unwilling mind,unless God allows it.
The spirit of antichrist is in the world and people everywhere are willingly following after it.Why? Because they are blind.Who blinded them? God.

(read 2 Cor.4)


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> I do not believe I ever made that statement.But, if I did,I shouldn't have.
> 
> I think,to say that,would be giving Satan too much credit.God is the One who blinds and He is the One that gives sight.
> It is true,Satan tempts.But he cannot rule someone's unwilling mind,unless God allows it.
> The spirit of antichrist is in the world and people everywhere are willingly following after it.Why? Because they are blind.Who blinded them? God.
> 
> (read 2 Cor.4)



Ok welder, time out. No ridicule here, I want to understand this position better.  Are you saying that no matter what we do, what our position is, we have to be chosen?  If I consider myself a Christian, but am not one of the elect, I'm really not a Christian?  How do I know this?  Do I continue on hoping God will unblind me?  Are all these people already chosen?  

Or are you saying if I am not a Christian that proves God has blinded me?  Has all this been predestined?


----------



## welderguy

drippin' rock said:


> Ok welder, time out. No ridicule here, I want to understand this position better.  Are you saying that no matter what we do, what our position is, we have to be chosen?  If I consider myself a Christian, but am not one of the elect, I'm really not a Christian?  How do I know this?  Do I continue on hoping God will unblind me?  Are all these people already chosen?
> 
> Or are you saying if I am not a Christian that proves God has blinded me?  Has all this been predestined?



Salvation is not based on anything we do,but on what's been done for us.
We do not posses the will or the ability to come to Jesus until we are drawn to do so.

John 6:44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Those that belong to Jesus are given this promise:

John 6:37
"All that the Father hath given me shall come to Me,and he that cometh to me,I shall in no wise cast out."

If you are being drawn to God,you are His,and you have an open door with welcome arms.
If you think its foolishness and man made nonsense,then you are not being drawn at this time,and you will refuse to come to Him.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Salvation is not based on anything we do,but on what's been done for us.
> We do not posses the will or the ability to come to Jesus until we are drawn to do so.
> 
> John 6:44
> 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
> 
> Those that belong to Jesus are given this promise:
> 
> John 6:37
> "All that the Father hath given me shall come to Me,and he that cometh to me,I shall in no wise cast out."
> 
> If you are being drawn to God,you are His,and you have an open door with welcome arms.
> If you think its foolishness and man made nonsense,then you are not being drawn at this time,and you will refuse to come to Him.


All those poor poeple who worshiped god before jesus came along got a bum deal. Bait and switch.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Salvation is not based on anything we do,but on what's been done for us.
> We do not posses the will or the ability to come to Jesus until we are drawn to do so.
> 
> John 6:44
> 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
> 
> Those that belong to Jesus are given this promise:
> 
> John 6:37
> "All that the Father hath given me shall come to Me,and he that cometh to me,I shall in no wise cast out."
> 
> If you are being drawn to God,you are His,and you have an open door with welcome arms.
> If you think its foolishness and man made nonsense,then you are not being drawn at this time,and you will refuse to come to Him.


Sooooo therefore every person who is drawn to God, which would be every Christian, is of the Elect correct?


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> Salvation is not based on anything we do,but on what's been done for us.
> We do not posses the will or the ability to come to Jesus until we are drawn to do so.
> 
> John 6:44
> 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
> 
> Those that belong to Jesus are given this promise:
> 
> John 6:37
> "All that the Father hath given me shall come to Me,and he that cometh to me,I shall in no wise cast out."
> 
> If you are being drawn to God,you are His,and you have an open door with welcome arms.
> If you think its foolishness and man made nonsense,then you are not being drawn at this time,and you will refuse to come to Him.



The way I was raised to understand it, you ask Jesus into your heart, get baptized, and then spend the rest of your existence glorifying him. Is this the same thing you are saying?


----------



## welderguy

drippin' rock said:


> The way I was raised to understand it, you ask Jesus into your heart, get baptized, and then spend the rest of your existence glorifying him. Is this the same thing you are saying?



Those things are the result of the drawing of the Spirit.
That has to take place first because there must be a lasting permanent change made(a transformation).We can't manufacture this,though many are trying.
But it is of man and eventually the person will turn away.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> All those poor poeple who worshiped god before jesus came along got a bum deal. Bait and switch.



They saw the promise afar off, by faith.
It was future to them.Present for God,who does not live in time as we do.He is the I AM.
not I WAS.
not I WILL BE.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Sooooo therefore every person who is drawn to God, which would be every Christian, is of the Elect correct?



Those drawn by the Holy Spirit are elect.
Many people are drawn by other things ,but the things not of the Spirit will have no lasting effect.(they do not sanctify)


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Those drawn by the Holy Spirit are elect.
> Many people are drawn by other things ,but the things not of the Spirit will have no lasting effect.(they do not sanctify)


You just told us if "you are being DRAWN TO GOD",not drwn by things, not drawn by certain things but DRAWN TO GOD you have an open door and welcome arms. Christians are Christians because they are DRAWN TO GOD or they would be Muslim or Bhudist or Atheist or whatever.
So therefore ALL Christians have an open door and welcome arms.
Now of course you just realized that conflicts with your "the Elect are special" beliefs so you change direction and now claim they have to be drawn BY certain things and not just drawn TO God.
You said it. Its right up there. Go read it.
Either you make this crap up as you go or you really dont understand exactly what is that you believe.
Either way that makes telling us what is and what aint a bad idea.


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> Those things are the result of the drawing of the Spirit.
> That has to take place first because there must be a lasting permanent change made(a transformation).We can't manufacture this,though many are trying.
> But it is of man and eventually the person will turn away.



It sounds like we are saying the same thing, yours just has more words.

Are there times when someone thinks they are a Christian, does everything a Christian is supposed to do to qualify but yet they are not?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You just told us if "you are being DRAWN TO GOD",not drwn by things, not drawn by certain things but DRAWN TO GOD you have an open door and welcome arms. Christians are Christians because they are DRAWN TO GOD or they would be Muslim or Bhudist or Atheist or whatever.
> So therefore ALL Christians have an open door and welcome arms.
> Now of course you just realized that conflicts with your "the Elect are special" beliefs so you change direction and now claim they have to be drawn BY certain things and not just drawn TO God.
> You said it. Its right up there. Go read it.
> Either you make this crap up as you go or you really dont understand exactly what is that you believe.
> Either way that makes telling us what is and what aint a bad idea.



Walt,you know good and well what I believe.Ive been saying the same thing for a year and a half now in here.
You must be born again,quickened,regenerated,(all mean the same thing) BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD.
Are we straight on that?


----------



## welderguy

drippin' rock said:


> It sounds like we are saying the same thing, yours just has more words.
> 
> Are there times when someone thinks they are a Christian, does everything a Christian is supposed to do to qualify but yet they are not?



That's the trouble.People are being taught that all you have to do is this,that ,and the other and you are "qualified".
Its not about anything you do or don't do.Its about what has been done for you by Jesus.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That's the trouble.People are being taught that all you have to do is this,that ,and the other and you are "qualified".
> Its not about anything you do or don't do.Its about what has been done for you by Jesus.


But what did jesus really do?
According to legend..
He didnt have a choice.
He couldn't refuse.
And he literally had nothing to lose.

"God" made a son to sacrifice so that the people of the world could be saved.
As if that was the ONLY way to solve things.
God couldn't be sad because HE concocted the whole scheme. There are so many twists it is worthy of a Three's Company skit.

It sounds like a good ol couple thousand year old man made story that cannot cover all the holes in story. Its as if they made it up as they went along over the span of 50 years. And now it seems like some followers make up the fine details as they go along.


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> But what did jesus really do?
> According to legend..
> He didnt have a choice.
> He couldn't refuse.
> And he literally had nothing to lose.
> 
> "God" made a son to sacrifice so that the people of the world could be saved.
> As if that was the ONLY way to solve things.
> God couldn't be sad because HE concocted the whole scheme. There are so many twists it is worthy of a Three's Company skit.
> 
> It sounds like a good ol couple thousand year old man made story that cannot cover all the holes in story. Its as if they made it up as they went along over the span of 50 years. And now it seems like some followers make up the fine details as they go along.



Apparently you haven't been quickened.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> That's the trouble.People are being taught that all you have to do is this,that ,and the other and you are "qualified".
> Its not about anything you do or don't do.Its about what has been done for you by Jesus.


The Bible is chock full of do's and dont do's. The 10 Commandments are literally a list from God (supposedly) of do's and dont do's.
And you sit here and claim its not about anything you do or dont do.
Ive seen enough.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> But what did jesus really do?
> According to legend..
> He didnt have a choice.
> He couldn't refuse.
> And he literally had nothing to lose.
> 
> "God" made a son to sacrifice so that the people of the world could be saved.
> As if that was the ONLY way to solve things.
> God couldn't be sad because HE concocted the whole scheme. There are so many twists it is worthy of a Three's Company skit.
> 
> It sounds like a good ol couple thousand year old man made story that cannot cover all the holes in story. Its as if they made it up as they went along over the span of 50 years. And now it seems like some followers make up the fine details as they go along.



Your study is incomplete.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Your study is incomplete.



Yeah, i still have the welderguy version to read


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> The Bible is chock full of do's and dont do's. The 10 Commandments are literally a list from God (supposedly) of do's and dont do's.
> And you sit here and claim its not about anything you do or dont do.
> Ive seen enough.



The keeping of the law will not save you.It has to be of grace,because no one is able to keep the law perfectly.
God's holiness demands perfection.And we cannot be perfect without someone taking away our sins.It's the only way.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> God's holiness demands perfection.



This from a God that hit the reset button with a flood. 

Created a world for us to live on with only around 5% habitable land and told us to go forth and multiply. 

Seems like a real bright fella.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> This from a God that hit the reset button with a flood.
> 
> Created a world for us to live on with only around 5% habitable land and told us to go forth and multiply.
> 
> Seems like a real bright fella.



Did you forget that it was man's disobedience that was the reason the earth was cursed?

Don't try to blame God for man's depravity and the earth's problems.
You'll only prove more depravity in doing so.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The keeping of the law will not save you.It has to be of grace,because no one is able to keep the law perfectly.
> God's holiness demands perfection.And we cannot be perfect without someone taking away our sins.It's the only way.


Are you required to repent for your sins?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Did you forget that it was man's disobedience that was the reason the earth was cursed?
> 
> Don't try to blame God for man's depravity and the earth's problems.
> You'll only prove more depravity in doing so.


Wouldnt a god know that long before he created any of it? If your version if a god is true then that god not only knew about mans depravity but designed it.
According to your version the god you worship is directly to blame.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Wouldnt a god know that long before he created any of it? If your version if a god is true then that god not only knew about mans depravity but designed it.
> According to your version the god you worship is directly to blame.



Therein lies one of rhe biggest difference in thought processes in many of these disscussions. "We" connect the dots. In that if we are told "thiis" is true then that means "that" has to be true. There is just no way around it. So many of these conversations with Christians and with Welder in particular are comprised of individual, contradictory statements because each belief is viewed individually with absolutely no realization of how that dot impacts the next dot.
Make a claim, wipe the slate clean, make another claim, wipe the slate clean,,,,,,,


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Therein lies one of rhe biggest difference in thought processes in many of these disscussions. "We" connect the dots. In that if we are told "thiis" is true then that means "that" has to be true. There is just no way around it. So many of these conversations with Christians and with Welder in particular are comprised of individual, contradictory statements because each belief is viewed individually with absolutely no realization of how that dot impacts the next dot.
> Make a claim, wipe the slate clean, make another claim, wipe the slate clean,,,,,,,


Truth


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> Therein lies one of rhe biggest difference in thought processes in many of these disscussions. "We" connect the dots. In that if we are told "thiis" is true then that means "that" has to be true. There is just no way around it. So many of these conversations with Christians and with Welder in particular are comprised of individual, contradictory statements because each belief is viewed individually with absolutely no realization of how that dot impacts the next dot.
> Make a claim, wipe the slate clean, make another claim, wipe the slate clean,,,,,,,


You just don't get it.  You can't know the mind of God. Who are you to question?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Are you required to repent for your sins?



Did the thief on the cross repent?
He had a change take place in him,but in the sense that you are referring(to prove to others he was sorry), no he didn't.

But Jesus assured him he had eternal life.


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> You just don't get it.  You can't know the mind of God. Who are you to question?



That is the famous reply of many believers that tell everyone how complex the mind of their god is and how it is beyond human capabilities to even try to understand...as they take it upon themselves to speak for that god and explain in great detail what that complex and incomprehensible being wants us to know.
Their god is limited to their own capacity.
I love it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Did the thief on the cross repent?
> He had a change take place in him,but in the sense that you are referring(to prove to others he was sorry), no he didn't.
> 
> But Jesus assured him he had eternal life.


Pssst, you are using fake stories as if they are proof of actual events. That thief and his actions exist nowhere but in a story.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Wouldnt a god know that long before he created any of it? If your version if a god is true then that god not only knew about mans depravity but designed it.
> According to your version the god you worship is directly to blame.



Yes,He did know(He knows everything)
But He also knew ,before He created man,that He would die for a certain people.
He would also destroy other certain people.
He's the creator;He's sovereign over His creation.
He will be glorified in the saving and He will be glorified in the destroying.
In the end,it's only about His glory.

All the dots connect for His glory.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Did the thief on the cross repent?
> He had a change take place in him,but in the sense that you are referring(to prove to others he was sorry), no he didn't.
> 
> But Jesus assured him he had eternal life.


I didnt ask about a thief or a cross or proving to others or who was assured of what.
The question was are you required to repent for your sins?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Yes,He did know(He knows everything)
> But He also knew ,before He created man,that He would die for a certain people.
> He would also destroy other certain people.
> He's the creator;He's sovereign over His creation.
> He will be glorified in the saving and He will be glorified in the destroying.
> In the end,it's only about His glory.
> 
> All the dots connect for His glory.



Yes, I will agree with you on that, he certainly is a glory hound. His sole purpose of creation is so that he can be worshiped. He has a set of rules that must be followed but they are the absolute worst set of directions ever printed and because of that he kills and punishes everything that doesn't glorify him.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I didnt ask about a thief or a cross or proving to others or who was assured of what.
> The question was are you required to repent for your sins?


Welder can only answer for characters in ancient authors minds. If it requires personal thought and conflicts with biblical print he will insert a biblical fable that he thinks is close enough.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Welder can only answer for characters in ancient authors minds. If it requires personal thought and conflicts with biblical print he will insert a biblical fable that he thinks is close enough.


Its like asking the used car salesman to pop the hood on a car so you can check out the engine and he directs your attention to the huge trunk space that can carry lots of groceries.
I guess some people are fooled by that tactic but I sure aint buying it.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I didnt ask about a thief or a cross or proving to others or who was assured of what.
> The question was are you required to repent for your sins?



 Oh brother!?
I keep forgetting I can't rely on you(or bullet) to infer anything from anything I say.I have to spell everthing out.Very tiring.

I tried to use the thief example to make my point,that ,salvation requires NO outward action.But it does require an inward action by the Holy Spirit.

The outward actions come as a result of what's already been done for us on the inside.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Oh brother!?
> I keep forgetting I can't rely on you(or bullet) to infer anything from anything I say.I have to spell everthing out.Very tiring.
> 
> I tried to use the thief example to make my point,that ,salvation requires NO outward action.But it does require an inward action by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The outward actions come as a result of what's already been done for us on the inside.


Like what Obi Wan says to Skywalker..similar reality


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Its like asking the used car salesman to pop the hood on a car so you can check out the engine and he directs your attention to the huge trunk space that can carry lots of groceries.
> I guess some people are fooled by that tactic but I sure aint buying it.



For me,it's like showing you a Rolls Royce and telling you it's free,and you say " You are lying,thats not a Rolls Royce, the car over there that says 'Yugo' on it is really the Rolls Royce." "give you all I have for it!"

redonkulous


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> For me,it's like showing you a Rolls Royce and telling you it's free,and you say " You are lying,thats not a Rolls Royce, the car over there that says 'Yugo' on it is really the Rolls Royce." "give you all I have for it!"
> 
> redonkulous


Now explain how that even romotely fits.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Oh brother!?
> I keep forgetting I can't rely on you(or bullet) to infer anything from anything I say.I have to spell everthing out.Very tiring.
> 
> I tried to use the thief example to make my point,that ,salvation requires NO outward action.But it does require an inward action by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The outward actions come as a result of what's already been done for us on the inside.


Regardless of where the action comes from or whether its inward outward,
Are you required to repent for your sins?
Yes or no doesnt require inference or a whole lot of tiring effort. Yes is only 3 letters and no is only 2 letters.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Regardless of where the action comes from or whether its inward outward,
> Are you required to repent for your sins?
> Yes or no doesnt require inference or a whole lot of tiring effort. Yes is only 3 letters and no is only 2 letters.



Post #281
"salvation requires NO outward action"

If you don't get it this time,I can't help you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> For me,it's like showing you a Rolls Royce and telling you it's free,and you say " You are lying,thats not a Rolls Royce, the car over there that says 'Yugo' on it is really the Rolls Royce." "give you all I have for it!"
> 
> redonkulous


In your case you are offering what you say is a rolls royce and we are saying where is it. We would like to kick the tires.
You say its over here in my garage.
We say ok, let us check it out and take it for a spin.
You say, no i cannot open the garage, but trust me it is in there. Ill give it to you now but you cant have it have it until later.
We say, no, lets have a look now.
You say, nevermind you wouldnt know how to start it anyway, it is too complex. You tell us we have to put the key in, pump the accelerator 3 times, rub the dash and then turn the key.
We say, we each used to own RR and you just turn the key and they started right up.
You say, no we were doing it wrong and ours were not a real Rolls Royce anyway.
We say, well we bought them at the RR dealership but found out they were expensive to maintain and ultimately unreliable so we got rid of them.
You say, well I still want to give you mine but the garage has no doors or windows and i cant even let you peek at it, but trust me its in there.
We repeatedly come over to try to get in the garage and all that we find on your lot is an empty dirt spot. No garage, no Rolls, just a car for sale sign with a detailed description of a car you never owned in the first place.

Reality is that you have a pretend rolls royce that only you claim to know how to drive.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Post #281
> "salvation requires NO outward action"
> 
> If you don't get it this time,I can't help you.


If repenting for your sins is not required why dont you just say NO? 
If its not required whether it comrs from inward or outword doesnt even come in to play. Yet again you specified outward action.
Why?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> If repenting for your sins is not required why dont you just say NO?
> If its not required whether it comrs from inward or outword doesnt even come in to play. Yet again you specified outward action.
> Why?



The reason I belabour this point is because you are attempting to generalize a term that should not be generalized.I won't fall for that trap.

If I say "no repentance is required",that would not be entirely accurate.Because a repentance is required,just not one that we are able to effect.

The Holy Spirit must effect this change inside before we can do anything outwardly.


----------



## ambush80




----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The reason I belabour this point is because you are attempting to generalize a term that should not be generalized.I won't fall for that trap.
> 
> If I say "no repentance is required",that would not be entirely accurate.Because a repentance is required,just not one that we are able to effect.
> 
> The Holy Spirit must effect this change inside before we can do anything outwardly.


In essence walt, the rolls royce has to swing by and decide whether or not it wants to pick you up.
There is a reason they call one particular model of Rolls the Phantom......


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Did you forget that it was man's disobedience that was the reason the earth was cursed?


Who created man again? 

The omniscient one. 

But, 'he' didn't see that(man's disobedience)  coming. Then, felt bad about it and promised to never do it again. 
Sounds like a fairy tale to me.
Why not just create a perfect being to worship you that you don't have to kill? 
Like I said, boy with an ant farm, and a giant magnifying glass.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Who created man again?
> 
> The omniscient one.
> 
> But, 'he' didn't see that(man's disobedience)  coming. Then, felt bad about it and promised to never do it again.
> Sounds like a fairy tale to me.
> Why not just create a perfect being to worship you that you don't have to kill?
> Like I said, boy with an ant farm, and a giant magnifying glass.



Sounds like somebody that isn't accustomed to taking responsibility for their own bad actions.

Question:
If you lived in the days of Noah,and heard him preaching for,I think it was 150 years, to repent of your evil because destruction was coming,would you continue to scoff and do the evil things?Or do you think you would listen and tell others and try to prevent the destruction?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Sounds like somebody that isn't accustomed to taking responsibility for their own bad actions.


 You have got to be talking about God.



> Question:
> If you lived in the days of Noah,and heard him preaching for,I think it was 150 years, to repent of your evil because destruction was coming,would you continue to scoff and do the evil things?Or do you think you would listen and tell others and try to prevent the destruction?


A) I would scoff. 
B) I don't do evil things...to me. If I had to work on Sunday to feed my family, I would work on Sunday.
C) I may do one evil act if I had to listen to him preach for 150 years.


Question:
If you could create a perfect dog, would you create one that peed on the floor, barked all the time, and wouldn't come when you called?

Question:
What could all the animals do to not be drowned?

Question: 
If everyone(or just half the world population) repented, was there room on the boat?


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> You have got to be talking about God.
> 
> 
> A) I would scoff.
> B) I don't do evil things...to me. If I had to work on Sunday to feed my family, I would work on Sunday.
> 
> 
> Question:
> If you could create a perfect dog, would you create one that peed on the floor, barked all the time, and wouldn't come when you called?



You know exactly who Im talking about.

A)If you were being warned for your own benefit,why would you scoff?
B)It makes no difference whether you think its evil or not,the One who makes the rules is the same One who enforces them.

Why is my answer about the dog even relevant either way?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> You know exactly who Im talking about.



But, you don't know me. I don't have the devil or God to blame. It is just me. Try to stay on point and not veer into personal territory. Trust me.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> A)If you were being warned for your own benefit,why would you scoff?


 For the many reasons we have posted, it just doesn't make sense that a perfect God would create an imperfect being just to kill em off. 


> B)It makes no difference whether you think its evil or not,the One who makes the rules is the same One who enforces them.


 Where is the enforcement at these days? Oh that's right, cameras everywhere. 



> Why is my answer about the dog even relevant either way?


 Answer with a question. If you were just this inquisitive in relation to religion...


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> But, you don't know me. I don't have the devil or God to blame. It is just me. Try to stay on point and not veer into personal territory. Trust me.



Touched a nerve I see.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Touched a nerve I see.



Yea. Personal attacks, by definition, kinda do that. You surprised? 
Are you lacking in the social skills?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The reason I belabour this point is because you are attempting to generalize a term that should not be generalized.I won't fall for that trap.
> 
> If I say "no repentance is required",that would not be entirely accurate.Because a repentance is required,just not one that we are able to effect.
> 
> The Holy Spirit must effect this change inside before we can do anything outwardly.


Before you can do anything outwardly or before you can do what you are required to do show your repentence?


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> For the many reasons we have posted, it just doesn't make sense that a perfect God would create an imperfect being just to kill em off.



Why does an imperfect being think he knows better than the perfect being?

That's what makes no sense.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Before you can do anything outwardly or before you can do what you are required to do show your repentence?



Can you clarify the question please?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Why does an imperfect being think he knows better than the perfect being?
> 
> That's what makes no sense.



Perfect beings don't make mistakes. If they do, they are not perfect. God made a mistake, cleaned it up with a flood and started over.
If it was in his grand perfect plan all the time, worship away. I'll pass, even if he did exist. 

Make sense?


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Perfect beings don't make mistakes. If they do, they are not perfect. God made a mistake, cleaned it up with a flood and started over.
> If it was in his grand perfect plan all the time, worship away. I'll pass, even if he did exist.
> 
> Make sense?



Psalm 76:10

10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Perfect beings don't make mistakes. If they do, they are not perfect. God made a mistake, cleaned it up with a flood and started over.
> If it was in his grand perfect plan all the time, worship away. I'll pass, even if he did exist.
> 
> Make sense?


Forget the imperfection seen all throughout nature. Using the writings in the bible it tells of gods displeasure, getting upset, and being unhappy, having regret, .....and that is all with his own work. Shameful for an omniscient being. Par for the course for ancient writings scattered together.


----------



## bullethead

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart


----------



## bullethead

1 Samuel 15:11 ESV "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night.


----------



## bullethead

Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain”


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> Why does an imperfect being think he knows better than the perfect being?
> 
> That's what makes no sense.



I know, right?  I told bullet the same thing. These people......


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> I know, right?  I told bullet the same thing. These people......


I am astounded that more than a few of us in here that are routinly able to out think a perfect being. Well, able to out think 2000 to 5000 year old story tellers...


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> I am astounded that more than a few of us in here that are routinly able to out think a perfect being. Well, able to out think 2000 to 5000 year old story tellers...



But aren't you worried about your soul?  Maybe you should believe just in case.


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> But aren't you worried about your soul?  Maybe you should believe just in case.


According to welder i dont have a choice.
Even if i want to believe and i think i believe the holy rolls royce has to come and visit me.
Even if i am a hard core disbeliever but the head honcho wants me ill be swayed into believing.

It is out of my hands according to welder.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> According to welder i dont have a choice.
> Even if i want to believe and i think i believe the holy rolls royce has to come and visit me.
> Even if i am a hard core disbeliever but the head honcho wants me ill be swayed into believing.
> 
> It is out of my hands according to welder.



The thought has often crossed my mind that some of you, that say you are atheist or agnostic, may have at one time in your lives,been a believer.By believer,I mean God opened your eyes to the truth and you were changed.
But then you were entangled in the world and drifted.Maybe something happened that made you bitter toward God and you said "I'm done...if God wants me back,He knows where I am."

Hey, it happens.like here:
1 Timothy 4:1-2

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

If this is the case,you should turn back to Him and confess and be healed.You haven't lost your salvation.That's not possible.
You've lost your fellowship with Him through your rebellion and unbelief.
He promised He will not refuse those that are of a broken and contrite heart.He said He will in no way cast you out.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The thought has often crossed my mind that some of you, that say you are atheist or agnostic, may have at one time in your lives,been a believer.By believer,I mean God opened your eyes to the truth and you were changed.
> But then you were entangled in the world and drifted.Maybe something happened that made you bitter toward God and you said "I'm done...if God wants me back,He knows where I am."
> 
> Hey, it happens.like here:
> 1 Timothy 4:1-2
> 
> 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
> 
> 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
> 
> If this is the case,you should turn back to Him and confess and be healed.You haven't lost your salvation.That's not possible.
> You've lost your fellowship with Him through your rebellion and unbelief.
> He promised He will not refuse those that are of a broken and contrite heart.He said He will in no way cast you out.


Lets put aside for a moment whether the Christian God actually exists or not.
The picture that is painted of God by the dudes who created the Bible is not of something that I can worship.
I am not willing to ignore the things that I find very, very wrong just so I can get a ticket upstairs.


----------



## bullethead

waltl1 said:


> lets put aside for a moment whether the christian god actually exists or not.
> The picture that is painted of god by the dudes who created the bible is not of something that i can worship.
> I am not willing to ignore the things that i find very, very wrong just so i can get a ticket upstairs.


x2!


----------



## welderguy

Very well then.
If you are not His child,I wouldn't want it any other way.

But if you are His child,He will scourge you with many stripes to break that will.
"He scourgeth every son whom He receiveth"
It will be done because He loves you,but it will feel like pure he11 while He's doing it.

Oh btw,I too feel the way you do about all the man-based garbage that's in religion today.But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> Lets put aside for a moment whether the Christian God actually exists or not.
> The picture that is painted of God by the dudes who created the Bible is not of something that I can worship.
> I am not willing to ignore the things that I find very, very wrong just so I can get a ticket upstairs.



I think this is important to point out. I've said it before here as well. If one day the creator appears before me, I have questions, not adulation.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

bullethead said:


> Neither you or miguel are innocent of what  each of you claim others are doing.
> Both have used insults and have avoided the direct questions.
> And then cry about it.



I moderately enjoy reading over here, and will need some time to catch up three pages, if I ever can. To point, and I doubt you will agree, I've never seen a regular here do a; "my bad, I was wrong, I apologize, you are correct in your accusation" type statement, especially certain individuals. There are some that automatically assume, knowing someones religious orientation, that the discussion will go one way, never giving it the open minded benefit of the doubt of the neutral grounds of discussion.

It plays into the narcissistic / self deity mentality of certain beliefs of some in our society in so much that certain people are so incredibly intelligent that they can analyze a topic to the point of irrefutable certainty in their beliefs of what is absolute. In their tiny little microcosm of existence at least.  

In a Universe where we are less than an atomic particle on a spec of dust on a gnats genitalia I do find that amusing, to say the least. 

Now, please excuse me while I try to make use of this unusually heavy work load (this is a good thing) and I will catch up and continue when I am able.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Very well then.
> If you are not His child,I wouldn't want it any other way.
> 
> But if you are His child,He will scourge you with many stripes to break that will.
> "He scourgeth every son whom He receiveth"
> It will be done because He loves you,but it will feel like pure he11 while He's doing it.
> 
> Oh btw,I too feel the way you do about all the man-based garbage that's in religion today.But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


FOR ME, and ive given iit alot of thought, the problem with not throwing the baby out with the bath water is there is no FACTUAL way to determine what should or shouldnt get thrown out. Therefor all I would be doing is creating my own version of a god that I liked.


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> I think this is important to point out. I've said it before here as well. If one day the creator appears before me, I have questions, not adulation.


Yep.
Unfortunately I cant think of any explenation that I would find acceptable for some of the things in the Bible.
Except for maybe " Hey the Bible is man made so dont blame me for that. Let me SHOW you what Im really all about".


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I moderately enjoy reading over here, and will need some time to catch up three pages, if I ever can. To point, and I doubt you will agree, I've never seen a regular here do a; "my bad, I was wrong, I apologize, you are correct in your accusation" type statement, especially certain individuals. There are some that automatically assume, knowing someones religious orientation, that the discussion will go one way, never giving it the open minded benefit of the doubt of the neutral grounds of discussion.
> 
> It plays into the narcissistic / self deity mentality of certain beliefs of some in our society in so much that certain people are so incredibly intelligent that they can analyze a topic to the point of irrefutable certainty in their beliefs of what is absolute. In their tiny little microcosm of existence at least.
> 
> In a Universe where we are less than an atomic particle on a spec of dust on a gnats genitalia I do find that amusing, to say the least.
> 
> Now, please excuse me while I try to make use of this unusually heavy work load (this is a good thing) and I will catch up and continue when I am able.



Who is it again that knows WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what the truth is?  It's not atheists.  I maintain that God might exist, so does Richard Dawkins, so does Sam Harris.  I just don't see any evidence to believe it.  The evidence is what I thought we were starting to drill down on in our conversation.

The only Christian I've ever heard say "I could be wrong" is my mother.  Can you say it?


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I moderately enjoy reading over here, and will need some time to catch up three pages, if I ever can. To point, and I doubt you will agree, I've never seen a regular here do a; "my bad, I was wrong, I apologize, you are correct in your accusation" type statement, especially certain individuals. There are some that automatically assume, knowing someones religious orientation, that the discussion will go one way, never giving it the open minded benefit of the doubt of the neutral grounds of discussion.
> 
> It plays into the narcissistic / self deity mentality of certain beliefs of some in our society in so much that certain people are so incredibly intelligent that they can analyze a topic to the point of irrefutable certainty in their beliefs of what is absolute. In their tiny little microcosm of existence at least.
> 
> In a Universe where we are less than an atomic particle on a spec of dust on a gnats genitalia I do find that amusing, to say the least.
> 
> Now, please excuse me while I try to make use of this unusually heavy work load (this is a good thing) and I will catch up and continue when I am able.



I attended the funeral of a friend and neighbor on Saturday.  The place was packed. The out pouring of love was amazing to behold. It moved me more that the birth of my daughter. 

You know how many people died the same day he did?  151,600.  6,316 per hour.  

Examine where the true hubris lives.


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I moderately enjoy reading over here, and will need some time to catch up three pages, if I ever can. To point, and I doubt you will agree, I've never seen a regular here do a; "my bad, I was wrong, I apologize, you are correct in your accusation" type statement, especially certain individuals. There are some that automatically assume, knowing someones religious orientation, that the discussion will go one way, never giving it the open minded benefit of the doubt of the neutral grounds of discussion.
> 
> It plays into the narcissistic / self deity mentality of certain beliefs of some in our society in so much that certain people are so incredibly intelligent that they can analyze a topic to the point of irrefutable certainty in their beliefs of what is absolute. In their tiny little microcosm of existence at least.
> 
> In a Universe where we are less than an atomic particle on a spec of dust on a gnats genitalia I do find that amusing, to say the least.
> 
> Now, please excuse me while I try to make use of this unusually heavy work load (this is a good thing) and I will catch up and continue when I am able.


I think you may have just inadvertently completely confirmed what Bullett said.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> FOR ME, and ive given iit alot of thought, the problem with not throwing the baby out with the bath water is there is no FACTUAL way to determine what should or shouldnt get thrown out. Therefor all I would be doing is creating my own version of a god that I liked.



So clear this up for me if you can.
You fellas come here almost daily under a premise that you want evidence and answers and testimony of things of God..or gods.
It really seems to me that underneath all of the sarcasm,the bluntness,and stubborness. there is some kind of perceived(to me) seeking.
But,maybe all you are really seeking is a reason to try to find fault and bolster your own unbelief.
Maybe you don't really want the truth,but would rather see truth trampled in the dirt.
Id like someone to step up and be completely honest and tell me what your underlying motive is for coming here so much and just what you are seeking when you do.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> So clear this up for me if you can.
> You fellas come here almost daily under a premise that you want evidence and answers and testimony of things of God..or gods.
> It really seems to me that underneath all of the sarcasm,the bluntness,stubborness,and sometimes downright meanness, there is some kind of perceived(to me) seeking.
> But,maybe all you are really seeking is a reason to try to find fault and bolster your own unbelief.
> Maybe you don't really want the truth,but would rather see truth trampled in the dirt.
> Id like someone to step up and be completely honest and tell me what your underlying motive is for coming here so much and just what you are seeking when you do.


1. The subject of religion and how it affects a person's thought process is very iinteresting.
When you consider there is no proof yet millions of people hang their hat on it thats pretty powerful.
Then in no particular order -
2. I enjoy the mental exercise of debate.
3. Better understand the beliefs of other people that I share the world with every day.
4. Christianity (most religions) can produce the most arrogant attitudes in people Ive ever seen. There is some satisfaction in pointing out the absurdity of some of their claims.(Not that I think it will make a difference)
5. Confirm to myself that Ive thought about this God thing from all the angles. Maybe I'll hear something from one of you that I havent considered.
6. The A/As here arent rabid foaming at the mouth extremists whos only interest is bludgeoning Christians with insults. I find them just as disgusting as I find Christian extremists. 

I guess those are the main reasons but #1 is by far the biggest reason.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> 1. The subject of religion and how it affects a person's thought process is very iinteresting.
> When you consider there is no proof yet millions of people hang their hat on it thats pretty powerful.
> Then in no particular order -
> 2. I enjoy the mental exercise of debate.
> 3. Better understand the beliefs of other people that I share the world with every day.
> 4. Christianity (most religions) can produce the most arrogant attitudes in people Ive ever seen. There is some satisfaction in pointing out the absurdity of some of their claims.(Not that I think it will make a difference)
> 5. Confirm to myself that Ive thought about this God thing from all the angles. Maybe I'll hear something from one of you that I havent considered.
> 6. The A/As here arent rabid foaming at the mouth extremists whos only interest is bludgeoning Christians with insults. I find them just as disgusting as I find Christian extremists.
> 
> I guess those are the main reasons but #1 is by far the biggest reason.



So basicly just a science experiment.


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I moderately enjoy reading over here, and will need some time to catch up three pages, if I ever can. To point, and I doubt you will agree, I've never seen a regular here do a; "my bad, I was wrong, I apologize, you are correct in your accusation" type statement, especially certain individuals. There are some that automatically assume, knowing someones religious orientation, that the discussion will go one way, never giving it the open minded benefit of the doubt of the neutral grounds of discussion.
> 
> It plays into the narcissistic / self deity mentality of certain beliefs of some in our society in so much that certain people are so incredibly intelligent that they can analyze a topic to the point of irrefutable certainty in their beliefs of what is absolute. In their tiny little microcosm of existence at least.
> 
> In a Universe where we are less than an atomic particle on a spec of dust on a gnats genitalia I do find that amusing, to say the least.
> 
> Now, please excuse me while I try to make use of this unusually heavy work load (this is a good thing) and I will catch up and continue when I am able.


No mirrors in your house?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> 1. The subject of religion and how it affects a person's thought process is very iinteresting.
> When you consider there is no proof yet millions of people hang their hat on it thats pretty powerful.
> Then in no particular order -
> 2. I enjoy the mental exercise of debate.
> 3. Better understand the beliefs of other people that I share the world with every day.
> 4. Christianity (most religions) can produce the most arrogant attitudes in people Ive ever seen. There is some satisfaction in pointing out the absurdity of some of their claims.(Not that I think it will make a difference)
> 5. Confirm to myself that Ive thought about this God thing from all the angles. Maybe I'll hear something from one of you that I havent considered.
> 6. The A/As here arent rabid foaming at the mouth extremists whos only interest is bludgeoning Christians with insults. I find them just as disgusting as I find Christian extremists.
> 
> I guess those are the main reasons but #1 is by far the biggest reason.



Walt, that is the 3rd post you have made today that I couldn't add a thing to in order to make it my own. Spot on.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> So basicly just a science experiment.



It is a mental workout on many levels at no one's expense but our own.
#5 confirms it is no science experiment.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> So basicly just a science experiment.


Kind of depends on what you mean by "just a science experiment".
Just a science experiment could be kicking your cat to see how it reacts to a size 12 boot or just a science experiment can result in a vaccination that saves millions of lives from smallpox.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Walt, that is the 3rd post you have made today that I couldn't add a thing to in order to make it my own. Spot on.


Great minds think alike


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> 1. The subject of religion and how it affects a person's thought process is very iinteresting.
> When you consider there is no proof yet millions of people hang their hat on it thats pretty powerful.
> Then in no particular order -
> 2. I enjoy the mental exercise of debate.
> 3. Better understand the beliefs of other people that I share the world with every day.
> 4. Christianity (most religions) can produce the most arrogant attitudes in people Ive ever seen. There is some satisfaction in pointing out the absurdity of some of their claims.(Not that I think it will make a difference)
> 5. Confirm to myself that Ive thought about this God thing from all the angles. Maybe I'll hear something from one of you that I havent considered.
> 6. The A/As here arent rabid foaming at the mouth extremists whos only interest is bludgeoning Christians with insults. I find them just as disgusting as I find Christian extremists.
> 
> I guess those are the main reasons but #1 is by far the biggest reason.



Good list. I'll pick #4 and #5 as my own.


----------



## WaltL1

Didnt like our aswers Welder?
Dissapointed we didnt say we were here to prove you wrong?


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> Didnt like our aswers Welder?
> Dissapointed we didnt say we were here to prove you wrong?



About #5... Do you really think someone will show up on here and present an angle you haven't considered?


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> About #5... Do you really think someone will show up on here and present an angle you haven't considered?


To be honest, not really. But Im open to listening and giving it thought. However its also going to have be something beyond the regurgitation of scripture or "the Bible says so".


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Didnt like our aswers Welder?
> Dissapointed we didnt say we were here to prove you wrong?



Maybe I have been naïve,or maybe I was just hoping beyond hope that it was different with some of you fellas,but I actually believed some of you were seeking with more pure motives.(how wrong I was,huh?)
you say you like to debate,and I know that,but I also know that you frequent the spiritual forums upstairs without debating.That threw me a curve,I guess.
Anyway,the reasons you gave,and the fact no one else spoke up with any other reasons indicate that my time can be better spent elsewhere.It's nothing personal,I assure you.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

drippin' rock said:


> About #5... Do you really think someone will show up on here and present an angle you haven't considered?





WaltL1 said:


> To be honest, not really.







			
				Blaise Pascal said:
			
		

> Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists. Blaise Pascal


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Maybe I have been naïve,or maybe I was just hoping beyond hope that it was different with some of you fellas,but I actually believed some of you were seeking with more pure motives.(how wrong I was,huh?)
> you say you like to debate,and I know that,but I also know that you frequent the spiritual forums upstairs without debating.That threw me a curve,I guess.
> Anyway,the reasons you gave,and the fact no one else spoke up with any other reasons indicate that my time can be better spent elsewhere.It's nothing personal,I assure you.


Some things you may not be considering -
Almost all of the things I listed had to do with learning what you believe and why you believe it. It would be easy to just think Christians were stupid morons because they believe what they do. Instead I choose to educate myself and better understand it.
And yes I follow along in the other Spritual forums without debating. And for the same reason I stated above.
But the reason I dont debate there is out of respect for it being "your turf". This forum is where Christians and A/As come to debate if they want to. I do occasionaly ask a question up there but I dont debate the answer.
Seem like pure motives to me but ymmv.
By the way you had 3 of us respond to your question so far. Thats not "noone else".


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


>


Shouldnt a belief in God be given a little more importance than betting on the hope of drawing an inside straight?

And Im assuming you also believe in all the other gods. You know, just in case.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Maybe I have been naïve,or maybe I was just hoping beyond hope that it was different with some of you fellas,but I actually believed some of you were seeking with more pure motives.(how wrong I was,huh?)
> you say you like to debate,and I know that,but I also know that you frequent the spiritual forums upstairs without debating.That threw me a curve,I guess.
> Anyway,the reasons you gave,and the fact no one else spoke up with any other reasons indicate that my time can be better spent elsewhere.It's nothing personal,I assure you.


Regarding the spiritual forums above..
Not much else except some questions and light rebuttle is tolerated especially by someone that is deemed non-spiritual. 

You fail to recognize the respect given by us up there. Many of us read what is going on daily and flat out stay out of the mix. You guys have enough problems battling each other in the spiritual forums(you dont find that level of disagreement down here with supposed like minded individuals) so we are patient enough to wait until a few of you decide to make your case here.
It is ok when many of you "take a break" from the AAA, as it gives us a needed break from the same old same old and we can watch the "progress " above for a bit.

It is even a little more of a sign of a job well done when "we" bring enough answers that send the usual "hit and runners" (ie:the ones who never answer direct questions but instead dissappear until they think we have forgotten about them) back up a few floors so they can regroup.


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


>





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Blaise Pascal
> Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists. Blaise Pascal


Amazing how people who want others to cover all the bases draw a line in the sand that they cannot fathom crossing in their own segregated section at Faith beach.
Why limit your odds by choosing only one god?
Why should others do as you say but not as you do?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Shouldnt a belief in God be given a little more importance than betting on the hope of drawing an inside straight?
> 
> And Im assuming you also believe in all the other gods. You know, just in case.



There's a better chance of hitting a gut shot than picking the right god.


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


>


_
 Originally Posted by Blaise Pascal
Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists. Blaise Pascal
_

He's saying he could be wrong.  Are you saying that, too?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Regarding the spiritual forums above..
> Not much else except some questions and light rebuttle is tolerated especially by someone that is deemed non-spiritual.
> 
> You fail to recognize the respect given by us up there. Many of us read what is going on daily and flat out stay out of the mix. You guys have enough problems battling each other in the spiritual forums(you dont find that level of disagreement down here with supposed like minded individuals) so we are patient enough to wait until a few of you decide to make your case here.
> It is ok when many of you "take a break" from the AAA, as it gives us a needed break from the same old same old and we can watch the "progress " above for a bit.
> 
> It is even a little more of a sign of a job well done when "we" bring enough answers that send the usual "hit and runners" (ie:the ones who never answer direct questions but instead dissappear until they think we have forgotten about them) back up a few floors so they can regroup.



I appreciate that respect you show upstairs.That's a very nice gesture.
But I've come to a point where I just don't see a reason to continue beating dead horses down here.All hope of it doing any good is gone for me personally.The dark cloud of negativity that I perceive down here is something I really see no benefit in my spiritual walk.For that reason,I must bid you all farewell.Hopefully someday I will see it differently.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I appreciate that respect you show upstairs.That's a very nice gesture.
> But I've come to a point where I just don't see a reason to continue beating dead horses down here.All hope of it doing any good is gone for me personally.The dark cloud of negativity that I perceive down here is something I really see no benefit in my spiritual walk.For that reason,I must bid you all farewell.Hopefully someday I will see it differently.



1....and most important, thanks for the time you did spend here.

Don't take this wrong way but if you should decide to ever come back, use your time away to further your research on opposing views as yours and maybe take the time to find another angle of debate other than unprovable claims and biblical verses. None of that was eye opening, new, or an angle that any of us have not heard before. 
Hopefully we see you later.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I appreciate that respect you show upstairs.That's a very nice gesture.
> But I've come to a point where I just don't see a reason to continue beating dead horses down here.All hope of it doing any good is gone for me personally.The dark cloud of negativity that I perceive down here is something I really see no benefit in my spiritual walk.For that reason,I must bid you all farewell.Hopefully someday I will see it differently.


And farewell to you too.


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> I appreciate that respect you show upstairs.That's a very nice gesture.
> But I've come to a point where I just don't see a reason to continue beating dead horses down here.All hope of it doing any good is gone for me personally.The dark cloud of negativity that I perceive down here is something I really see no benefit in my spiritual walk.For that reason,I must bid you all farewell.Hopefully someday I will see it differently.



It is telling that you view opposition to your beliefs as a "dark cloud of negativity".


----------



## Israel

Few things inoculate quite as effectively against Jesus Christ as religious practice and religious rituals. It appears many of you have come to some conclusion that to be associated in any way with Jesus Christ must include these. Who could dissuade then? 

Having concluded that the emptiness, foolishness, vanity and futility of the things of which you either partook or observed (or are observing) is all but irremediable, it would take a real duffer to puff out his chest and say "I can handle these guys!".

Almost to a man you all seem to freely confess some experience of what you believe to be Jesus Christ through your proximate view of things, and at least one had the temerity to describe himself in those matters as "once" devout. 

In fact, some seem so fluent in these issues as to have the whole of titles almost down pat when in reference to christianity being no more than a vague concept or thing of very limited utility, he found such referenc-er as now his own deacon, friar, preacher...inquisitor (at least this guy confesses he "once" believed he heard the Lord's voice, had some belief he had a relationship...of sorts)
Yep, you guys know the lingo.

Seems you "been around" christians a lot...but in all of that "having once been"...or just whatever you may consider the depth of your immersions as such, none ever shares anything they have (or had) of revelation. It just ain't there...even to an iota of "you know, I once saw this thing of truth in Jesus Christ that suddenly was quite opened to me and confirmed something in my soul that previously only seemed contradictory, difficult, or hidden.

Now I'll admit a man can't have it both ways, as much as he might like. Of course in the context of our conversations the atheist/agnostic can't admit to revelation, or even "a" revelation, if you will; to do so would imply _a revealer_ and_ dependent one_ to whom such would come. So, at best we are left with those who, most seemingly, claim to have once belonged to a thing, but a very thing, if truly honest in handling the scriptures, one can _only come to_ based upon a revelation.

One surely may have been a Bible reader, a meetings goer, a Sunday school attendee of even perfect attendance, or perhaps even a "confessor" after a fashion. Why then am I, (would any?) be surprised at those who, thinking this the sum of christian experience, find a thing to which they no longer favor...when such was never concomitant with any admitted revelation of Jesus Christ? The one believes I have seen all, and/or to my own satisfaction "enough" of christianity to know it is bogus.

That I have here, http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=873774

made plain what I consider my relationship to that thing known  most plainly as christianity (as I perceive have several others by the spirit of their words) as a thing to which neither allegiance is owed/commanded, nor even suggested, I reiterate emphatically. Life comes not from "a" way of life, but _the way _Himself. Though there be many instructions in this way of life, they are not for the purpose of manifesting "a" way of life as they are toward being found faithful to Him, Who is the way.
Without the revelation, in particular "a particular" revelation of Jesus, all else is built upon sand. Who could blame you for abandoning such a shifty, and tediously built dwelling of no utility? Not I. But neither is it conceded that just because some boards and nails were made visible, such once made one "a" christian.

Yes, "we" come at things quite differently, quite opposed, actually, in truth. You are compelled to deny any such revelation of any of such that might be called god. OK. But, though as I seemed quite futile in an exchange with Ambush to point to a very simple truth...each man is who he is, and not another, I am content. And each man knows what he knows, has what he has, is what he is, by something that has assigned him such, is now to me plainer than ever, previously. 

We are "not" each other.
We may reach out, we may make every and any effort available to our understandings, may even at times recognize a likeness in one another, or seek to deny it, ultimately it is of no matter, our assigned places of being will not be anything ever, but as assigned. Yes, there is much to be gained in identification, but also as much at risk. This is why Ambush's stating of a common dynamic seemed so salient. "Where do I look to see myself"....is all. To myself? I am liar and flatterer of myself, I need no more schooling in that. Nor, do I believe, does any man. But, that is where "I" am.

I find no compulsion that you believe the One who _told me everything I ever did._ How much He is to me, really, only He knows anyway. What would a man, could a man, make of his own devotions, when all he is to himself, is himself? What would he have to judge...unless his dependence for such judgment...were made too plain to him?

Therefore, those who are sure their surveying of all "of the Christ" by their having once been what they easily describe as christians, know no better. Yes, we are all "under the same dynamic". Each is always right in his own eyes, for to believe otherwise must leave a thing to the sight of another eye. And in this I may easily say "I could be wrong"...but Ambush, your particular response to my post as in:

You are your own religion. Congratulations. You are Deacon, Friar, Inquisitor and Preacher in your very own church.

Leaves me considering a pride I may know needing exposure, but more really, your chagrin at seeing your pinata already shredded plainly, and whatever fun you may have known in its striking, is being robbed you.

I could be wrong. But what matter? This too, shall pass.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Few things inoculate quite as effectively against Jesus Christ as religious practice and religious rituals. It appears many of you have come to some conclusion that to be associated in any way with Jesus Christ must include these. Who could dissuade then?
> 
> Having concluded that the emptiness, foolishness, vanity and futility of the things of which you either partook or observed (or are observing) is all but irremediable, it would take a real duffer to puff out his chest and say "I can handle these guys!".
> 
> Almost to a man you all seem to freely confess some experience of what you believe to be Jesus Christ through your proximate view of things, and at least one had the temerity to describe himself in those matters as "once" devout.
> 
> In fact, some seem so fluent in these issues as to have the whole of titles almost down pat when in reference to christianity being no more than a vague concept or thing of very limited utility, he found such referenc-er as now his own deacon, friar, preacher...inquisitor (at least this guy confesses he "once" believed he heard the Lord's voice, had some belief he had a relationship...of sorts)
> Yep, you guys know the lingo.
> 
> Seems you "been around" christians a lot...but in all of that "having once been"...or just whatever you may consider the depth of your immersions as such, none ever shares anything they have (or had) of revelation. It just ain't there...even to an iota of "you know, I once saw this thing of truth in Jesus Christ that suddenly was quite opened to me and confirmed something in my soul that previously only seemed contradictory, difficult, or hidden.
> 
> Now I'll admit a man can't have it both ways, as much as he might like. Of course in the context of our conversations the atheist/agnostic can't admit to revelation, or even "a" revelation, if you will; to do so would imply _a revealer_ and_ dependent one_ to whom such would come. So, at best we are left with those who, most seemingly, claim to have once belonged to a thing, but a very thing, if truly honest in handling the scriptures, one can _only come to_ based upon a revelation.
> 
> One surely may have been a Bible reader, a meetings goer, a Sunday school attendee of even perfect attendance, or perhaps even a "confessor" after a fashion. Why then am I, (would any?) be surprised at those who, thinking this the sum of christian experience, find a thing to which they no longer favor...when such was never concomitant with any admitted revelation of Jesus Christ? The one believes I have seen all, and/or to my own satisfaction "enough" of christianity to know it is bogus.
> 
> That I have here, http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=873774
> 
> made plain what I consider my relationship to that thing known  most plainly as christianity (as I perceive have several others by the spirit of their words) as a thing to which neither allegiance is owed/commanded, nor even suggested, I reiterate emphatically. Life comes not from "a" way of life, but _the way _Himself. Though there be many instructions in this way of life, they are not for the purpose of manifesting "a" way of life as they are toward being found faithful to Him, Who is the way.
> Without the revelation, in particular "a particular" revelation of Jesus, all else is built upon sand. Who could blame you for abandoning such a shifty, and tediously built dwelling of no utility? Not I. But neither is it conceded that just because some boards and nails were made visible, such once made one "a" christian.
> 
> Yes, "we" come at things quite differently, quite opposed, actually, in truth. You are compelled to deny any such revelation of any of such that might be called god. OK. But, though as I seemed quite futile in an exchange with Ambush to point to a very simple truth...each man is who he is, and not another, I am content. And each man knows what he knows, has what he has, is what he is, by something that has assigned him such, is now to me plainer than ever, previously.
> 
> We are "not" each other.
> We may reach out, we may make every and any effort available to our understandings, may even at times recognize a likeness in one another, or seek to deny it, ultimately it is of no matter, our assigned places of being will not be anything ever, but as assigned. Yes, there is much to be gained in identification, but also as much at risk. This is why Ambush's stating of a common dynamic seemed so salient. "Where do I look to see myself"....is all. To myself? I am liar and flatterer of myself, I need no more schooling in that. Nor, do I believe, does any man. But, that is where "I" am.
> 
> I find no compulsion that you believe the One who _told me everything I ever did._ How much He is to me, really, only He knows anyway. What would a man, could a man, make of his own devotions, when all he is to himself, is himself? What would he have to judge...unless his dependence for such judgment...were made too plain to him?
> 
> Therefore, those who are sure their surveying of all "of the Christ" by their having once been what they easily describe as christians, know no better. Yes, we are all "under the same dynamic". Each is always right in his own eyes, for to believe otherwise must leave a thing to the sight of another eye. And in this I may easily say "I could be wrong"...but Ambush, your particular response to my post as in:
> 
> You are your own religion. Congratulations. You are Deacon, Friar, Inquisitor and Preacher in your very own church.
> 
> Leaves me considering a pride I may know needing exposure, but more really, your chagrin at seeing your pinata already shredded plainly, and whatever fun you may have known in its striking, is being robbed you.
> 
> I could be wrong. But what matter? This too, shall pass.


You ALMOST sound like you are a life long believer and loyal follower instead of a self admitted "once not devout" late addition to the band wagon. ALMOST.
If anyone is wondering what Temerity means, the entire post in quotes is the definition.


----------



## drippin' rock

Hey Israel, why did you not answer my question on the other thread?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

ambush80 said:


> _
> Originally Posted by Blaise Pascal
> Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists. Blaise Pascal
> _
> 
> He's saying he could be wrong.  Are you saying that, too?



Your glasses are a different shade from mine if that is all you derive from his quote.


----------



## Israel

drippin' rock said:


> Hey Israel, why did you not answer my question on the other thread?


Where? Which?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> You ALMOST sound like you are a life long believer and loyal follower instead of a self admitted "once not devout" late addition to the band wagon. ALMOST.
> If anyone is wondering what Temerity means, the entire post in quotes is the definition.



If I recall correctly, you are the one once devout, no?
At least as far as Webster could tell you.
But you are also the one who more recently said:


> But what did jesus really do?
> According to legend..
> He didnt have a choice.
> He couldn't refuse.
> And he literally had nothing to lose.
> 
> "God" made a son to sacrifice so that the people of the world could be saved.
> As if that was the ONLY way to solve things.
> God couldn't be sad because HE concocted the whole scheme. There are so many twists it is worthy of a Three's Company skit.
> 
> It sounds like a good ol couple thousand year old man made story that cannot cover all the holes in story. Its as if they made it up as they went along over the span of 50 years. And now it seems like some followers make up the fine details as they go along.



To which, when I replied "your study is not complete" you responded (as appeared to me) rather snarkily with some reference to Welder (appears to me you like playing pinatas also).

But the fact remains, your study is not complete.


----------



## drippin' rock

Israel said:


> Where? Which?



The one right under this one. "Personal experiences"


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Your glasses are a different shade from mine if that is all you derive from his quote.


There are different shades.
What I derive from this saying is that its incredibly short sighted.
"You lose nothing"?
There are lots of people that will die today. Some of them will be little kids, who through no fault of their own, live in a place where going out in the street can result in getting blown up. 
And opposing beliefs in religion will be the root cause.
Religion has formed this world.
Who hates who, who kills who, whose children get taught who to hate and who to kill....
"Nothing to lose?
Its advice from a person who is so blinded by believing he belongs to the " right religion", that he cant see past the end of his nose.
And i agree that he's not saying he could be wrong. I dont think that thought ever entered his mind.


----------



## Israel

drippin' rock said:


> The one right under this one. "Personal experiences"


Though I am not sure precisely where curiosity and interest meet their chasm of separation, since i find censure in myself of any disposition to the former, i don't seek to satisfy it in another. one might argue it really is to their benefit, just as i have discovered...it is to mine.


----------



## drippin' rock

Israel said:


> Though I am not sure precisely where curiosity and interest meet their chasm of separation, since i find censure in myself of any disposition to the former, i don't seek to satisfy it in another. one might argue it really is to their benefit, just as i have discovered...it is to mine.



Do you understand that EGO often masquerades as humility?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> If I recall correctly, you are the one once devout, no?
> At least as far as Webster could tell you.
> But you are also the one who more recently said:
> 
> 
> To which, when I replied "your study is not complete" you responded (as appeared to me) rather snarkily with some reference to Welder (appears to me you like playing pinatas also).
> 
> But the fact remains, your study is not complete.


The fact remains that you take one snippet of what you need to believe and choose to make your stand about (my sarcastic summary of the biblical Jesus story) and try to make a case off of it for one of your novel length ramblings. Meanwhile you totally disregard, ignore, and purposely avoid the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of times that I and others have shown our in depth knowledge of the contents of the bible, christianity, religious history, world history, cultures, and ability to actually back up what we share with facts. You duck and cover when those are presented and the standards to get a real answer from you is raised. But you will hang your hat, and reply with almost every word ever, on a snippet that you know does not fully represent the person because in the thousands of posts that you cannot refute you think this is your moment to strike and make a definitive stand.
You have witnessed my posts first hand. We have never met, but it is as real and real time as you will ever get to be privy to information right from the source (me). If I share with you anything personal about my past religious practices you can be darn sure it is accurate. You disregard what I say. Yet you place stock in ancient writings that have shown to be at best the work of man and you hang your every word on the contents and never dispute them all the while giving them credit from belonging to another source...and you have convinced yourself that you actually know that source. 
To each his own. But don't tell me about incomplete research or Websters standards. 

Anytime you wish to talk Bible contents, its accuracy, its history and its reliability you are welcome to start a thread and I'll be happy to join in. We will see what spills out of that piñata.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> The fact remains that you take one snippet of what you need to believe and choose to make your stand about (my sarcastic summary of the biblical Jesus story) and try to make a case off of it for one of your novel length ramblings. Meanwhile you totally disregard, ignore, and purposely avoid the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of times that I and others have shown our in depth knowledge of the contents of the bible, christianity, religious history, world history, cultures, and ability to actually back up what we share with facts. You duck and cover when those are presented and the standards to get a real answer from you is raised. But you will hang your hat, and reply with almost every word ever, on a snippet that you know does not fully represent the person because in the thousands of posts that you cannot refute you think this is your moment to strike and make a definitive stand.
> You have witnessed my posts first hand. We have never met, but it is as real and real time as you will ever get to be privy to information right from the source (me). If I share with you anything personal about my past religious practices you can be darn sure it is accurate. You disregard what I say. Yet you place stock in ancient writings that have shown to be at best the work of man and you hang your every word on the contents and never dispute them all the while giving them credit from belonging to another source...and you have convinced yourself that you actually know that source.
> To each his own. But don't tell me about incomplete research or Websters standards.
> 
> Anytime you wish to talk Bible contents, its accuracy, its history and its reliability you are welcome to start a thread and I'll be happy to join in. We will see what spills out of that piñata.






> But what did jesus really do?
> According to legend..
> He didnt have a choice.
> He couldn't refuse.




Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?


----------



## Israel

drippin' rock said:


> Do you understand that EGO often masquerades as humility?



Of what matter what I may understand be of any consequence to you?

Unless you truly believe men affect one another.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?



What I thoughtest you just confirmest.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?





bullethead said:


> What I thoughtest you just confirmest.




It's true, Isreal.  You just made a declarative statement like it's a fact without any evidence to back it up.  You do that alot.


----------



## Israel

What a brother would easily see I do not marvel is so hidden from prying eyes.

You see it hinging on 12 legions of angels, but if I may quote a more recent author

 “That is not it at all, 
  That is not what I meant, at all.”

Don't despise TS Eliot, after all he said

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”

And who also with keen eye and heart finds me sitting on my sheets


No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; 
Am an attendant lord, one that will do 
To swell a progress, start a scene or two, 
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool, 
Deferential, glad to be of use, 
Politic, cautious, and meticulous; 
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; 
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous— 
Almost, at times, the Fool.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

WaltL1 said:


> There are different shades.
> What I derive from this saying is that its incredibly short sighted.
> "You lose nothing"?
> There are lots of people that will die today. Some of them will be little kids, who through no fault of their own, live in a place where going out in the street can result in getting blown up.
> And opposing beliefs in religion will be the root cause.
> Religion has formed this world.
> Who hates who, who kills who, whose children get taught who to hate and who to kill....
> "Nothing to lose?
> Its advice from a person who is so blinded by believing he belongs to the " right religion", that he cant see past the end of his nose.
> And i agree that he's not saying he could be wrong. I dont think that thought ever entered his mind.



I find it interesting that you paint all religions with the same brush of intent. What event in your life tainted your view so horribly?


----------



## bullethead

All theater, no reality.


----------



## drippin' rock

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I find it interesting that you paint all religions with the same brush of intent. What event in your life tainted your view so horribly?



You don't agree with my ways so something must be wrong with you.  Another common Christian viewpoint.


----------



## Israel

drippin' rock said:


> You don't agree with my ways so something must be wrong with you.  Another common Christian viewpoint.


No, another common view of man.


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I find it interesting that you paint all religions with the same brush of intent. What event in your life tainted your view so horribly?


My post is comprised of facts.
Is that what you mean by tainted?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

WaltL1 said:


> My post is comprised of facts.
> Is that what you mean by tainted?



I am a Christian. I have never murdered or waged war against anyone of other religion or other affiliation. I know many others like me. My church / religion does not teach that, nor does it exist in the New Covenant. 

You're view is a broad brush void of many bristles.


----------



## drippin' rock

Israel said:


> No, another common view of man.



I have to agree. You are right.


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I am a Christian. I have never murdered or waged war against anyone of other religion or other affiliation. I know many others like me. My church / religion does not teach that, nor does it exist in the New Covenant.
> 
> You're view is a broad brush void of many bristles.


Does that erase history?
Again, my post is comprised of facts.
Nowhere did i specify or attack Christianity.
Not sure why you are defending yourself.
I used the word religion and its a fact.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Does that erase history?
> Again, my post is comprised of facts.
> Nowhere did i specify or attack Christianity.
> Not sure why you are defending yourself.
> I used the word religion and its a fact.


Walt maybe this will clear things up:


> Originally Posted by Miguel Cervantes  View Post
> I moderately enjoy reading over here, and will need some time to catch up three pages, if I ever can. To point, and I doubt you will agree, I've never seen a regular here do a; "my bad, I was wrong, I apologize, you are correct in your accusation" type statement, especially certain individuals.There are some that automatically assume, knowing someones religious orientation, that the discussion will go one way, never giving it the open minded benefit of the doubt of the neutral grounds of discussion.
> 
> It plays into the narcissistic / self deity mentality of certain beliefs of some in our society in so much that certain people are so incredibly intelligent that they can analyze a topic to the point of irrefutable certainty in their beliefs of what is absolute. In their tiny little microcosm of existence at least.
> 
> In a Universe where we are less than an atomic particle on a spec of dust on a gnats genitalia I do find that amusing, to say the least.
> 
> Now, please excuse me while I try to make use of this unusually heavy work load (this is a good thing) and I will catch up and continue when I am able.



I initially thought he was talking about some of us non believers when in actuality, it was a soul cleansing, get it off his chest post about himself.
And for those reasons, let me be the first to say My Bad. I was wrong.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Few things inoculate quite as effectively against Jesus Christ as religious practice and religious rituals. It appears many of you have come to some conclusion that to be associated in any way with Jesus Christ must include these. Who could dissuade then?
> 
> Having concluded that the emptiness, foolishness, vanity and futility of the things of which you either partook or observed (or are observing) is all but irremediable, it would take a real duffer to puff out his chest and say "I can handle these guys!".
> 
> Almost to a man you all seem to freely confess some experience of what you believe to be Jesus Christ through your proximate view of things, and at least one had the temerity to describe himself in those matters as "once" devout.
> 
> In fact, some seem so fluent in these issues as to have the whole of titles almost down pat when in reference to christianity being no more than a vague concept or thing of very limited utility, he found such referenc-er as now his own deacon, friar, preacher...inquisitor (at least this guy confesses he "once" believed he heard the Lord's voice, had some belief he had a relationship...of sorts)
> Yep, you guys know the lingo.
> 
> Seems you "been around" christians a lot...but in all of that "having once been"...or just whatever you may consider the depth of your immersions as such, none ever shares anything they have (or had) of revelation. It just ain't there...even to an iota of "you know, I once saw this thing of truth in Jesus Christ that suddenly was quite opened to me and confirmed something in my soul that previously only seemed contradictory, difficult, or hidden.
> 
> Now I'll admit a man can't have it both ways, as much as he might like. Of course in the context of our conversations the atheist/agnostic can't admit to revelation, or even "a" revelation, if you will; to do so would imply _a revealer_ and_ dependent one_ to whom such would come. So, at best we are left with those who, most seemingly, claim to have once belonged to a thing, but a very thing, if truly honest in handling the scriptures, one can _only come to_ based upon a revelation.
> 
> One surely may have been a Bible reader, a meetings goer, a Sunday school attendee of even perfect attendance, or perhaps even a "confessor" after a fashion. Why then am I, (would any?) be surprised at those who, thinking this the sum of christian experience, find a thing to which they no longer favor...when such was never concomitant with any admitted revelation of Jesus Christ? The one believes I have seen all, and/or to my own satisfaction "enough" of christianity to know it is bogus.
> 
> That I have here, http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=873774
> 
> made plain what I consider my relationship to that thing known  most plainly as christianity (as I perceive have several others by the spirit of their words) as a thing to which neither allegiance is owed/commanded, nor even suggested, I reiterate emphatically. Life comes not from "a" way of life, but _the way _Himself. Though there be many instructions in this way of life, they are not for the purpose of manifesting "a" way of life as they are toward being found faithful to Him, Who is the way.
> Without the revelation, in particular "a particular" revelation of Jesus, all else is built upon sand. Who could blame you for abandoning such a shifty, and tediously built dwelling of no utility? Not I. But neither is it conceded that just because some boards and nails were made visible, such once made one "a" christian.
> 
> Yes, "we" come at things quite differently, quite opposed, actually, in truth. You are compelled to deny any such revelation of any of such that might be called god. OK. But, though as I seemed quite futile in an exchange with Ambush to point to a very simple truth...each man is who he is, and not another, I am content. And each man knows what he knows, has what he has, is what he is, by something that has assigned him such, is now to me plainer than ever, previously.
> 
> We are "not" each other.
> We may reach out, we may make every and any effort available to our understandings, may even at times recognize a likeness in one another, or seek to deny it, ultimately it is of no matter, our assigned places of being will not be anything ever, but as assigned. Yes, there is much to be gained in identification, but also as much at risk. This is why Ambush's stating of a common dynamic seemed so salient. "Where do I look to see myself"....is all. To myself? I am liar and flatterer of myself, I need no more schooling in that. Nor, do I believe, does any man. But, that is where "I" am.
> 
> I find no compulsion that you believe the One who _told me everything I ever did._ How much He is to me, really, only He knows anyway. What would a man, could a man, make of his own devotions, when all he is to himself, is himself? What would he have to judge...unless his dependence for such judgment...were made too plain to him?
> 
> Therefore, those who are sure their surveying of all "of the Christ" by their having once been what they easily describe as christians, know no better. Yes, we are all "under the same dynamic". Each is always right in his own eyes, for to believe otherwise must leave a thing to the sight of another eye. And in this I may easily say "I could be wrong"...but Ambush, your particular response to my post as in:
> 
> You are your own religion. Congratulations. You are Deacon, Friar, Inquisitor and Preacher in your very own church.
> 
> Leaves me considering a pride I may know needing exposure, but more really, your chagrin at seeing your pinata already shredded plainly, and whatever fun you may have known in its striking, is being robbed you.
> 
> I could be wrong. But what matter? This too, shall pass.



You're welcome.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Few things inoculate quite as effectively against Jesus Christ as religious practice and religious rituals. It appears many of you have come to some conclusion that to be associated in any way with Jesus Christ must include these. Who could dissuade then?
> 
> Having concluded that the emptiness, foolishness, vanity and futility of the things of which you either partook or observed (or are observing) is all but irremediable, it would take a real duffer to puff out his chest and say "I can handle these guys!".
> 
> Almost to a man you all seem to freely confess some experience of what you believe to be Jesus Christ through your proximate view of things, and at least one had the temerity to describe himself in those matters as "once" devout.
> 
> In fact, some seem so fluent in these issues as to have the whole of titles almost down pat when in reference to christianity being no more than a vague concept or thing of very limited utility, he found such referenc-er as now his own deacon, friar, preacher...inquisitor (at least this guy confesses he "once" believed he heard the Lord's voice, had some belief he had a relationship...of sorts)
> Yep, you guys know the lingo.
> 
> Seems you "been around" christians a lot...but in all of that "having once been"...or just whatever you may consider the depth of your immersions as such, none ever shares anything they have (or had) of revelation. It just ain't there...even to an iota of "you know, I once saw this thing of truth in Jesus Christ that suddenly was quite opened to me and confirmed something in my soul that previously only seemed contradictory, difficult, or hidden.
> 
> Now I'll admit a man can't have it both ways, as much as he might like. Of course in the context of our conversations the atheist/agnostic can't admit to revelation, or even "a" revelation, if you will; to do so would imply _a revealer_ and_ dependent one_ to whom such would come. So, at best we are left with those who, most seemingly, claim to have once belonged to a thing, but a very thing, if truly honest in handling the scriptures, one can _only come to_ based upon a revelation.
> 
> One surely may have been a Bible reader, a meetings goer, a Sunday school attendee of even perfect attendance, or perhaps even a "confessor" after a fashion. Why then am I, (would any?) be surprised at those who, thinking this the sum of christian experience, find a thing to which they no longer favor...when such was never concomitant with any admitted revelation of Jesus Christ? The one believes I have seen all, and/or to my own satisfaction "enough" of christianity to know it is bogus.
> 
> That I have here, http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=873774
> 
> made plain what I consider my relationship to that thing known  most plainly as christianity (as I perceive have several others by the spirit of their words) as a thing to which neither allegiance is owed/commanded, nor even suggested, I reiterate emphatically. Life comes not from "a" way of life, but _the way _Himself. Though there be many instructions in this way of life, they are not for the purpose of manifesting "a" way of life as they are toward being found faithful to Him, Who is the way.
> Without the revelation, in particular "a particular" revelation of Jesus, all else is built upon sand. Who could blame you for abandoning such a shifty, and tediously built dwelling of no utility? Not I. But neither is it conceded that just because some boards and nails were made visible, such once made one "a" christian.
> 
> Yes, "we" come at things quite differently, quite opposed, actually, in truth. You are compelled to deny any such revelation of any of such that might be called god. OK. But, though as I seemed quite futile in an exchange with Ambush to point to a very simple truth...each man is who he is, and not another, I am content. And each man knows what he knows, has what he has, is what he is, by something that has assigned him such, is now to me plainer than ever, previously.
> 
> We are "not" each other.
> We may reach out, we may make every and any effort available to our understandings, may even at times recognize a likeness in one another, or seek to deny it, ultimately it is of no matter, our assigned places of being will not be anything ever, but as assigned. Yes, there is much to be gained in identification, but also as much at risk. This is why Ambush's stating of a common dynamic seemed so salient. "Where do I look to see myself"....is all. To myself? I am liar and flatterer of myself, I need no more schooling in that. Nor, do I believe, does any man. But, that is where "I" am.
> 
> I find no compulsion that you believe the One who _told me everything I ever did._ How much He is to me, really, only He knows anyway. What would a man, could a man, make of his own devotions, when all he is to himself, is himself? What would he have to judge...unless his dependence for such judgment...were made too plain to him?
> 
> Therefore, those who are sure their surveying of all "of the Christ" by their having once been what they easily describe as christians, know no better. Yes, we are all "under the same dynamic". Each is always right in his own eyes, for to believe otherwise must leave a thing to the sight of another eye. And in this I may easily say "I could be wrong"...but Ambush, your particular response to my post as in:
> 
> You are your own religion. Congratulations. You are Deacon, Friar, Inquisitor and Preacher in your very own church.
> 
> Leaves me considering a pride I may know needing exposure, but more really, your chagrin at seeing your pinata already shredded plainly, and whatever fun you may have known in its striking, is being robbed you.
> 
> I could be wrong. But what matter? This too, shall pass.


What sets you apart as such an innoculator FOR jesus as compared to anyone and everyone that you take such great lengths to question their prior levels of worthiness?

Is it 400 plus year old Shakespearian type speech, asking and answering your own questions in order to make it appear as if you are succesfully addressing a legitimate question asked by others, is it the jumpy ramblings and lengthy mini novels...or is it the unique ability to include all of the above into the majority of your posts that somehow vault you to the top of the heap of worthy Jesus worshipers?

My personal opinion is that your ability to convince yourself that you are a better jesus follower by trying to find fault with others is what elevates your own religion.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> What sets you apart as such an innoculator FOR jesus as compared to anyone and everyone that you take such great lengths to question their prior levels of worthiness?
> 
> Is it 400 plus year old Shakespearian type speech, asking and answering your own questions in order to make it appear as if you are succesfully addressing a legitimate question asked by others, is it the jumpy ramblings and lengthy mini novels...or is it the unique ability to include all of the above into the majority of your posts that somehow vault you to the top of the heap of worthy Jesus worshipers?
> 
> My personal opinion is that your ability to convince yourself that you are a better jesus follower by trying to find fault with others is what elevates your own religion.



...that, and the self loathing.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> ...that, and the self loathing.


Yeah the "I'm so not worthy makes me more worthy" is always a classic.
Still laughing...Had to add the above is said in conjunction with him telling us how unworthy we are...


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

bullethead said:


> My Bad. I was wrong.


And you still are.


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And you still are.


Snippets and context.....


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> What sets you apart as such an innoculator FOR jesus as compared to anyone and everyone that you take such great lengths to question their prior levels of worthiness?
> 
> Is it 400 plus year old Shakespearian type speech, asking and answering your own questions in order to make it appear as if you are succesfully addressing a legitimate question asked by others, is it the jumpy ramblings and lengthy mini novels...or is it the unique ability to include all of the above into the majority of your posts that somehow vault you to the top of the heap of worthy Jesus worshipers?
> 
> My personal opinion is that your ability to convince yourself that you are a better jesus follower by trying to find fault with others is what elevates your own religion.





> Yeah the "I'm so not worthy makes me more worthy" is always a classic.
> Still laughing...Had to add the above is said in conjunction with him telling us how unworthy we are...



A man claims a thing. Something akin to being an expert in a certain area, or as more plainly stated, "I was devout"...( is there any doubt as to the application of such a description in matters of what is commonly called religion?) It means, does it not, "I gave myself totally to this thing in thought, study, and practice?" Is there another way this should be understood? Tell, me then.

Now, he uses that position of "once having been devout" (or whatever measure a man believes he has "seen" christianity...as it surely applies to more than a few here...) he says...but I finally saw its flaws...and I reject now outright any of "its" claims.

But any claim as to his having _been_ a christian, his labors or devotion in it, his previous acceptance _of it_ mean nothing if he has no testimony of Jesus Christ. Or, if indeed there be any "link" between this thing called christianity and Jesus Christ (as seems hardened in your own minds) he can say a certain thing regarding Jesus Christ because of his assumed "devoutness" in christianity that is demonstrably false, it shows one of two things. One, either this man's professed devoutness in that thing is quite incomplete. Or the thing he believes he was once devout in, really has no revelation inherent in it to the object of which it claims devotion.

I tell you Jesus Christ is not summed up in the thing called christianity. You seem to be irked at this. I understand. As do others. It is irksome to take a stand upon being an expert and therefore an assumed expert in its right refutation, to be told, you never really got started "in that thing". Oh yes, your drafting board was full, your calculations of lift and drag and thrust meticulous, but you were never compelled to fly. And that, unless it be the end of all those calculations...shows all less than that...to be mere musings.

You ask rightly "what sets you apart...".
But if one had any experience of Jesus Christ, and not merely of this thing called christianity, one might see the fuitlity of such a question. He alone "sets men apart"...and that is surely true of you all amongst yourselves, as it is to any claim I might make of myself.
To each man the "all else" remains that, the definiton of himself at its beginning of that _all else_ he discovers that _he sees as not himself.
_

But, as Ambush has said "we are all under the same dynamic" (dynamic equalling power). This power compels me to love a thing "not myself" to the inclusion of what I do not even see as myself, as myself. Myself has been told so many times as could easily suggest it is not yet complete..."that's not it at all, that's not what I meant, at all" Yes, Jesus Christ does not tell me "you could be wrong", but what he does say you have either heard...or not.

But, as best I know, the loving you as "myself" means not withholding the things with which I am loved. Reproval being chief among them.

So, when the self professed devout man says:



> But what did jesus really do?
> According to legend..
> _He didnt have a choice.
> He couldn't refuse._



And another man refutes that with:



> Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?



Immediately the reference is to a quaint use of Elizabethan English, or some derision of angels as being an unsubstantiated/unsustainable claim.

But, "that's not it at all, that's not what I meant at all "

But the point is to an expert, ( a once devout man) even if only claiming an expertise "in legend" so to speak...that that is not true.

It's plainly written, it's not some hidden footnote somewhere, it's not as though it were a something a "devout" man would miss...unless his devotion and study...were not as complete as he'd like to imagine of himself.


Jesus himself is recorded to say:
Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

(Finding a translation unfilled with ests, thees, and thous)

We can now argue, if you care to, Jesus having "no choice, no place of refusal". And this, as stated by Jesus, with, and in, the assent of His Father.

The fact that he did not refuse does not negate his ability to....unless something greater than the temptation to spare himself a grief was not exceeded by a thing of which he purposed to have in his doing.

Many want to make God a cruel taskmaster, a "glory hound" as I have seen made reference. Their excelling in "christianity" to their own mind seemingly propelling them to such benighted presumption...even to the exposing of a very presumptuous (perhaps deceitful) handling of scripture...of the "legends" they eschew.

Such cannot bear reproof, nor rebuke, for the comforts of Christ are foreign to them when under such as must be borne of a disciple.

I remember Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentson sharing a stage in debate. Perhaps Quale thought, as one "involved" in politics, as a candidate of a sort, as a man seeking an office, he could rightly draw some line between himself and what such outward appearances would allow, to John Kennedy. But all the "stuff" of which Quayle may have hoped to present as some sort of link was made plain:



So, if you want to take a stand upon being devout "in christianity" to the point of implying this makes one quite familiar with Jesus Christ...even to the point of casually describing His Father as a "glory hound"...I will only love you with the love I myself have received...you are so very very wrong...


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> A man claims a thing. Something akin to being an expert in a certain area, or as more plainly stated, "I was devout"...( is there any doubt as to the application of such a description in matters of what is commonly called religion?) It means, does it not, "I gave myself totally to this thing in thought, study, and practice?" Is there another way this should be understood? Tell, me then.
> 
> Now, he uses that position of "once having been devout" (or whatever measure a man believes he has "seen" christianity...as it surely applies to more than a few here...) he says...but I finally saw its flaws...and I reject now outright any of "its" claims.
> 
> But any claim as to his having _been_ a christian, his labors or devotion in it, his previous acceptance _of it_ mean nothing if he has no testimony of Jesus Christ. Or, if indeed there be any "link" between this thing called christianity and Jesus Christ (as seems hardened in your own minds) he can say a certain thing regarding Jesus Christ because of his assumed "devoutness" in christianity that is demonstrably false, it shows one of two things. One, either this man's professed devoutness in that thing is quite incomplete. Or the thing he believes he was once devout in, really has no revelation inherent in it to the object of which it claims devotion.
> 
> I tell you Jesus Christ is not summed up in the thing called christianity. You seem to be irked at this. I understand. As do others. It is irksome to take a stand upon being an expert and therefore an assumed expert in its right refutation, to be told, you never really got started "in that thing". Oh yes, your drafting board was full, your calculations of lift and drag and thrust meticulous, but you were never compelled to fly. And that, unless it be the end of all those calculations...shows all less than that...to be mere musings.
> 
> You ask rightly "what sets you apart...".
> But if one had any experience of Jesus Christ, and not merely of this thing called christianity, one might see the fuitlity of such a question. He alone "sets men apart"...and that is surely true of you all amongst yourselves, as it is to any claim I might make of myself.
> To each man the "all else" remains that, the definiton of himself at its beginning of that _all else_ he discovers that _he sees as not himself.
> _
> 
> But, as Ambush has said "we are all under the same dynamic" (dynamic equalling power). This power compels me to love a thing "not myself" to the inclusion of what I do not even see as myself, as myself. Myself has been told so many times as could easily suggest it is not yet complete..."that's not it at all, that's not what I meant, at all" Yes, Jesus Christ does not tell me "you could be wrong", but what he does say you have either heard...or not.
> 
> But, as best I know, the loving you as "myself" means not withholding the things with which I am loved. Reproval being chief among them.
> 
> So, when the self professed devout man says:
> 
> 
> 
> And another man refutes that with:
> 
> 
> 
> Immediately the reference is to a quaint use of Elizabethan English, or some derision of angels as being an unsubstantiated/unsustainable claim.
> 
> But, "that's not it at all, that's not what I meant at all "
> 
> But the point is to an expert, ( a once devout man) even if only claiming an expertise "in legend" so to speak...that that is not true.
> 
> It's plainly written, it's not some hidden footnote somewhere, it's not as though it were a something a "devout" man would miss...unless his devotion and study...were not as complete as he'd like to imagine of himself.
> 
> 
> Jesus himself is recorded to say:
> Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
> 
> (Finding a translation unfilled with ests, thees, and thous)
> 
> We can now argue, if you care to, Jesus having "no choice, no place of refusal". And this, as stated by Jesus, with, and in, the assent of His Father.
> 
> The fact that he did not refuse does not negate his ability to....unless something greater than the temptation to spare himself a grief was not exceeded by a thing of which he purposed to have in his doing.
> 
> Many want to make God a cruel taskmaster, a "glory hound" as I have seen made reference. Their excelling in "christianity" to their own mind seemingly propelling them to such benighted presumption...even to the exposing of a very presumptuous (perhaps deceitful) handling of scripture...of the "legends" they eschew.
> 
> Such cannot bear reproof, nor rebuke, for the comforts of Christ are foreign to them when under such as must be borne of a disciple.
> 
> I remember Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentson sharing a stage in debate. Perhaps Quale thought, as one "involved" in politics, as a candidate of a sort, as a man seeking an office, he could rightly draw some line between himself and what such outward appearances would allow, to John Kennedy. But all the "stuff" of which Quayle may have hoped to present as some sort of link was made plain:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you want to take a stand upon being devout "in christianity" to the point of implying this makes one quite familiar with Jesus Christ...even to the point of casually describing His Father as a "glory hound"...I will only love you with the love I myself have received...you are so very very wrong...


You are attempting to seperate Jesus from Christianity - you may have known Christianity but you didnt know Jesus.
You forget that eveything you think you "know" about Jesus is what Christianity told you. And your own imagination.


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> You're welcome.





bullethead said:


> What sets you apart as such an innoculator FOR jesus as compared to anyone and everyone that you take such great lengths to question their prior levels of worthiness?
> 
> Is it 400 plus year old Shakespearian type speech, asking and answering your own questions in order to make it appear as if you are succesfully addressing a legitimate question asked by others, is it the jumpy ramblings and lengthy mini novels...or is it the unique ability to include all of the above into the majority of your posts that somehow vault you to the top of the heap of worthy Jesus worshipers?
> 
> My personal opinion is that your ability to convince yourself that you are a better jesus follower by trying to find fault with others is what elevates your own religion.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> A man claims a thing. Something akin to being an expert in a certain area, or as more plainly stated, "I was devout"...( is there any doubt as to the application of such a description in matters of what is commonly called religion?) It means, does it not, "I gave myself totally to this thing in thought, study, and practice?" Is there another way this should be understood? Tell, me then.


From my earliest upbringing and into my mid twenties I believed as much as anyone could in the Bible, Christianity and Jesus.  I lived my life by, for and including all three. Looking back I don't know what I could change in order to have been any "more" of a faithful and devout lifestyle, especially from my teens(when I really took interest more than just showing up at sunday school and church) and into my twenties when I was researching Christianity to find out as much as I could. I absolutely gave myself in thought, study and practice. I was devout .



Israel said:


> Now, he uses that position of "once having been devout" (or whatever measure a man believes he has "seen" christianity...as it surely applies to more than a few here...) he says...but I finally saw its flaws...and I reject now outright any of "its" claims.


Spot On



Israel said:


> But any claim as to his having _been_ a christian, his labors or devotion in it, his previous acceptance _of it_ mean nothing if he has no testimony of Jesus Christ. Or, if indeed there be any "link" between this thing called christianity and Jesus Christ (as seems hardened in your own minds) he can say a certain thing regarding Jesus Christ because of his assumed "devoutness" in christianity that is demonstrably false, it shows one of two things. One, either this man's professed devoutness in that thing is quite incomplete. Or the thing he believes he was once devout in, really has no revelation inherent in it to the object of which it claims devotion.


Oh I see where this is headed.. so now I have to explain to you what I thought that led me to having a personal relationship with Christ so that you can judge whether or not I qualified.
Sorry Israel, you do not get to appoint yourself to that position.
You can sit back with the limited information you have about me and think whatever you want. Since the above claims is based off of YOUR own criteria for devoutness and because you have zero idea of what those years in my life consisted of you are unqualified to judge, let alone set the rules.




Israel said:


> I tell you Jesus Christ is not summed up in the thing called christianity. You seem to be irked at this. I understand. As do others. It is irksome to take a stand upon being an expert and therefore an assumed expert in its right refutation, to be told, you never really got started "in that thing". Oh yes, your drafting board was full, your calculations of lift and drag and thrust meticulous, but you were never compelled to fly. And that, unless it be the end of all those calculations...shows all less than that...to be mere musings.


You can tell me whatever you want, that has been your constant in here. Unfortunately you fail back up anything you say with anything other than personal opinion. That is what irks me.



Israel said:


> You ask rightly "what sets you apart...".
> But if one had any experience of Jesus Christ, and not merely of this thing called christianity, one might see the fuitlity of such a question. He alone "sets men apart"...and that is surely true of you all amongst yourselves, as it is to any claim I might make of myself.
> To each man the "all else" remains that, the definiton of himself at its beginning of that _all else_ he discovers that _he sees as not himself.
> _


Now you are starting to throw in your cryptic babble that really explains nothing. "He alone sets men apart" is just some declarative statement that explains nothing. Back it up.
What sets you apart?



Israel said:


> But, as Ambush has said "we are all under the same dynamic" (dynamic equalling power). This power compels me to love a thing "not myself" to the inclusion of what I do not even see as myself, as myself. Myself has been told so many times as could easily suggest it is not yet complete..."that's not it at all, that's not what I meant, at all" Yes, Jesus Christ does not tell me "you could be wrong", but what he does say you have either heard...or not.


People love plastic dolls and are compelled to do so by the same power as the one you claim compells you. Jesus Christ does not tell you anything. If he does, share it with us and in a way that we know it is Jesus.



Israel said:


> But, as best I know, the loving you as "myself" means not withholding the things with which I am loved. Reproval being chief among them.
> 
> So, when the self professed devout man says:
> 
> 
> 
> And another man refutes that with:
> 
> 
> 
> Immediately the reference is to a quaint use of Elizabethan English, or some derision of angels as being an unsubstantiated/unsustainable claim.


Once devout...
Your use of Elizabethan English was not unique to that statement. You use it constantly in multiple posts.
And again my quick cliff notes summary of jesus was a sarcastic summary.



Israel said:


> But, "that's not it at all, that's not what I meant at all "
> 
> But the point is to an expert, ( a once devout man) even if only claiming an expertise "in legend" so to speak...that that is not true.
> 
> It's plainly written, it's not some hidden footnote somewhere, it's not as though it were a something a "devout" man would miss...unless his devotion and study...were not as complete as he'd like to imagine of himself.


My knowledge of jesus, Christianity, the bible and the history of all three shows how devout I was in my research and study.
If you want to use one snippet of mine to base your entire case off of, be my guest.
I see you are upset that research and facts are able to best a once devout person. I know you want to try to to use your criteria to say that I didnt qualify as devout to begin with, but I was, and Facts have shown to be more powerful than phony gods.





Israel said:


> Jesus himself is recorded to say:
> Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
> 
> (Finding a translation unfilled with ests, thees, and thous)
> 
> We can now argue, if you care to, Jesus having "no choice, no place of refusal". And this, as stated by Jesus, with, and in, the assent of His Father.
> 
> The fact that he did not refuse does not negate his ability to....unless something greater than the temptation to spare himself a grief was not exceeded by a thing of which he purposed to have in his doing.


Who recorded Jesus when he said this?



Israel said:


> Many want to make God a cruel taskmaster, a "glory hound" as I have seen made reference. Their excelling in "christianity" to their own mind seemingly propelling them to such benighted presumption...even to the exposing of a very presumptuous (perhaps deceitful) handling of scripture...of the "legends" they eschew.
> 
> Such cannot bear reproof, nor rebuke, for the comforts of Christ are foreign to them when under such as must be borne of a disciple.


What do you know about the comforts of Christ? I hear declarative statements but zero evidence. I am beginning to think of your relationship with Jesus is the same as your certainty of my devoutness.



Israel said:


> I remember Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentson sharing a stage in debate. Perhaps Quale thought, as one "involved" in politics, as a candidate of a sort, as a man seeking an office, he could rightly draw some line between himself and what such outward appearances would allow, to John Kennedy. But all the "stuff" of which Quayle may have hoped to present as some sort of link was made plain:


Hey! You can remember!
See now that is how statements work. You make a claim, like you remember a conversation between Quayle and Benson, and then you back it up with proof...in this case a video.
Now I know the ancients didnt have any video of Jesus or Jesus saying anything at all but such a god and source of all truth should have the capability to figure out a way that you can share with us the claims you constantly make, but never back up about Jesus.




Israel said:


> So, if you want to take a stand upon being devout "in christianity" to the point of implying this makes one quite familiar with Jesus Christ...even to the point of casually describing His Father as a "glory hound"...I will only love you with the love I myself have received...you are so very very wrong...


Well I have taken that stand.
I used to think I was familiar with JC, until reality got the better of me.
I still think the god of the bible was written as a glory hound.
And you say I am wrong , but you have not, did not, and cannot substantiate that claim.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> You are attempting to seperate Jesus from Christianity - you may have known Christianity but you didnt know Jesus.
> You forget that eveything you think you "know" about Jesus is what Christianity told you. And your own imagination.



I am not attempting to separate Jesus...from anything. He simply is preeminent in all things. He alone, is Lord.
Things 'built' around him, no matter their utility, remain that, things. You may find the "good and bad" of christianity, depending upon your whim and disposition toward it, as a man tasting okra is free to say "this is horrid"...or conversely "this is good". Who could argue?

You think by "tasting" christianity, you have tasted the Lord? And everyman will know whether what he held as true is of imagination or not. Yes, we are "under the same dynamic".


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I am not attempting to separate Jesus...from anything. He simply is preeminent in all things. He alone, is Lord.
> Things 'built' around him, no matter their utility, remain that, things. You may find the "good and bad" of christianity, depending upon your whim and disposition toward it, as a man tasting okra is free to say "this is horrid"...or conversely "this is good". Who could argue?
> 
> You think by "tasting" christianity, you have tasted the Lord? And everyman will know whether what he held as true is of imagination or not. Yes, we are "under the same dynamic".



What does Jesus' voice sound like to you? (Here.  I gave you a hanging curve where you can wax poetic "A quiet brook,  A Baby's cooing, A thunderclap, etc...").  

But seriously, what does it REALLY sound like?  Is it loud like from _The History of the World Part 1_?  Is it deep like Morgan Freeman?  I'm fairly certain he speaks to you in English.  Is it Elizabethan?  Does he have an English accent?  

If we can't talk about this single issue in a clear and unobfuscated way then we really can't discuss anything.

Not every man can distinguish imagination from reality.  What I found when I heard the Lord's voice was that it came from me.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I am not attempting to separate Jesus...from anything. He simply is preeminent in all things. He alone, is Lord.
> Things 'built' around him, no matter their utility, remain that, things. You may find the "good and bad" of christianity, depending upon your whim and disposition toward it, as a man tasting okra is free to say "this is horrid"...or conversely "this is good". Who could argue?
> 
> You think by "tasting" christianity, you have tasted the Lord? And everyman will know whether what he held as true is of imagination or not. Yes, we are "under the same dynamic".


Lots of claims.....nothing to back them up.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> He alone, is Lord.



How do you know that?
What about the other gods?
Religion told you? Christianity told you? Because of where you were born and/or who you were born to, told you. 

If you were isolated from birth from all of society, would you still know the Lord? 

Based on isolated tribes, probably not.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I am not attempting to separate Jesus...from anything. He simply is preeminent in all things. He alone, is Lord.
> Things 'built' around him, no matter their utility, remain that, things. You may find the "good and bad" of christianity, depending upon your whim and disposition toward it, as a man tasting okra is free to say "this is horrid"...or conversely "this is good". Who could argue?
> 
> You think by "tasting" christianity, you have tasted the Lord? And everyman will know whether what he held as true is of imagination or not. Yes, we are "under the same dynamic".


"You think by tasting Christianity, you have tasted the Lord"?

Still want to stick with youre not attempting to seperate?


----------



## Israel

By the working of the same spirit of grace that presently allows for you to know what you know; and even of your own selves.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> "You think by tasting Christianity, you have tasted the Lord"?
> 
> Still want to stick with youre not attempting to seperate?



The separation is already made, it is just being made clear.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> By the working of the same spirit of grace that presently allows for you to know what you know; and even of your own selves.



Spirit of grace that allows...


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Spirit of grace that allows...



Yes, an allowance may be increased, decreased, or revoked.
We are all subject.
There is nothing hidden, except to be revealed.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Yes, an allowance may be increased, decreased, or revoked.
> We are all subject.
> There is nothing hidden, except to be revealed.



See, now this is a perfect example that shows how you make statements and despite constantly being called out on them for you to provide proof you just continue to make more statements with zero backing.
All you have to do is use your relationship or speaking opportunities with Jesus to have him provide you with a way to prove what you say is true.
Why is it that you can't or won't.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> The separation is already made, it is just being made clear.


I can understand why you would want to seperate them, 
But you cant.
You believe God/Jesus is a seperate entity that stands on his own.
Tell us what you know about God/Jesus that DIDNT originate in Christianifty or your own imigination..
Your entire premise hinges on that there is more to know about God/Jesus than what Christianity tells us.
Fact of the matter is, you believe what Christianity (and your imagination) TELLS you
about God/Jesus.
 At this point, there really is no getting around that and no mount of philosophy changes it.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I can understand why you would want to seperate them,
> But you cant.
> You believe God/Jesus is a seperate entity that stands on his own.
> Tell us what you know about God/Jesus that DIDNT originate in Christianifty or your own imigination..
> Your entire premise hinges on that there is more to know about God/Jesus than what Christianity tells us.
> Fact of the matter is, you believe what Christianity (and your imagination) TELLS you
> about God/Jesus.
> At this point, there really is no getting around that and no mount of philosophy changes it.


Yes Walt, I believe God uncreated, the Being of all being, in whom all things exist and from whom all things are given, and in His Son, Jesus Christ as Lord. I believe that through the Holy Spirit given in the name of Jesus Christ man may know the truth of the way of life Himself, and that being Jesus Christ, Himself.
I believe the words of Jesus are spirit and life and are found not by effort of man, or will of man, but given by revelation of that same Holy Spirit which is not subject to man.

How, or where, or to whatever extent the thing called christianity fits into that is of no consequence to me as I am neither called to it, nor subject to it. That which I have seen and heard through the Holy Spirit has never commended that thing to me as life, or source. Nor do I know anything of love's mercy to commend it to any other man. I am in all things, either willingly, unwillingly, ignorantly or enlightened to any truth, subject to Jesus Christ and His word.

And I believe all this of creation also. All are subject to Him. And I believe, if I am to believe you, you _imagine _you are not. I believe this if only for your seeming adherence that anything a man might be made to know is dependent upon the knowing of another man other than Jesus Christ, Himself. 

Yes, I believe he is set quite apart in _the all things_ a man would otherwise believe he knows.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Yes Walt, I believe God uncreated, the Being of all being, in whom all things exist and from whom all things are given, and in His Son, Jesus Christ as Lord. I believe that through the Holy Spirit given in the name of Jesus Christ man may know the truth of the way of life Himself, and that being Jesus Christ, Himself.
> I believe the words of Jesus are spirit and life and are found not by effort of man, or will of man, but given by revelation of that same Holy Spirit which is not subject to man.
> 
> How, or where, or to whatever extent the thing called christianity fits into that is of no consequence to me as I am neither called to it, nor subject to it. That which I have seen and heard through the Holy Spirit has never commended that thing to me as life, or source. Nor do I know anything of love's mercy to commend it to any other man. I am in all things, either willingly, unwillingly, ignorantly or enlightened to any truth, subject to Jesus Christ and His word.
> 
> And I believe all this of creation also. All are subject to Him. And I believe, if I am to believe you, you _imagine _you are not. I believe this if only for your seeming adherence that anything a man might be made to know is dependent upon the knowing of another man other than Jesus Christ, Himself.
> 
> Yes, I believe he is set quite apart in _the all things_ a man would otherwise believe he knows.


All of that is fine. 
But your premise is Bullet/we may have known Christianity but not Jesus/God.
We all had/have the same information.
The difference is what direction you (your mind) and we went with that same information.
This is an odd discussion to me. You cant even prove that a god exists yet you are claiming to know something about him that we didnt.
You wouldnt even believe in the Christian God if it wasnt for Christianity.
"Jesus/God? Never heard of them".


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> All of that is fine.
> But your premise is Bullet/we may have known Christianity but not Jesus/God.
> We all had/have the same information.
> The difference is what direction you (your mind) and we went with that same information.
> This is an odd discussion to me. You cant even prove that a god exists yet you are claiming to know something about him that we didnt.
> You wouldnt even believe in the Christian God if it wasnt for Christianity.
> "Jesus/God? Never heard of them".


Precisely Walt.
Izzy's propensity to draw finite conclusions with extremely  limited knowledge and zero interaction with anything resembling a god is why there is no surprise about his narrow view of me/us. It also shows why he does not and cannot back up his claims.


Israel I appreciate your last reply because you stated many times what you believe to be true instead of asserting that it is true.  I can respect that.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> All of that is fine.
> But your premise is Bullet/we may have known Christianity but not Jesus/God.
> We all had/have the same information.
> The difference is what direction you (your mind) and we went with that same information.
> This is an odd discussion to me. You cant even prove that a god exists yet you are claiming to know something about him that we didnt.
> You wouldnt even believe in the Christian God if it wasnt for Christianity.
> "Jesus/God? Never heard of them".


If I have presumed too much in true offense, then I have judgment upon me.
If I have even sought to be offense in any cleverness or malice, the same. That "nothing is hidden, except to be revealed" must work toward all, and I am surely not exempted. If I have dealt underhandedly to the purpose of denying a hope I enjoy and find myself miserly to an abundant mercy already shown me; that is by any purpose to manifest an inequity in the sight of the Lord of whom I claim to be perfectly just and righteous, I will surely be found out. I cannot deny God's judgment of such things.



> This is an odd discussion to me. You cant even prove that a god exists yet you are claiming to know something about him that we didnt.



I don't know of all your exercise, surely, but if there is no testimony of Jesus Christ and his being the Son of God of what did all exercise produce?

Then, what did you know "of Him"? What and where is your testimony "of Him"? 

You, not I, are those claiming to that to "know christianity" is to know the God of the Christ, and you surely seem to me to be claiming that knowledge...a knowing of christianity as being selfsame to knowing the God "it" names. If you indeed "knew Him"...what offense do you find in Him? _Did you _find _in Him_?


What did you believe _of Him_? What did you_ know _of Him?And now, what do you believe _of Him_? To whom...or what...was an answer of faith...if there be any?

If you do not know I cannot conjure Him, nor any man, if you do not know He is not subject to my command (nor any man) for the production at whim or even according to the demand of another...you still think it odd that anyone would question your knowledge of Him?
No, it is far better you be seen, unless otherwise disabused of such, as men who had some religious investigations and practice, even though you might believe you surveyed all of the God named among christians. 

For to deny Him, after ...not  just knowing _about Him_, but having relationship to Him as Father (did you ever know this?) or knowing the Lord as brother...amongst His own brothers, as one unashamed, is something quite other.

To find offense in "christianity" if one is led to consider it at all, will very much depend upon what a man is willing to produce of that to justify his offense. Do "the Crusades" offend you as something you care to link to that thing? Will you point to a politics you have observed in that linking? A finding of a thing of schisms and subsequent slaughters? A man indeed may be able, if he cares to, produce that "of christianity" perhaps, even, convincingly. 

But...what is of the Christ, if you do claim to know Him, or "once" having known Him as well as could ever be known by  man, can you, do you, produce as anything other than righteousness? Again, what is your testimony _of Him_?

Don't be deceived, offense at Him, is not a result of any offense in Him. For He is without offense; to make clear if any be seen, it is only in the eye of the beholder. And a cleansing is in order.
It really matters not what you may think of a thing called christianity. Nor I, at all, for that matter. 

But, what of this Jesus? What do you say _of Him_, if indeed _you really knew _Him? 

Even, once.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> If I have presumed too much in true offense, then I have judgment upon me.
> If I have even sought to be offense in any cleverness or malice, the same. That "nothing is hidden, except to be revealed" must work toward all, and I am surely not exempted. If I have dealt underhandedly to the purpose of denying a hope I enjoy and find myself miserly to an abundant mercy already shown me; that is by any purpose to manifest an inequity in the sight of the Lord of whom I claim to be perfectly just and righteous, I will surely be found out. I cannot deny God's judgment of such things.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of all your exercise, surely, but if there is no testimony of Jesus Christ and his being the Son of God of what did all exercise produce?
> 
> Then, what did you know "of Him"? What and where is your testimony "of Him"?
> 
> You, not I, are those claiming to that to "know christianity" is to know the God of the Christ, and you surely seem to me to be claiming that knowledge...a knowing of christianity as being selfsame to knowing the God "it" names. If you indeed "knew Him"...what offense do you find in Him? _Did you _find _in Him_?
> 
> 
> What did you believe _of Him_? What did you_ know _of Him?And now, what do you believe _of Him_? To whom...or what...was an answer of faith...if there be any?
> 
> If you do not know I cannot conjure Him, nor any man, if you do not know He is not subject to my command (nor any man) for the production at whim or even according to the demand of another...you still think it odd that anyone would question your knowledge of Him?
> No, it is far better you be seen, unless otherwise disabused of such, as men who had some religious investigations and practice, even though you might believe you surveyed all of the God named among christians.
> 
> For to deny Him, after ...not  just knowing _about Him_, but having relationship to Him as Father (did you ever know this?) or knowing the Lord as brother...amongst His own brothers, as one unashamed, is something quite other.
> 
> To find offense in "christianity" if one is led to consider it at all, will very much depend upon what a man is willing to produce of that to justify his offense. Do "the Crusades" offend you as something you care to link to that thing? Will you point to a politics you have observed in that linking? A finding of a thing of schisms and subsequent slaughters? A man indeed may be able, if he cares to, produce that "of christianity" perhaps, even, convincingly.
> 
> But...what is of the Christ, if you do claim to know Him, or "once" having known Him as well as could ever be known by  man, can you, do you, produce as anything other than righteousness? Again, what is your testimony _of Him_?
> 
> Don't be deceived, offense at Him, is not a result of any offense in Him. For He is without offense; to make clear if any be seen, it is only in the eye of the beholder. And a cleansing is in order.
> It really matters not what you may think of a thing called christianity. Nor I, at all, for that matter.
> 
> But, what of this Jesus? What do you say _of Him_, if indeed _you really knew _Him?
> 
> Even, once.



The voice I TRULY thought was His was actually mine.  I think you are having the same experience.  

It's a difficult task to prove either way.  One way might be to point out, as we often do, that many people feel that they alone are talking to the ONE TRUE GOD, even when they don't agree who that is.  That should inform you about what might be happening within yourself.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> If I have presumed too much in true offense, then I have judgment upon me.
> If I have even sought to be offense in any cleverness or malice, the same. That "nothing is hidden, except to be revealed" must work toward all, and I am surely not exempted. If I have dealt underhandedly to the purpose of denying a hope I enjoy and find myself miserly to an abundant mercy already shown me; that is by any purpose to manifest an inequity in the sight of the Lord of whom I claim to be perfectly just and righteous, I will surely be found out. I cannot deny God's judgment of such things.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of all your exercise, surely, but if there is no testimony of Jesus Christ and his being the Son of God of what did all exercise produce?
> 
> Then, what did you know "of Him"? What and where is your testimony "of Him"?
> 
> You, not I, are those claiming to that to "know christianity" is to know the God of the Christ, and you surely seem to me to be claiming that knowledge...a knowing of christianity as being selfsame to knowing the God "it" names. If you indeed "knew Him"...what offense do you find in Him? _Did you _find _in Him_?
> 
> 
> What did you believe _of Him_? What did you_ know _of Him?And now, what do you believe _of Him_? To whom...or what...was an answer of faith...if there be any?
> 
> If you do not know I cannot conjure Him, nor any man, if you do not know He is not subject to my command (nor any man) for the production at whim or even according to the demand of another...you still think it odd that anyone would question your knowledge of Him?
> No, it is far better you be seen, unless otherwise disabused of such, as men who had some religious investigations and practice, even though you might believe you surveyed all of the God named among christians.
> 
> For to deny Him, after ...not  just knowing _about Him_, but having relationship to Him as Father (did you ever know this?) or knowing the Lord as brother...amongst His own brothers, as one unashamed, is something quite other.
> 
> To find offense in "christianity" if one is led to consider it at all, will very much depend upon what a man is willing to produce of that to justify his offense. Do "the Crusades" offend you as something you care to link to that thing? Will you point to a politics you have observed in that linking? A finding of a thing of schisms and subsequent slaughters? A man indeed may be able, if he cares to, produce that "of christianity" perhaps, even, convincingly.
> 
> But...what is of the Christ, if you do claim to know Him, or "once" having known Him as well as could ever be known by  man, can you, do you, produce as anything other than righteousness? Again, what is your testimony _of Him_?
> 
> Don't be deceived, offense at Him, is not a result of any offense in Him. For He is without offense; to make clear if any be seen, it is only in the eye of the beholder. And a cleansing is in order.
> It really matters not what you may think of a thing called christianity. Nor I, at all, for that matter.
> 
> But, what of this Jesus? What do you say _of Him_, if indeed _you really knew _Him?
> 
> Even, once.


You know OF "Him". 
You know what you were told ABOUT "Him".
You trust what you were told is true.
So did we.
You took what you were told and gave it "life".
We took what were told and gave it investigation.
That resulted in not trusting THE ONES WHO TOLD US (and you) OF HIM AND ABOUT HIM.
Thats why we now require proof. Not just being TOLD by Christianity, or you or any man.
Its really simple.
Dont complicate it.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> If I have presumed too much in true offense, then I have judgment upon me.
> If I have even sought to be offense in any cleverness or malice, the same. That "nothing is hidden, except to be revealed" must work toward all, and I am surely not exempted. If I have dealt underhandedly to the purpose of denying a hope I enjoy and find myself miserly to an abundant mercy already shown me; that is by any purpose to manifest an inequity in the sight of the Lord of whom I claim to be perfectly just and righteous, I will surely be found out. I cannot deny God's judgment of such things.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of all your exercise, surely, but if there is no testimony of Jesus Christ and his being the Son of God of what did all exercise produce?
> 
> Then, what did you know "of Him"? What and where is your testimony "of Him"?
> 
> You, not I, are those claiming to that to "know christianity" is to know the God of the Christ, and you surely seem to me to be claiming that knowledge...a knowing of christianity as being selfsame to knowing the God "it" names. If you indeed "knew Him"...what offense do you find in Him? _Did you _find _in Him_?
> 
> 
> What did you believe _of Him_? What did you_ know _of Him?And now, what do you believe _of Him_? To whom...or what...was an answer of faith...if there be any?
> 
> If you do not know I cannot conjure Him, nor any man, if you do not know He is not subject to my command (nor any man) for the production at whim or even according to the demand of another...you still think it odd that anyone would question your knowledge of Him?
> No, it is far better you be seen, unless otherwise disabused of such, as men who had some religious investigations and practice, even though you might believe you surveyed all of the God named among christians.
> 
> For to deny Him, after ...not  just knowing _about Him_, but having relationship to Him as Father (did you ever know this?) or knowing the Lord as brother...amongst His own brothers, as one unashamed, is something quite other.
> 
> To find offense in "christianity" if one is led to consider it at all, will very much depend upon what a man is willing to produce of that to justify his offense. Do "the Crusades" offend you as something you care to link to that thing? Will you point to a politics you have observed in that linking? A finding of a thing of schisms and subsequent slaughters? A man indeed may be able, if he cares to, produce that "of christianity" perhaps, even, convincingly.
> 
> But...what is of the Christ, if you do claim to know Him, or "once" having known Him as well as could ever be known by  man, can you, do you, produce as anything other than righteousness? Again, what is your testimony _of Him_?
> 
> Don't be deceived, offense at Him, is not a result of any offense in Him. For He is without offense; to make clear if any be seen, it is only in the eye of the beholder. And a cleansing is in order.
> It really matters not what you may think of a thing called christianity. Nor I, at all, for that matter.
> 
> But, what of this Jesus? What do you say _of Him_, if indeed _you really knew _Him?
> 
> Even, once.


Annnnd, back to unprovable statements,claims and assertions.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> You know OF "Him".
> You know what you were told ABOUT "Him".
> You trust what you were told is true.
> So did we.
> You took what you were told and gave it "life".
> We took what were told and gave it investigation.
> That resulted in not trusting THE ONES WHO TOLD US (and you) OF HIM AND ABOUT HIM.
> Thats why we now require proof. Not just being TOLD by Christianity, or you or any man.
> Its really simple.
> Dont complicate it.



exactAmundo


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> You know OF "Him".
> You know what you were told ABOUT "Him".
> You trust what you were told is true.
> So did we.
> You took what you were told and gave it "life".
> We took what were told and gave it investigation.
> That resulted in not trusting THE ONES WHO TOLD US (and you) OF HIM AND ABOUT HIM.
> Thats why we now require proof. Not just being TOLD by Christianity, or you or any man.
> Its really simple.
> Dont complicate it.



If a man said something compelling and verifiable about "Him" I would consider it carefully.  Heck, I've even considered Isreal's OpEd pieces carefully. I'm open to arguments.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> You know OF "Him".
> You know what you were told ABOUT "Him".
> You trust what you were told is true.
> So did we.
> You took what you were told and gave it "life".
> We took what were told and gave it investigation.That resulted in not trusting THE ONES WHO TOLD US (and you) OF HIM AND ABOUT HIM.
> Thats why we now require proof. Not just being TOLD by Christianity, or you or any man.
> Its really simple.
> Dont complicate it.



Then why talk to man about it.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Then why talk to man about it.



Because men have influence on the shape of the world I share with them.  I'd prefer them be rational.

Sorry for butting in, Walt.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Then why talk to man about it.


See post ##325
Its in response to being asked why do we talk here but its in the same ball park.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Because men have influence on the shape of the world I share with them.  I'd prefer them be rational.
> 
> Sorry for butting in, Walt.


No apology necessary.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> If a man said something compelling and verifiable about "Him" I would consider it carefully.  Heck, I've even considered Isreal's OpEd pieces carefully. I'm open to arguments.


For me it would depend on what you mean by "verifiable".
Theres like 2 billion Christians who would be glad to volunteer to verify that the Christian God exists.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Then why talk to man about it.


Because outside of man there is no one else to talk to.
Made up deities only talk to the people who make them up.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Because outside of man there is no one else to talk to.
> Made up deities only talk to the people who make them up.



Your conclusion of matters shows clearly your premise of the matter. You have your premise.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Your conclusion of matters shows clearly your premise of the matter. You have your premise.



No conclusion, just using the facts found and presented to make a more likely than not best guess.
Now, if you are able to provide us with some solid proof otherwise I can certainly factor that into my research and use it accordingly.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Because men have influence on the shape of the world I share with them.  I'd prefer them be rational.
> 
> Sorry for butting in, Walt.



So, you talk to me, (and many others) out of your preference. And if I understand your preference in this, it is that they be rational. From which I would then suppose your purpose is to bring reason to the unreasonable (or unreasoning), rationality to what you find irrational.

I would surmise you 'prefer' a world of reason (whatever is your adjudged measure in it) to anything less or other than what you judge rational.
Yet you, and a not so few others are not at all reluctant to jump up and down when you feel it is not to your liking when some may make what you call "blanket statements" about the whole of mankind being in a certain condition.

I don't know how many years you have been walking this planet, but I have yet to meet a man that does not believe the world would be better if it only was made conformable to his reason. It appears as common as breathing.

The world is surrendered to all of its own reasons. And the ensuing battles.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> So, you talk to me, (and many others) out of your preference. And if I understand your preference in this, it is that they be rational. From which I would then suppose your purpose is to bring reason to the unreasonable (or unreasoning), rationality to what you find irrational.
> 
> I would surmise you 'prefer' a world of reason (whatever is your adjudged measure in it) to anything less or other than what you judge rational.
> Yet you, and a not so few others are not at all reluctant to jump up and down when you feel it is not to your liking when some may make what you call "blanket statements" about the whole of mankind being in a certain condition.
> 
> I don't know how many years you have been walking this planet, but I have yet to meet a man that does not believe the world would be better if it only was made conformable to his reason. It appears as common as breathing.
> 
> The world is surrendered to all of its own reasons. And the ensuing battles.



If someone claims they talk to and get answers from a god  we want to hear about it.
If someone claims that particular god exists we would like to see the claimed undeniable evidence.
If someone, such as yourself, constantly boasts that your god IS this and SAYS that and DOES another..that your god is the one true source of everything that existed ever...we expect such a  believer to be able to provide reasonable  and tangible evidence. This evidence is needed not to defeat our skepticism, but if accurate and true it would confirm your claims. If your claims are accurate and they originate from the most true source within and beyond the universe then you should have no problem backing them up.
We are not asking you to do anything but what you claim you do on a regular basis. So do it.


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> If someone claims they talk to and get answers from a god  we want to hear about it.
> If someone claims that particular god exists we would like to see the claimed undeniable evidence.
> If someone, such as yourself, constantly boasts that your god IS this and SAYS that and DOES another..that your god is the one true source of everything that existed ever...we expect such a  believer to be able to provide reasonable  and tangible evidence. This evidence is needed not to defeat our skepticism, but if accurate and true it would confirm your claims. If your claims are accurate and they originate from the most true source within and beyond the universe then you should have no problem backing them up.
> We are not asking you to do anything but what you claim you do on a regular basis. So do it.



If I had a dollar for every time you wanted proof of something...... Geeeesh!


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> So, you talk to me, (and many others) out of your preference. And if I understand your preference in this, it is that they be rational. From which I would then suppose your purpose is to bring reason to the unreasonable (or unreasoning), rationality to what you find irrational.
> 
> I would surmise you 'prefer' a world of reason (whatever is your adjudged measure in it) to anything less or other than what you judge rational.
> Yet you, and a not so few others are not at all reluctant to jump up and down when you feel it is not to your liking when some may make what you call "blanket statements" about the whole of mankind being in a certain condition.
> 
> I don't know how many years you have been walking this planet, but I have yet to meet a man that does not believe the world would be better if it only was made conformable to his reason. It appears as common as breathing.
> 
> The world is surrendered to all of its own reasons. And the ensuing battles.



Because I value rationality, I can be swayed by a rational argument.  All I ever asked for is proof that you talk to Jesus.  I've asked you how many times now what his voice sounds like.  

You won't even meet me halfway.


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> If I had a dollar for every time you wanted proof of something...... Geeeesh!


On the flip side, if you had a dollar for every time he was given the proof he asked for......


----------



## bullethead

drippin' rock said:


> If I had a dollar for every time you wanted proof of something...... Geeeesh!


For every time Izzy can back up his claims, ill give you that dollar. 
Don't quit your job just yet...


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> So, you talk to me, (and many others) out of your preference. And if I understand your preference in this, it is that they be rational. From which I would then suppose your purpose is to bring reason to the unreasonable (or unreasoning), rationality to what you find irrational.
> 
> I would surmise you 'prefer' a world of reason (whatever is your adjudged measure in it) to anything less or other than what you judge rational.
> Yet you, and a not so few others are not at all reluctant to jump up and down when you feel it is not to your liking when some may make what you call "blanket statements" about the whole of mankind being in a certain condition.
> 
> I don't know how many years you have been walking this planet, but I have yet to meet a man that does not believe the world would be better if it only was made conformable to his reason. It appears as common as breathing.
> 
> The world is surrendered to all of its own reasons. And the ensuing battles.




I hold opinions about things that I don't know a lot about.  Sometimes, someone who knows a lot about that thing informs me.  Sometimes I change my opinion.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Because I value rationality, I can be swayed by a rational argument.  All I ever asked for is proof that you talk to Jesus.  I've asked you how many times now what his voice sounds like.
> 
> You won't even meet me halfway.



Forgive me if I may be mixing up some response with anything you have said. It may have been you, may not.
But if I recall it was very much along the lines that evolution, (being in whatevere sense "responsible" means) is responsible for our being. Reason could not be attributed to it, because it does not operate according to reason...but is itself simply a mechanism, so to speak. Not a thing _of reason_ or its application...simply a process. 

Therefore without reason _are we._

Yet, in some measure (I would venture here, each likes the finger on their side of the scale) we use, or at least say we do, reason. What then is "reason"...if no more than what each individual applies in some measurement of his being? Can it ever be more? 

If there truly be no reason to our existence, just some vague and disparate convictions that _we are_ (because there can never even be a "closer approach" to a thing that ultimately is refuted as being for "our being") then of what utility is it? You exclude professor in the practice of maths. Each answer is as right and as wrong as any. This is no argument that "there must be a professor" to judge in the exercise, simply that to exclude reason...as THE reason for being, is to exclude any possibility of knowing whether anyone's reasoning is taking them anywhere...other than just, as an exercise, each to his own preference. But to call it reason, as a substantial thing (which I believe has its own _reason_ for elevation, as in "hey look, I reason better!") But the thing, of itself, really has no true substance...does it? So, each can claim it, each can run according to it (toward whatever _preferred_ end) and feel quite confident in his reasonings. And, so it goes. But ultimately, with no professor, everyone gets passing and failing grade. Does it matter at all how many agree in a certain "reason"? Of course not. Does it matter if one disagree? Of course not. Because without reason _for being_, there can be no reason _in being._ If one wants to take the stance "well, it's a created thing...of man..." then obviously it could be said of what obligation (if there be no _obligator_ toward reason) is any man under any other man's obligation to meet any standard of it? Here you will see why all and any "side bar" conversations taking place as to any man's deficiency in reason...are at the very least, laughable. At least according to _my reason_.

I cannot say "the believer's" assumption/understanding is superior here, merely different. All is of reason. Not one molecule (nor anything seen, or as yet unseen) is out of place, accidental, haphazard in its structure or position. Purposed, and that quite perfectly, by the perfection of all reason, One of all reason in Whom all things originate from Reason, for a reason. Not merely the source of reason...but the very One reason itself is. (I capitalize simply that there be no mistake in my reference). _The reason_ of all. 

Yes, the believer...quite assuredy believes in reason. He believes in an accountability to Reason for reason and accepts just chastening when found operating in purpose to the neglect of that reason. He may even find in seeking to be consistent to The Reason of all reasons his own reason must be rightly mocked and discarded as foolishness before those who find reason no more than a facet in man, a thing of their (man's) own construct by which they measure one's self against another. They have _their reasons._

I suppose I should place an addendum. Rightly you (Ambush) expanded on a few of the things I merely mentioned as men not knowing where things might lead in "their seeking in, and of, life" You mentioned AI as signal threat seen by many "thinkers". It's interesting...and perhaps telling. Man's "creation" of an intelligence of "his own" appears to some as a great threat...to man himself. But what could "artificial intelligence" produce...but _artificial intelligence_? Each produces after its kind. Oh yes, there's quite a "mad scramble" after it.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Forgive me if I may be mixing up some response with anything you have said. It may have been you, may not.
> But if I recall it was very much along the lines that evolution, (being in whatevere sense "responsible" means) is responsible for our being. Reason could not be attributed to it, because it does not operate according to reason...but is itself simply a mechanism, so to speak. Not a thing _of reason_ or its application...simply a process.
> 
> Therefore without reason _are we._
> 
> Yet, in some measure (I would venture here, each likes the finger on their side of the scale) we use, or at least say we do, reason. What then is "reason"...if no more than what each individual applies in some measurement of his being? Can it ever be more?
> 
> If there truly be no reason to our existence, just some vague and disparate convictions that _we are_ (because there can never even be a "closer approach" to a thing that ultimately is refuted as being for "our being") then of what utility is it? You exclude professor in the practice of maths. Each answer is as right and as wrong as any. This is no argument that "there must be a professor" to judge in the exercise, simply that to exclude reason...as THE reason for being, is to exclude any possibility of knowing whether anyone's reasoning is taking them anywhere...other than just, as an exercise, each to his own preference. But to call it reason, as a substantial thing (which I believe has its own _reason_ for elevation, as in "hey look, I reason better!") But the thing, of itself, really has no true substance...does it? So, each can claim it, each can run according to it (toward whatever _preferred_ end) and feel quite confident in his reasonings. And, so it goes. But ultimately, with no professor, everyone gets passing and failing grade. Does it matter at all how many agree in a certain "reason"? Of course not. Does it matter if one disagree? Of course not. Because without reason _for being_, there can be no reason _in being._ If one wants to take the stance "well, it's a created thing...of man..." then obviously it could be said of what obligation (if there be no _obligator_ toward reason) is any man under any other man's obligation to meet any standard of it? Here you will see why all and any "side bar" conversations taking place as to any man's deficiency in reason...are at the very least, laughable. At least according to _my reason_.
> 
> I cannot say "the believer's" assumption/understanding is superior here, merely different. All is of reason. Not one molecule (nor anything seen, or as yet unseen) is out of place, accidental, haphazard in its structure or position. Purposed, and that quite perfectly, by the perfection of all reason, One of all reason in Whom all things originate from Reason, for a reason. Not merely the source of reason...but the very One reason itself is. (I capitalize simply that there be no mistake in my reference). _The reason_ of all.
> 
> Yes, the believer...quite assuredy believes in reason. He believes in an accountability to Reason for reason and accepts just chastening when found operating in purpose to the neglect of that reason. He may even find in seeking to be consistent to The Reason of all reasons his own reason must be rightly mocked and discarded as foolishness before those who find reason no more than a facet in man, a thing of their (man's) own construct by which they measure one's self against another. They have _their reasons._
> 
> I suppose I should place an addendum. Rightly you (Ambush) expanded on a few of the things I merely mentioned as men not knowing where things might lead in "their seeking in, and of, life" You mentioned AI as signal threat seen by many "thinkers". It's interesting...and perhaps telling. Man's "creation" of an intelligence of "his own" appears to some as a great threat...to man himself. But what could "artificial intelligence" produce...but _artificial intelligence_? Each produces after its kind. Oh yes, there's quite a "mad scramble" after it.


27 times the word reason was used.
31 if you count
2 reasons
2 reasonable

None of it factual,just unreasonable.


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> For every time Izzy can back up his claims, ill give you that dollar.
> Don't quit your job just yet...



Alright Israel, time to go to work. Start shellin' out the proof.  I needs ta get paid!


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Forgive me if I may be mixing up some response with anything you have said. It may have been you, may not.
> But if I recall it was very much along the lines that evolution, (being in whatevere sense "responsible" means) is responsible for our being. Reason could not be attributed to it, because it does not operate according to reason...but is itself simply a mechanism, so to speak. Not a thing _of reason_ or its application...simply a process.
> 
> Therefore without reason _are we._
> 
> Yet, in some measure (I would venture here, each likes the finger on their side of the scale) we use, or at least say we do, reason. What then is "reason"...if no more than what each individual applies in some measurement of his being? Can it ever be more?
> 
> If there truly be no reason to our existence, just some vague and disparate convictions that _we are_ (because there can never even be a "closer approach" to a thing that ultimately is refuted as being for "our being") then of what utility is it? You exclude professor in the practice of maths. Each answer is as right and as wrong as any. This is no argument that "there must be a professor" to judge in the exercise, simply that to exclude reason...as THE reason for being, is to exclude any possibility of knowing whether anyone's reasoning is taking them anywhere...other than just, as an exercise, each to his own preference. But to call it reason, as a substantial thing (which I believe has its own _reason_ for elevation, as in "hey look, I reason better!") But the thing, of itself, really has no true substance...does it? So, each can claim it, each can run according to it (toward whatever _preferred_ end) and feel quite confident in his reasonings. And, so it goes. But ultimately, with no professor, everyone gets passing and failing grade. Does it matter at all how many agree in a certain "reason"? Of course not. Does it matter if one disagree? Of course not. Because without reason _for being_, there can be no reason _in being._ If one wants to take the stance "well, it's a created thing...of man..." then obviously it could be said of what obligation (if there be no _obligator_ toward reason) is any man under any other man's obligation to meet any standard of it? Here you will see why all and any "side bar" conversations taking place as to any man's deficiency in reason...are at the very least, laughable. At least according to _my reason_.
> 
> I cannot say "the believer's" assumption/understanding is superior here, merely different. All is of reason. Not one molecule (nor anything seen, or as yet unseen) is out of place, accidental, haphazard in its structure or position. Purposed, and that quite perfectly, by the perfection of all reason, One of all reason in Whom all things originate from Reason, for a reason. Not merely the source of reason...but the very One reason itself is. (I capitalize simply that there be no mistake in my reference). _The reason_ of all.
> 
> Yes, the believer...quite assuredy believes in reason. He believes in an accountability to Reason for reason and accepts just chastening when found operating in purpose to the neglect of that reason. He may even find in seeking to be consistent to The Reason of all reasons his own reason must be rightly mocked and discarded as foolishness before those who find reason no more than a facet in man, a thing of their (man's) own construct by which they measure one's self against another. They have _their reasons._
> 
> I suppose I should place an addendum. Rightly you (Ambush) expanded on a few of the things I merely mentioned as men not knowing where things might lead in "their seeking in, and of, life" You mentioned AI as signal threat seen by many "thinkers". It's interesting...and perhaps telling. Man's "creation" of an intelligence of "his own" appears to some as a great threat...to man himself. But what could "artificial intelligence" produce...but _artificial intelligence_? Each produces after its kind. Oh yes, there's quite a "mad scramble" after it.




What does he sound like?


----------

