# Unbiased Opinion



## matt79brown (Mar 13, 2018)

Is it possible to have a truly unbiased opinion? I mean can you hear/ read something without the the lil'  ''this ain't right'' alarm going off in your head? Can I come to a conclusion on anything without my brain computing what I already know?


----------



## ky55 (Mar 13, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Is it possible to have a truly unbiased opinion? I mean can you hear/ read something without the the lil'  ''this ain't right'' alarm going off in your head? Can I come to a conclusion on anything without my brain computing what I already know?



I think you’re talking about something called “confirmation bias” maybe?


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 13, 2018)

Maybe so. I just wonder if any of us can honestly say that we're ''open minded''. I just don't know that it's possible. Then again does that make us wrong? Who made the open minded rule anyway?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 13, 2018)

there is no such thing of being unbiased.  Everyone views each question with the background of teaching and experience of their lives.  There is no way to not view things thru the lense of your past.  Now, you may be able to see another point of view and overrule your bias, but it is there to overcome.

the question is not are you biased, but which bias is the best bias to be biased with.


----------



## Israel (Mar 14, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Maybe so. I just wonder if any of us can honestly say that we're ''open minded''. I just don't know that it's possible. Then again does that make us wrong? Who made the open minded rule anyway?


 
I think the open minded _rule_ came from two guys who couldn't get a third one to concur with them over something they agreed was really, really important (to them). Then, when the third guy left, (or they more likely killed him) the other two were left alone to start a war over whether Argyle socks were acceptable over solid color socks.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2018)

Israel said:


> I think the open minded _rule_ came from two guys who couldn't get a third one to concur with them over something they agreed was really, really important (to them). Then, when the third guy left, (or they more likely killed him) the other two were left alone to start a war over whether Argyle socks were acceptable over solid color socks.



I like that one Izzy


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 14, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Is it possible to have a truly unbiased opinion?



Yes and/or No.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 14, 2018)

It is very hard to deprogram ourselves from our preconceived notions. Extremely hard. I once thought about how 500 different denominations or beliefs all thought they were right and all the others were wrong. They can't all be right. So I realized that 99% were wrong and did not know it. And would likely boast that they were on the side of truth. So I then thought,  there is a likely hood that I could be one of the deceived. So I set out on a journey to deprogram myself from all my traditional thinking. I was surprised at how often, I realized, that assumptions were still in my thinking. Actually the most revealing for me comes from conversing with the atheist. Because they can spot those biases and point them out.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 14, 2018)

Yes. I believe unbiased opinions are possible. The receivers of that opinion may determine it different depending on how they believe.
For instance. It is my opinion that we have landed on the moon. Others believe we have not landed on the moon. 
I feel this is truly unbiased because I could really care less if we have landed on the moon. I form the opinion based on evidence I have seen and accept.


----------



## Israel (Mar 14, 2018)

660griz said:


> Yes. I believe unbiased opinions are possible. The receivers of that opinion may determine it different depending on how they believe.
> For instance. It is my opinion that we have landed on the moon. Others believe we have not landed on the moon.
> I feel this is truly unbiased because I could really care less if we have landed on the moon. I form the opinion based on evidence I have seen and accept.



But don't we often get into areas a little more complicated...especially when we attribute motives for _opinions_? I know I have veered into areas of presumption (toward others) while rarely considering my own motives in the matter, particularly to that very point..."where does this inclination come from to imagine I can easily see in others what I may not be willing to see in myself?"

Now, don't get me wrong...but your sig line says a lot, does it not? And I could come to all sorts of ideas of why an opinion you hold has now taken the form of (at least to me) a recommendation. Some could say "instruction" or even demand/command. "Boycott the NFL", and although I myself have an inclination or opinion about what I may think (and why) you are saying that, I could very well be completely in the rough. And this could happen even if I agree with your recommendation/statement/instruction/command. (For all I may know an NFL team may have condemned some property of yours by eminent domain to build a stadium).

Our affinities and resistances which, though we may make most plain, may really not be as plain to even ourselves in their origins.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2018)

Israel said:


> But don't we often get into areas a little more complicated...especially when we attribute motives for _opinions_? I know I have veered into areas of presumption (toward others) while rarely considering my own motives in the matter, particularly to that very point..."where does this inclination come from to imagine I can easily see in others what I may not be willing to see in myself?"


 I am not a scholar by a longshot but, seems to be a slight misuse of 'motive'. 



> Now, don't get me wrong...but your sig line says a lot, does it not?


 I guess it does. Don't overthink it though. I should change it. Season is over. It says I love America and respect what the flag stands for. 



> And I could come to all sorts of ideas of why an opinion you hold has now taken the form of (at least to me) a recommendation. Some could say "instruction" or even demand/command. "Boycott the NFL", and although I myself have an inclination or opinion about what I may think (and why) you are saying that, I could very well be completely in the rough. And this could happen even if I agree with your recommendation/statement/instruction/command. (For all I may know an NFL team may have condemned some property of yours by eminent domain to build a stadium).
> 
> Our affinities and resistances which, though we may make most plain, may really not be as plain to even ourselves in their origins.



You could just ask my opinion. You could even ask how I came to that opinion. Or...


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 15, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> It is very hard to deprogram ourselves from our preconceived notions. Extremely hard. I once thought about how 500 different denominations or beliefs all thought they were right and all the others were wrong. They can't all be right. So I realized that 99% were wrong and did not know it. And would likely boast that they were on the side of truth. So I then thought,  there is a likely hood that I could be one of the deceived. So I set out on a journey to deprogram myself from all my traditional thinking. I was surprised at how often, I realized, that assumptions were still in my thinking. Actually the most revealing for me comes from conversing with the atheist. Because they can spot those biases and point them out.


That kind of seems like an invitation so I'm going for it  -


> So I realized that 99% were wrong





> They can't all be right


You started with the assumption that only 99% were wrong. Not 100%. 
And that they cant all be right but your assumption is that some number are "right".
So I guess my point is -


> I was surprised at how often, I realized, that assumptions were still in my thinking.


You started with the assumption that "God is" so the final outcome of your journey was already predetermined,
you were just wrestling with the "technicalities"?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

660griz said:


> I feel this is truly unbiased because I could really care less if we have landed on the moon. I form the opinion based on evidence I have seen and accept.



Which is the exact definition of bias.  You have been taught/told certain things and you believe them to be true, so you come into a conversation or discussion with those ideas in your head.  It leaves you in a situation where you have to not only be presented of the facts, but you have to be persuaded that the information you already had may be incorrect.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

Assume whatever you think is true is false, then look at all the evidence.  It's the best you can do.

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe a starting position of skepticism will reduce bias.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Which is the exact definition of bias.  You have been taught/told certain things and you believe them to be true, so you come into a conversation or discussion with those ideas in your head.  It leaves you in a situation where you have to not only be presented of the facts, but you have to be persuaded that the information you already had may be incorrect.


I think the bigger question here should be what do we do with those opinions.
What you say above has to be true, must be true, simply due to the fact that to even have an opinion you would have to either experience it for yourself or to your point, get the info from somewhere else.
Its what we do with or how we apply our opinions that matters.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Which is the exact definition of bias.  You have been taught/told certain things and you believe them to be true, so you come into a conversation or discussion with those ideas in your head.  It leaves you in a situation where you have to not only be presented of the facts, but you have to be persuaded that the information you already had may be incorrect.



Uh, no.
I have also been told/taught certain thing that I believe to be false. I know folks that don't believe we have been to the moon. I have watched all the conspiracy theories around it and the answers. I got as much information as I could and MY opinion is, we have been to the moon. I had no preconceived notions or inclination either way.(definition of unbiased) Same goes for my opinions on religion. 
Some folks can find bias in any thing and conspiracies too. 
Skepticism is good...in moderation. 
If your livelihood, health and happiness, etc. can not be affected by an opinion, my opinion is, it is not biased. Of course, you could dig down to what happened in my past that led me to a particular opinion but...


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

660griz said:


> Uh, no.
> I have also been told/taught certain thing that I believe to be false. I know folks that don't believe we have been to the moon. I have watched all the conspiracy theories around it and the answers. I got as much information as I could and MY opinion is, we have been to the moon. I had no preconceived notions or inclination either way.(definition of unbiased) Same goes for my opinions on religion.
> Some folks can find bias in any thing and conspiracies too.
> Skepticism is good...in moderation.
> If your livelihood, health and happiness, etc. can not be affected by an opinion, my opinion is, it is not biased. Of course, you could dig down to what happened in my past that led me to a particular opinion but...



you are totally unhinged on this subject.

What you believe is your bias.  You can't set it apart and look at something with no preconceived ideas about the subject.

The only way you could possibly be unbiased is for you to be totally ignorant about the subject or anything remotely related to the subject.

Go ahead and deceive yourself into thinking you don't have any biases if you want to, but it just isn't true.  What you believe or don't believe colors the thought process on any subject you wish to discuss.  Period.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

I just heard an excellent podcast where the interviewee suggested that people not have so many opinions about things that they don't know about.  He suggested that one should have adequate knowledge of any subject to which they might espouse an opinion.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> you are totally unhinged on this subject.
> 
> What you believe is your bias.  You can't set it apart and look at something with no preconceived ideas about the subject.
> 
> ...



One need not have any basis for a belief.  If one wants their belief to correspond to reality then they will have to do some investigation.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> you are totally unhinged on this subject.
> 
> What you believe is your bias.  You can't set it apart and look at something with no preconceived ideas about the subject.
> 
> ...



You state your opinion as if it is fact. Interesting. 
I smell some serious bias.
You are saying, as a young lad, growing up using outdoor plumbing, father had a six grade education, I had knowledge of space travel and what it takes to get to the moon. Guess I was a lot smarter than most. 
Who knew?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

Let's try an experiment.

"Procardium is bad for you."

By simply making a statement I can see how a cascade of biases could be unleashed.  "Procardium, that sounds like a medicine.  Sounds like one of them expensive designer drugs that some giant corporation is making tons of money off of.  I bet it sucks".  

I truly unbiased person would first find out what Procardium is.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

660griz said:


> You state your opinion as if it is fact. Interesting.
> I smell some serious bias.
> You are saying, as a young lad, growing up using outdoor plumbing, father had a six grade education, I had knowledge of space travel and what it takes to get to the moon. Guess I was a lot smarter than most.
> Who knew?



You seem to have problems understanding what I am saying.  It is your life experiences and your 'knowledge' that produce your biases.  It doesn't matter whether your knowledge is true or false, it is what you perceive as truth. It doesn't matter if you dad had a 6th grade education or, if like my grandpappy, he didn't even finish 1st grade.  It is based only on your 'knowledge' and believes.

You could be the dullest knife in the drawer and still have a bias toward a subject that is being discussed.

Yep, I have biases, you have biases, your dog has biases.  He may not go near a electric fence line because he got shocked once.  It makes no difference that there is no power on the fence, his experiences make him wary of going near there.

Like I said before.....

It is not whether or not you are biased, it is what bias is the best bias to be biased with.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Let's try an experiment.
> 
> "Procardium is bad for you."
> 
> ...



I think that is some of that chemo crap they are giving me every other weekend.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> It is not whether or not you are biased, it is what bias is the best bias to be biased with.



That, is your opinion.
I concur that some of my opinions are biased but, I believe some opinions can be unbiased. 
You believe different. 

Now, if you want to present evidence to the contrary, and not just continue to repeat the same thing, I will be happy to look at it cause, I am unbiased that way.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> You seem to have problems understanding what I am saying.  It is your life experiences and your 'knowledge' that produce your biases.  It doesn't matter whether your knowledge is true or false, it is what you perceive as truth. It doesn't matter if you dad had a 6th grade education or, if like my grandpappy, he didn't even finish 1st grade.  It is based only on your 'knowledge' and believes.
> 
> You could be the dullest knife in the drawer and still have a bias toward a subject that is being discussed.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't call that dog biased.  I would say that he's acting on evidence based on firsthand experience.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I think that is some of that chemo crap they are giving me every other weekend.




I hope it works!!!


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

660griz said:


> That, is your opinion.
> I concur that some of my opinions are biased but, I believe some opinions can be unbiased.
> You believe different.
> 
> Now, if you want to present evidence to the contrary, and not just continue to repeat the same thing, I will be happy to look at it cause, I am unbiased that way.



that is not being unbiased.  You are stating a biased opinion to my statement. You have no proof that I am wrong in my assumptions, you just choose not to believe it.

Bias.....


If you were truly unbiased, you would be exploring the data to see if what I said might true, that would show, at least, some semblance of being unbiased.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I wouldn't call that dog biased.  I would say that he's acting on evidence based on firsthand experience.



but he is making assumption about a fence based on those experiences.  

This is a bias in his thinking.  He thinks the fence is charged even though it may not be.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> that is not being unbiased.  You are stating a biased opinion to my statement. You have no proof that I am wrong in my assumptions, you just choose not to believe it.
> 
> Bias.....
> 
> ...



You are a trip. Like I believe you know what truly unbiased is...based on prior examples from you. 

I would like to ask questions on why you are so adamant about believing there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion but, then I realized I don't really care and wonder why I even stepped into a conversation like this. 
I admit it was a mistake. 
Kinda like a nuh uh, you are...

Giving the example of the dog and 'ELECTRIC' fence and then calling it biased cause he doesn't know if it is charged or not. Wow! My cue to exit.


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 15, 2018)

Sometimes I use words that I don't completely understand to make myself look more photosynthesis.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

FYI

noun
1.
a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography;
our strong bias in favor of the idea.

notice the red print... it might be important


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

by the very definition of the word, an opinion is a bias...

therefore an opinion can not be unbiased


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 15, 2018)

I have an opinion on everything. Most of the time my opinions are very different and contrary to the ones around me. Bias seems to come from outside influence. Politics & religion is usually where I'm the outcast. I was born and raised within 10 miles of here. Average Joe. Why is it that I'm not buying into the norm. I'm supposed to be a baptist republican racist like the rest of my family, friends and co-workers. Whats wrong with me? Have I made some unbiased decisions? I don't watch news or even read the paper. Hummmm...... Maybe theres a connection?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

Matt, I don't think anyone is saying there is something wrong with you. You have your opinions and beliefs, and other folks have theirs.  That doesn't make it right or wrong.  If we all were the same and thought the same, there wouldn't be a need for most of us.  

but your biases are showing with that baptist republican racist comment.

Not all racist are republican.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Matt, I don't think anyone is saying there is something wrong with you. You have your opinions and beliefs, and other folks have theirs.  That doesn't make it right or wrong.  If we all were the same and thought the same, there wouldn't be a need for most of us.
> 
> but your biases are showing with that baptist republican racist comment.
> 
> Not all racist are republican.




But a ton of Baptist Democrats are.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> but he is making assumption about a fence based on those experiences.
> 
> This is a bias in his thinking.  He thinks the fence is charged even though it may not be.



Wanna use this definition?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

_Definition of bias
1 a : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice
b : an instance of such prejudice
c : bent, tendency
d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates
(2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
2 : a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric; especially : a line at a 45 degree angle to the selvage often utilized in the cutting of garments for smoother fit
3 a : a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green in lawn bowling
b : the tendency of a bowl to swerve; also : the impulse causing this tendency
c : the swerve of the bowl
4 a : a voltage applied to a device (such as a transistor control electrode) to establish a reference level for operation
b : a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording
— on the bias
1 : diagonally to the grain of a fabric

    cut the cloth on the bias

    sleeves cut on the bias

2 : at an angle : diagonally to the fibers of something

    cut the meat on the bias

    carrots cut on the bias_

If you do, then I don't think ideas based on evidence fall under that definition.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> FYI
> 
> noun
> 1.
> ...



I think the blue is more important.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Wanna use this definition?
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias
> 
> ...




see entry 1C... a bent or tendency

the dog/fence falls under this definition. The dog would have a tendency to avoid any electric fence after a few pops of a live one.

I know cows will.  Mine run on the honor system about 70 percent of the time after about a month of the fence being live.  A calf gets popped a couple times, and he won't go near a fence again.  You can't run him thru it chasing him with 4 wheeler.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I think the blue is more important.



sounds like a bias to me


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> FYI
> 
> noun
> 1.
> ...





ambush80 said:


> I think the blue is more important.





NE GA Pappy said:


> sounds like a bias to me



Without the blue you simply have tendency, trend, feeling or opinion.  The blue part qualifies the rest as bias.  

Would you say that you're biased about gravity?  Are you biased because you think a rock will fall down? 

I think your trying to make the word bias do too much or not enough.  I can't tell which.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Without the blue you simply have tendency, trend, feeling or opinion.  The blue part qualifies the rest as bias.
> 
> Would you say that you're biased about gravity?  Are you biased because you think a rock will fall down?
> 
> I think your trying to make the word bias do too much or not enough.  I can't tell which.



Negative Ghostrider....

It says bias is tendency,trend,feeling or opinion... and even more so if......

I guess it depends on what is is....


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Negative Ghostrider....
> 
> It says bias is tendency,trend,feeling or opinion... and even more so if......
> 
> I guess it depends on what is is....



Why do you think Webster included the part in blue?

So are you biased about gravity?


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 15, 2018)

I am biased. I favor the underdog weather he regards the invisible fence or not.


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 15, 2018)

Gravity sucks. It's always there nagging at me. Several times it has attacked me. Especially when I was drinking.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Why do you think Webster included the part in blue?
> 
> So are you biased about gravity?



I think that Webster included it to show that bias has different degrees, and that bias, with those qualifiers, is especially blatant.

I am extremely biased about gravity, because of my experiences with it and the preconceived ideas I gathered over the years.

Gravity hurts.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I think that Webster included it to show that bias has different degrees, and that bias, with those qualifiers, is especially blatant.
> 
> I am extremely biased about gravity, because of my experiences with it and the preconceived ideas I gathered over the years.
> 
> Gravity hurts.




Fair enough.  You defended you position properly.  All particular tendencies, trends, inclinations, feelings, or opinions are biases.

Is one's understanding of gravity an opinion?  Can one say "This rock isn't falling down.  It's falling up."?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Fair enough.  You defended you position properly.  All particular tendencies, trends, inclinations, feelings, or opinions are biases.
> 
> Is one's understanding of gravity an opinion?  Can one say "This rock isn't falling down.  It's falling up."?



gravity isn't an opinion with me.  It is fact.  And as a fact, it colors everything I see, say and do concerning heights.  Whether I am standing on top of my house, calculating time to climb for the flight I am planning, or in the bottom of a hole trying to get out.  

I would hope that no one would claim a rock fell upward, but you never know in this crazy mixed up world.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> gravity isn't an opinion with me.  It is fact.  And as a fact, it colors everything I see, say and do concerning heights.  Whether I am standing on top of my house, calculating time to climb for the flight I am planning, or in the bottom of a hole trying to get out.
> 
> I would hope that no one would claim a rock fell upward, but you never know in this crazy mixed up world.



I think we just revealed something about what differentiates bias from objective, dispassionate, unbiased fact and how to recognize the difference.  Took a minute, didn't it?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I think we just revealed something about what differentiates bias from objective, dispassionate, unbiased fact and how to recognize the difference.  Took a minute, didn't it?



I am not sure about that.  It is just that you and I agree on what gravity is and does.  That doesn't mean that we would agree on other 'facts'.  

Especially 'facts' as it relates to religion and it effects on the world today.  Or even it's effect on the world in history.

It is all about perception and past experiences that a person had.


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 15, 2018)

I had a life changing experience that I accredit to Jesus Christ. That is a fact. Now weather or not you believe Christ was the reason for the change is arguable. You can question, disagree, argue, debate all day but I can't be moved on the subject because it's as factual as gravity's effect on the falling rock. To me. I experienced it. Every day I'm living it. It's not theory. You might say it's ''rock'' solid. To me that is.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am not sure about that.  It is just that you and I agree on what gravity is and does.  That doesn't mean that we would agree on other 'facts'.
> 
> Especially 'facts' as it relates to religion and it effects on the world today.  Or even it's effect on the world in history.
> 
> It is all about perception and past experiences that a person had.



We have a way to test gravity and measure it.  If you want to talk about religious things as facts they should be equally verifiable, or call them something other than facts.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> I had a life changing experience that I accredit to Jesus Christ. That is a fact. Now weather or not you believe Christ was the reason for the change is arguable. You can question, disagree, argue, debate all day but I can't be moved on the subject because it's as factual as gravity's effect on the falling rock. To me. I experienced it. Every day I'm living it. It's not theory. You might say it's ''rock'' solid. To me that is.



OK.  I can tell from this that your requirements for establishing things as facts are very different from mine.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> We have a way to test gravity and measure it.  If you want to talk about religious things as facts they should be equally verifiable, or call them something other than facts.



see... you would probably argue that Jesus was not raised from the dead, yet it is one of the most documented events in history.  We have over 400 manuscripts, some dating to within 20 years of the event attesting to that fact.

My guess is that your biases would not allow you to accept this as a fact, even though there is all that evidence to proof it.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

Someone saying "I believe I saw Bigfoot" contains the fact that they believe they saw Bigfoot. It is not a fact that they saw Bigfoot.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> see... you would probably argue that Jesus was not raised from the dead, yet it is one of the most documented events in history.  We have over 400 manuscripts, some dating to within 20 years of the event attesting to that fact.
> 
> My guess is that your biases would not allow you to accept this as a fact, even though there is all that evidence to proof it.



I'm not a Biblical scholar or a theologian so I base my disbelief of Jesus' resurrection on what I know about life and death and science.  I imagine Bullethead will chime in as he actually does research on Biblical claims, analyze their historicity, and the reliability of any eyewitness accounts.  What if he finds something contrary to your evidence?

I know that there's some issues with the eyewitness evidence in that some of the people say that they didn't recognize the resurrected Jesus.  Can you look at that evidence objectively?

There's a reason why things like the resurrection are called miracles.  It's because they confound all sense of what is understood to be possible.  If it's outside of what we understand, then you don't understand it.  Why then would you speak from authority about what happened?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> see... you would probably argue that Jesus was not raised from the dead, yet it is one of the most documented events in history.  We have over 400 manuscripts, some dating to within 20 years of the event attesting to that fact.
> 
> My guess is that your biases would not allow you to accept this as a fact, even though there is all that evidence to proof it.



I'm willing to examine your claim that the resurrection is one of the most documented events in history.  Proceed.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 15, 2018)

Most people base their opinion on personal life experiences. Some are easily influenced and base theirs off the ramblings of others. Or as Walt says they have been indoctrinated to have that opinion. I don't doubt that happens by the way. Look at ambush and his podcasts. It could be cultural. If you ask me it depends on the individual, everyone is different. I think it is possible for someone to have an unbiased opinion but highly unlikely. Some people base opinions on probability. There are too many variables that's what makes it interesting. By definition alone a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Therefore it can always be argued.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Someone saying "I believe I saw Bigfoot" contains the fact that they believe they saw Bigfoot. It is not a fact that they saw Bigfoot.



but if you had multiples of people all saying the same thing, that would be a bit different matter, no?

If it were documented that Bigfoot walked all over town, and hundreds saw it, wouldn't that make it a bit more believable?  

Yeah,,, I know all the reasons you will say it isn't believable, because it would cause all kinds of conflict within you and challenge your belief system, but you do have to admit that several hundred people seeing the same thing, at the same time, and documenting it.

They had to have a group hallucination or there has to be some truth to the story... at least my biases tell me that are the choices.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'm willing to examine your claim that the resurrection is one of the most documented events in history.  Proceed.



I could do this, but to what end?   It would just be one point after another in an endless circular argument.

Like I said in my first post, your biases will not allow you to accept that the event could be based in truth.   There is no use in me putting all that information out there to try and convince you.

If you have any interest in it, you will find the time to research it for yourself.  I doubt that happening either, because of your biases.  

No, this is not a cop out.  I have presented this information to people for years, and my biases lead me to believe it is a dead end street and not a good use of my time. 

I am, however, willing to listen to your arguments that Christ is not risen, after you have researched the subject and looked at the documentation.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> but if you had multiples of people all saying the same thing, that would be a bit different matter, no?
> 
> If it were documented that Bigfoot walked all over town, and hundreds saw it, wouldn't that make it a bit more believable?
> 
> ...




OK.  I'm open.  Show me the best historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection.

Hundreds of people have claimed to have seen Bigfoot.  Do you believe that Bigfoot is real based on that?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I could do this, but to what end?   It would just be one point after another in an endless circular argument.
> 
> Like I said in my first post, your biases will not allow you to accept that the event could be based in truth.   There is no use in me putting all that information out there to try and convince you.
> 
> ...



Until we have completed the exercise I will assume that Jesus rose from the grave.  Now what?  How can I verify this belief?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Until we have completed the exercise I will assume that Jesus rose from the grave.  Now what?  How can I verify this belief?



In order for me to even make this assumption there seem to be many other assumptions I would have to make.  Is that OK?

First assumption is that it was possible.  How do I prove that?


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> In order for me to even make this assumption there seem to be many other assumptions I would have to make.  Is that OK?
> 
> First assumption is that it was possible.  How do I prove that?



Eye witness testimony that you automatically discredit. No need in going any further. You believe the eye witness to be lying. I believe they are telling the truth.


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 15, 2018)

You can't prove it. No more than you can prove evolution. It's a choice. Faith=substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 15, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> You can't prove it. No more than you can prove evolution. It's a choice. Faith=substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



Not hoped for in all cases. But witnessed and discredited. There are no witnesses of evolution but there are witnesses of Jesus. It depends on what you accept as proof. Again up to the individual.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Eye witness testimony that you automatically discredit. No need in going any further. You believe the eye witness to be lying. I believe they are telling the truth.



https://www.gotquestions.org/recognize-resurrected-Jesus.html

_A third instance is when the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35) did not recognize Jesus until He broke bread. How could these two disciples have walked, talked, and eaten with Jesus without recognizing Him? In this instance, it seems that they were supernaturally prevented from recognizing Jesus. Jesus perhaps had taken on a different appearance to keep Himself from being recognized. Why would Jesus have done this? The Bible does not say. Perhaps Jesus “veiled” His identity so the two disciples would truly think through the things Jesus was saying, rather than accepting the teaching blindly, as they likely would have if they had known it was Jesus._

Would you accept this explanation about anyone else?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 16, 2018)

Paul, writing to the jews in Corinth, who had knowledge of the things that had happened, said that Christ rose from the dead, documented the event and told of eye witnesses that could be examined at that time by anyone doubting.  The jews didn't investigate as far as we know, and they didn't protest as was their habit when they thought someone was trying to destroy judism.   It seems that they accepted as fact what Paul spoke.  

Yeah, but.... bias


1 Cor 15:3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of over five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 16, 2018)

Acts 1... Luke writing to Theophilus, who had hired Luke to investigate the happening of that day, said there were infallible proofs that Jesus rose and walked among the jews of Jerusalem.

1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.


but.... bias


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 16, 2018)

there are lots of documentation outside the Bible also..... 

research it and come to your own conclusion...


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Paul, writing to the jews in Corinth, who had knowledge of the things that had happened, said that Christ rose from the dead, documented the event and told of eye witnesses that could be examined at that time by anyone doubting.  The jews didn't investigate as far as we know, and they didn't protest as was their habit when they thought someone was trying to destroy judism.   It seems that they accepted as fact what Paul spoke.
> 
> Yeah, but.... bias
> 
> ...





NE GA Pappy said:


> Acts 1... Luke writing to Theophilus, who had hired Luke to investigate the happening of that day, said there were infallible proofs that Jesus rose and walked among the jews of Jerusalem.
> 
> 1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
> 
> ...





NE GA Pappy said:


> there are lots of documentation outside the Bible also.....
> 
> research it and come to your own conclusion...



Like I said.  I will believe that Jesus was resurrected.  I will now look to confirm or disconfirm this belief.   The Bible has obvious problems as a source because of its self fulfilling nature.  I will be more compelled by skeptical analysis.  

The problem remains that I'm believing in something that goes against everything I know.  What other thing in the word does one take that approach about?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Like I said.  I will believe that Jesus was resurrected.
> 
> The problem remains that I'm believing in something that goes against everything I know.



conflicting statements much?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 17, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> conflicting statements much?



That's right. I'm gonna assume that it happened then try to find things that shows it's true


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 17, 2018)

Careful Ambush, men have done this before and became believers. Intelligent, educated men like yourself.


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 17, 2018)

Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowel circa 1972 is a very interesting compilation of notes prepared for a lecture on "Christianity: Hoax or History?'' With 5000 man hours in digging up info by guys like Doug Wilder - Michigan State University, Phil Edwards- Ohio State University,Ron Lutjens- Bowling Green University, Wayne Trout- Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Brent Nelson- Indiana U, David Shelton-Ohio State, Frank Dickerson- Ohio State,Steve Smith- Virginia Poly, James Davis- Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, Linn Smith North Texas State University, Stick Ustick- Sacramento State University to name a few. Looks at the whole deal intellectually to see if there is enough hard evidence to support the claims.  This was put together before the internet age. Resources are endless now. I would love to hear what you think after a couple of months of investigating the subject. Find your own. Some of the best stuff has been written by skeptics after they done a lil' digging into the past!


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 17, 2018)

Lee Strobel was a died in the wool Atheist who set out to disprove the claims of Jesus coming back to life. He has some interesting reads on the subject as well.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 19, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> There are no witnesses of evolution



https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment-speciation/


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Lee Strobel was a died in the wool Atheist who set out to disprove the claims of Jesus coming back to life. He has some interesting reads on the subject as well.



I'm familiar with Strobel's story and if you are too then you will know that he wasn't compelled by evidence.  He had a personal, undescribable revelation; God touched his heart, just like the rest of you.  

How can that kind of experience ever be described as unbiased?


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 19, 2018)

660griz said:


> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment-speciation/



So virus mutation in a controlled experiment in a controlled laboratory proves evolution? Btw I don't disagree that things can evolve. Its a survival trait God given. More of an adaptation to survive conditions by the original created being though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> So virus mutation in a controlled experiment in a controlled laboratory proves evolution? Btw I don't disagree that things can evolve. Its a survival trait God given. More of an adaptation to survive conditions by the original created being though.





> Btw I don't disagree that things can evolve


Things evolving = evolution.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Things evolving = evolution.



micro evolution is not = macro evolution


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Things evolving = evolution.



But not creation.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 19, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> So virus mutation in a controlled experiment in a controlled laboratory proves evolution?


There is no such thing as a controlled experiment or a controlled laboratory.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 19, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> micro evolution is not = macro evolution



This=truth.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 19, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> There is no such thing as a controlled experiment or a controlled laboratory.



Explain. Hopefully not another predestination theory.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> But not creation.


That's because creation  and evolution are two different things.
Christians seem to have a lot of trouble with "creation" and evolution. They roll them into one thing and they aren't.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's because creation  and evolution are two different things.
> Christians seem to have a lot of trouble with "creation" and evolution. They roll them into one thing and they aren't.



No trouble at all. I believe you were created with the ability to evolve. But not to the extent of changing species. More of an adaptation to environment. Kind of like the grizz's post. the virus was still a virus right.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> micro evolution is not = macro evolution


The whole micro/macro argument is kind of "ancient history" at this point.
You can break evolution down into as many complicated pieces as you want and name them micro or macro or whatever floats your boat but evolution is evolution.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 19, 2018)

when you see a lizard hatch out a chicken, get back with me on that macro evolution deal


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> The whole micro/macro argument is kind of "ancient history" at this point.
> You can break evolution down into as many complicated pieces as you want and name them micro or macro or whatever floats your boat but evolution is evolution.



No there is a big difference. I believe it was created. You believe it happed by chance.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> No trouble at all. I believe you were created with the ability to evolve. But not to the extent of changing species. More of an adaptation to environment.


Don't worry Richie monkeys didn't turn into men.
They are just distant cousins


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> No there is a big difference. I believe it was created. You believe it happed by chance.


Actually no.
We both believe it was created.
You believe it was created by "God".
I believe it was created by some as of yet unexplainable event/occurrence/happening/process/whatever.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 19, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Explain. Hopefully not another predestination theory.


I would not have even considered it, had you not determined beforehand(predestinated) to include it in your response to me. 

What would the scientist have to determine beforehand(predestinate) in order to have a controlled experiment? All the variables?

He can't and he doesn't. He doesn't even have the tool to identify entire categories of variables.

But fortunately for us, predestination is not a thing that would laugh at those of us who are just too stupid to recognize it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> when you see a lizard hatch out a chicken, get back with me on that macro evolution deal


So you mean "macro evolution" is really pretty much a meaningless term that is applied to something that obviously cant happen like a lizard hatching out a chicken?
On that we agree.


> Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
> When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons —- this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 19, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I would not have even considered it, had you not determined beforehand(predestinated) to include it in your response to me.
> 
> What would the scientist have to determine beforehand(predestinate) in order to have a controlled experiment? All the variables?
> 
> ...



I agree and disagree. I believe there are some things set in stone. Only God knows the date or time. But I also believe that salvation is a choice. And the decisions you make play a role.


----------



## matt79brown (Mar 20, 2018)

Since giving my life to Christ I am evolving into something different than what I use to be. Is this micro or macro?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> Since giving my life to Christ I am evolving into something different than what I use to be. Is this micro or macro?


Yes


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> something that obviously cant happen like a lizard hatching out a chicken?



so do you feel that the evolutionist that claim some of the reptiles evolved into birds while other reptile stayed the same are incorrect?

I also wonder how an heart evolved.  I mean why do you need a heart unless you have blood to pump and a arterial and veinous system to convey the blood.  Would the heart evolve first without the distribution system?  Would blood evolve and just stay puddled up in the body until after millions of years a heart and distribution system evolved?  

Seems like any evolution of a circulatory system would be a hindrance to an animal surviving rather than a benefit.  I mean, if you don't have all the parts, then the rest of the system is just something you have to carry along all your life as a worthless item.

Why would a microbe or bacteria need to develop a circulatory system anyway?  or a reproductive system, since they could reproduce asexually?

It just makes no sense.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 21, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> so do you feel that the evolutionist that claim some of the reptiles evolved into birds while other reptile stayed the same are incorrect?
> 
> I also wonder how an heart evolved.  I mean why do you need a heart unless you have blood to pump and a arterial and veinous system to convey the blood.  Would the heart evolve first without the distribution system?  Would blood evolve and just stay puddled up in the body until after millions of years a heart and distribution system evolved?
> 
> ...





> so do you feel that the evolutionist that claim some of the reptiles evolved into birds while other reptile stayed the same are incorrect


There is a HUGE difference between evolution and a lizard hatching out a chicken.
But to your question...
There is no available evidence that could back up my claim that evolutionists are wrong about birds evolving from reptiles. 
There are fossils of "birds" with feathers, long bony tails, reptile teeth. In other words a combination of bird and reptile features.
To this day we have birds that cant fly. They live on the ground but they have wings.
This a pretty good overview -


> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06





> would be a hindrance to an animal surviving rather than a benefit.


Not all evolution is "good". Whats good today may be the end of your species some years in the future.
You have lots of legitimate questions. Some we know the answers to and some we don't. Some we only have clues.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> so do you feel that the evolutionist that claim some of the reptiles evolved into birds while other reptile stayed the same are incorrect?
> 
> I also wonder how an heart evolved.  I mean why do you need a heart unless you have blood to pump and a arterial and veinous system to convey the blood.  Would the heart evolve first without the distribution system?  Would blood evolve and just stay puddled up in the body until after millions of years a heart and distribution system evolved?
> 
> ...



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378490/


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2018)

Lots of things are hard to understand or do not make sense to some, but it doesn't mean there is not a very detailed explanation for it. Sometimes researching things clears a lot of it up.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Mar 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378490/



great article! The part about evolutionary medicine was my favorite. Definitely my belief that we as a species have evolved an incredibly functional & efficient body, but modern society is degrading it's potential. Smoking, drug/alcohol abuse, obesity/lack of exercise is rapidly degrading our individual bodies and our gene pool that we took so long to perfect. 

Forming humans out of clay fully functional sounds great in theory, but I'll believe in the "slow & steady" route of evolution myself. Too much evidence of other primate species & proto-humans (plus up to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA in some of us) and skull shapes & brain capacity changing over time for me to think otherwise. 

BTW the most IGNORANT comment against evolution I ever heard came from a senior NCO when I was in the army: "they've had that gorilla in the Atlanta Zoo for over ten years now, and he ain't evolved YET!" 

Seriously - where to even begin having an intelligent conversation with somebody when this is their level of understanding of the process?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 27, 2018)

It seems the basic issue is time. Microevolution is pretty easy for everyone to get their heads around. It happens in a time period we can relate to. The problem arises when we are talking about billions of years. This time frame is hard to grasp, especially if you believe the earth is 6000 years old.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> great article! The part about evolutionary medicine was my favorite. Definitely my belief that we as a species have evolved an incredibly functional & efficient body, but modern society is degrading it's potential. Smoking, drug/alcohol abuse, obesity/lack of exercise is rapidly degrading our individual bodies and our gene pool that we took so long to perfect.
> 
> Forming humans out of clay fully functional sounds great in theory, but I'll believe in the "slow & steady" route of evolution myself. Too much evidence of other primate species & proto-humans (plus up to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA in some of us) and skull shapes & brain capacity changing over time for me to think otherwise.
> 
> ...



We're actually a bit clunky and some of our parts don't seem to be designed very well.

http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787

There's plenty more.

I agree with you that it might be difficult to discuss these facts with someone who would call a god that drowns the world good and loving. Right off the bat there's definitional problems.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2018)

660griz said:


> It seems the basic issue is time. Microevolution is pretty easy for everyone to get their heads around. It happens in a time period we can relate to. The problem arises when we are talking about billions of years. This time frame is hard to grasp, especially if you believe the earth is 6000 years old.



There are so many things that are hard to grasp.  I understand the appeal of saying they're caused by magic or the supernatural.  We've discarded most of what used to be called supernatural explanations and we've NEVER EVER gone back to one.  I expect the trend to continue.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> There are so many things that are hard to grasp.  I understand the appeal of saying they're caused by magic or the supernatural.  We've discarded most of what used to be called supernatural explanations and we've NEVER EVER gone back to one.  I expect the trend to continue.



Which is exactly why, in my unbiased opinion, "I/We don't know", is a much better answer than, "God did it."


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2018)

660griz said:


> Which is exactly why, in my unbiased opinion, "I/We don't know", is a much better answer than, "God did it."



More importantly, when someone says they believe something based on scientific evidence there's always the underlying caveat that their beliefs might change as more info comes in.  That caveat is often completely absent from religious belief.  

They will change but look how hard it is for them to do it.  Look how long it took for the Pope to recognize evolution and the age of the Universe; the guy still wearing a crazy hat.


----------



## Israel (Mar 28, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> We're actually a bit clunky and some of our parts don't seem to be designed very well.
> 
> http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body
> 
> ...



Unless "good" and "loving" which are presumed to be understood as an a priori, are discovered to not at all mean what the presumptuous one believed. 

Me, I've drowned plenty of men. Held them under...so how can I accuse? Or begin to think I know what love is?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2018)

Israel said:


> Unless "good" and "loving" which are presumed to be understood as an a priori, are discovered to not at all mean what the presumptuous one believed.
> 
> Me, I've drowned plenty of men. Held them under...so how can I accuse? Or begin to think I know what love is?



Maybe you're the wrong person to ask.


----------



## Israel (Mar 28, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe you're the wrong person to ask.




Yes. It is far better to ask your maker. And maybe just considering one is made...may mark more of a trail to an answer than was previously imagined.

In a mind that as easily holds all that is not as well as all that is...you are.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes. It is far better to ask your maker. And maybe just considering one is made...may mark more of a trail to an answer than was previously imagined.
> 
> In a mind that as easily holds all that is not as well as all that is...you are.



I asked my maker.  He doesn't speak.  Why?  He doesn't say.

(I ripped that off from_ GI Joe : Rise of Cobra_)


----------



## Israel (Mar 29, 2018)

Don't give up!

Look, someone far wiser: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you"

I'm not doubting your asking. And it doesn't much matter if you doubt mine. I don't have God "in my pocket" to flash a glimpse as though He's trained to my will.

Have you not often said (in some manner) you'd rather have a man to man (at least with me) than the _something other_ you sense I have projected?

Man to man...do we agree that persistence is a signal mark of importance? I think you know what I mean. If a thing is really important to someone...they keep at it. It _may be_ that the only true measure of importance...of anything...to anyone...is measured so.

I see now there's some talk of humility in a thread, what it looks like, how it is expressed. Even "who" _really_ has it, as might be _testified to_ in _their expression_. But, I believe you also know words _can come_ cheap, at least (_seemingly_ so) to some spenders. But what else do we have to give one another to mark who and where we are?

"He's a man who is as good as his word". That could most sound as a complimentary thing. But, really...who escapes it? Hitler was also as "good as his word", wasn't he? It entirely rests upon foundation. Now, a _naive_ German might say (or have said) "No, he promised us greatness and failed miserably"...still not seeing he gave all he promised to those who are, or were, so easily convinced of _their own _false foundation. Their foundation of an innate superiority. (though some I am relatively sure still held "But O!...we were _this_ close!") 

But ultimately...Hitler did manage, did he not...to bring to display _all_ of the _innate superiority _of those who believed him.  And quite a bit turned out to be rather he11ish, no? And it was not...sufficient. At least to what men believed _was meant _by "triumph".

But, a miss is as good as a mile, ain't it? And these tribal things play out, and have played out it seems, forever. Call out the name of your tribe on the frontier and find there's _always an answer._ Another tribe glad to engage on the very same foundation your cry was made "At last...an opportunity _to prove_ our greatness!". And wars.

How close can a man bear? When his shout at the frontier has now brought one to his very home, past all defenses, his will to triumph...shown most particularly now as his _own undoing_...and the knife of another is at the throats of all he has ever held dear, now completely disabused of all the false notion "I am able to keep what is mine!".

Nevertheless, this is the call out.


But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear the One who, after you have been killed, has power to throw you into he11. Yes, I tell you, fear Him!

I tell you...Jesus has done exactly what He has said, He has shown me Someone. 

And He is loose...in my house.


----------

