# 3 Questions, untold answers



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 9, 2013)

Ok, so this is me opening myself up for some potential growth. I am not, repeat, not in here to incite anything. I have 3 questions that I would like answered on individual terms, meaning what your take on the matter is. The first two are open ended to any faith, the last is specifically directed at Christians. 

This is all predicated on me being raised in a home that didn't go to church every weekend, but had parents who had some measure of faith. As some of you know, I identify as an agnostic in that I leave room for the possibility of a creator, I just don't know them. Having said that, here we go;

1) At what point did you make the "leap of faith", for lack of a better phrase? When did your faith internalize itself into your life and your belief begin? I've listened to sermons, engaged religious leaders in discussion one-on-one, and been to myriad services from different denominations. I was even confirmed in a Lutheran church simply because I was told it was right. The rub of it was that it didn't feel right to me because I didn't fully believe. When did that happen, and what caused it,  for you?

2) How can you assert the book of your religion as irrefutable fact, akin to an Encyclopedia in terms of ability to be referenced, when it was supposedly delivered through divine inspiration? Case in point is the game that kids play dealing with a whispered statement making its way around a circle and the inaccuracies that arise even there. Now, I know that's kids and all, but the point about being lost in translation is still applicable since they are of approximate equal education and intelligence and, the kicker, sitting literally right next to each other. If the book is the literal word of God, whomever you hold him to be, then how is there no room for error when it is the word of a deity, relayed through vision to a human, and then written down? 

3) I asked this one of every religious leader I could find, those specifically related to Christianity, and I never got an answer that sounded knowledgeable. Maybe you guys can shed some light. Why is there, as I remember, no reference to Jesus in his adolescence? It seems to me that this would help youth relate to him if they could see that he became "better" with his age, showing hope for lost youth.

Thanks.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 1) At what point did you make the "leap of faith", for lack of a better phrase? When did your faith internalize itself into your life and your belief begin? ... When did that happen, and what caused it,  for you?



Mormon missionaries stopped by and left some literature.  I didn't read their pamphlet, but it did spark a desire to read the Bible.  So, I picked up my Gideon NT and did just that.  I was about thirteen.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 2) How can you assert the book of your religion as irrefutable fact, akin to an Encyclopedia in terms of ability to be referenced, when it was supposedly delivered through divine inspiration?



This comes up a lot in the AAA forum.  I would suggest a search there for more details.  Having said that, I believe in a God who can transmit His word to us.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 3)Why is there, as I remember, no reference to Jesus in his adolescence? It seems to me that this would help youth relate to him if they could see that he became "better" with his age, showing hope for lost youth.



There is one reference to this is Luke 2.  IMO, other references are not needed, since Jesus' mission on Earth could only be accomplished by an adult.  Also, He did not become "better" with age.  He was fully God and fully human in the womb.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 9, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Mormon missionaries stopped by and left some literature.  I didn't read their pamphlet, but it did spark a desire to read the Bible.  So, I picked up my Gideon NT and did just that.  I was about thirteen.



Ok. Thanks. 





centerpin fan said:


> This comes up a lot in the AAA forum.  I would suggest a search there for more details.  Having said that, I believe in a God who can transmit His word to us.



I'll look it up, but thanks for answering here, I was hoping to have a discussion on it here. 






centerpin fan said:


> There is one reference to this is Luke 2.  IMO, other references are not needed, since Jesus' mission on Earth could only be accomplished by an adult.  Also, He did not become "better" with age.  He was fully God and fully human in the womb.



Follow-on questions, since you say he was fully human and God in the womb and did not improve with age. 1) Why couldn't his job have been performed by a child? If he was God in the womb, as the Trinity would suggest and as you have attested to believing, and God is capable of miracles why is there a need to wait to adulthood? 

2) How can he be God and Human at the same time? The one is perfect while the other is imperfect. The one is a saint while the other a sinner. They seem to be mutually exclusive.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> When did your faith internalize itself into your life and your belief begin?



I grew up Christian, so, the system was "embedded."  But, I struggled with faith, and became borderline agnostic for a while.  Never found peace with the universe under those circumstances either.  Like you, I had many discussions with pastors, teachers, etc., and made a habit of asking the impossible questions that nobody can answer. I finally found confidence in my faith on my own. Christianity is what I know, and believe. 

Now, I spent many years after that maintaining a relatively intense dislike for Christians based on my early experiences, as well as the church based on continual experiences.  I have mellowed somewhat on that over the last few years.  My problem isn't Christians, it's me, and certain Christians, but not the group.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 2) How can you assert the book of your religion as irrefutable fact, akin to an Encyclopedia in terms of ability to be referenced, when it was supposedly delivered through divine inspiration? Case in point is the game that kids play dealing with a whispered statement making its way around a circle and the inaccuracies that arise even there. Now, I know that's kids and all, but the point about being lost in translation is still applicable since they are of approximate equal education and intelligence and, the kicker, sitting literally right next to each other. If the book is the literal word of God, whomever you hold him to be, then how is there no room for error when it is the word of a deity, relayed through vision to a human, and then written down?



If you read the new testament, you will find a lot of personal anecdotes within the letters.  Additionally, there are certain passages which have their authenticity called into question by people who have very strong faith (adulteress woman passage in John).  That being said, the authenticity is in the message.  Does it matter if a monk mis-translated the word "word?"  No.  What matters is what the words are trying to convey.

Many will disagree on these points, and it is a "hot-button" topic amongst Christians.  Many of us who believe there is metaphor and allegory involved in much of it are viewed as not having "real" faith.  But, my faith is not based on what somebody told me the Bible is supposed to be (literal interpretation, or metaphor based on the source).  My faith is based on the principle message I believe the Bible is conveying. Whether the message is delivered as literal or allegory, there is still a lesson to be learned, and it is no more or less apllicable.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why is there, as I remember, no reference to Jesus in his adolescence? It seems to me that this would help youth relate to him if they could see that he became "better" with his age, showing hope for lost youth.
> 
> Thanks.



Who knows.  You are trying to determine what is important to the message with that question.  The authors did not see these parts as applicable to the message, so it is not included.  

You can't relate to Jesus on that level.  He wasn't like you, or me.  His message is what applies.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 9, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I grew up Christian, so, the system was "embedded."  But, I struggled with faith, and became borderline agnostic for a while.  Never found peace with the universe under those circumstances either.  Like you, I had many discussions with pastors, teachers, etc., and made a habit of asking the impossible questions that nobody can answer. I finally found confidence in my faith on my own. Christianity is what I know, and believe.
> 
> Now, I spent many years after that maintaining a relatively intense dislike for Christians based on my early experiences, as well as the church based on continual experiences.  I have mellowed somewhat on that over the last few years.  My problem isn't Christians, it's me, and certain Christians, but not the group.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the thoughtful reply. 

I have struggled with my own internalization of faith and I'd rather be agnostic than disingenuous to people around me. 

So you take the allegorical view on the details of the Bible; but where, specifically? To me I have a problem with the creation model and it being complete in 7 days, unless that is a metaphor since who could define what a day is to a deity? That's what I was referring to when I said lost in translation, not the triviality of words like word. 

Like you said, I also don't have a problem with religion or Christians, I have a problem with projectionists. Those who have found what makes them happy in life have my secular blessings, I just want theirs, or at least their absence, to find my own. I also think that others should be free in pursuit of theirs, but that's another discussion. 

Who is the author of the Bible? You've drawn a link between questions 2 and 3. If God wrote the Bible through man then the message shouldn't be altered, right; imagine the arrogance of man trying to proofread his creator. If man wrote the Bible then it can't be the true word of God and can't be held up as objective reference material for discussion on God's will. At least that's the way it seems to me.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Follow-on questions, since you say he was fully human and God in the womb and did not improve with age. 1) Why couldn't his job have been performed by a child? If he was God in the womb, as the Trinity would suggest and as you have attested to believing, and God is capable of miracles why is there a need to wait to adulthood?



I don't think even the Romans would have nailed an eight-year old to a cross.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 2) How can he be God and Human at the same time? The one is perfect while the other is imperfect. The one is a saint while the other a sinner. They seem to be mutually exclusive.



How _can_ He be?  That's beyond human understanding.  However, He _had_ to be both Divine and human to redeem mankind.

For a fuller explanation, read _On the Incarnation_ by St. Athanasius.  Amazon has it, and it's online as well.


----------



## 04ctd (Jul 9, 2013)

1) I don't know. Some men don't know when they have changed...their wives & kids can TELL you though...
I  just know I don't fly mad and scream and yell & throw stuff & break what I am working on anymore.


2) if the Bible was a verifable list of concrete facts that you could verify, touch, see, and feel, then salvation would not be by grace alone, it could be by power of reason & belief in the concrete facts.
My pastor describes the Bible thus:  He was on one side of the intersection, and saw the white car hit the black car. I was on the other side, and saw it different.
The different points of view/perspective make it different, just like when your Mom or Dad tellls a story about when you were little, they were both there, they are both true, but a tad different.


3) its not important.  
it would just complicate things, and make more churn.

get a good study Bible (Scofield?) and read the descriptions/purpose of each book in the NT and re-read the NT with that in mind.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 9, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think even the Romans would have nailed an eight-year old to a cross.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He carried a message before he was Crucified. The crucifixion wasn't his only function, as far as I know. 

What I'm getting at with the questions on the duality is that which the Council of Nicea tried to address; specifically,



> 2.The view that he was 'mutable or subject to change' was rejected to maintain that the Son just like the Father was beyond any form of weakness or corruptibility, and most importantly that he could not fall away from absolute moral perfection.



Beyond any form of weakness, and could not fall away from moral perfection. Humans, according to what I remember from my Bible, are defined by their weakness and their lack of moral perfection; that's specifically why Jesus died upon that cross in order to save us from ourselves. 

It's speaking in contradictory absolutes. Almost like asking if God could create a boulder that He, Himself, can't lift. If He can do anything then he should be able to do both, but they are mutually exclusive conditions; a paradox. That example is one that man created as a refutation of God, so it's moot for purposes of this discussion. What isn't moot is how a paradox on the nature of God's divinity/humanity is created by the Bible itself.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 9, 2013)

04ctd said:


> 1) I don't know. Some men don't know when they have changed...their wives & kids can TELL you though...
> I  just know I don't fly mad and scream and yell & throw stuff & break what I am working on anymore.
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you. 

1) I'd say that's a pretty dramatic effect. Congratulations. 

2) But rather than an anecdote about your first experience with a cheeseburger, for example, this is related to your eternal salvation. What purpose is there for the mystery? I can think of at least one theory, but won't vocalize them until you answer that, please. Why would a Father who loves his children and wants them to do well leave them in a complete vacuum as to his existence? I can't bridge that gap. 

3) Supposing that Jesus was God from the womb, and therefore capable of miracles and salvation even prior to delivery, how would further examples of this from his childhood create churn? I can't remember the Eastern religion, I believe it is the followers of the Dalai Lama, who actually search for their reincarnated leader in children specifically, and doesn't wait for them to "mature." In keeping with the supposition above, that Jesus was perfect from the womb, how is he any less perfect than the Dalai Lama that would suggest that stories from that period of his life are suspect? 

Please don't mistake me, I'm not attacking and I'm not trying to call anyone out. I really am just trying to have a socratic style discussion on your faith and my questions with my own.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He carried a message before he was Crucified.



That message began with His public ministry as an adult.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Beyond any form of weakness, and could not fall away from moral perfection. Humans, according to what I remember from my Bible, are defined by their weakness and their lack of moral perfection ...



That's true for all humans since Adam fell.  Adam, however, was made in the image of God.  He communed with God.  The Fall ruined that, and Jesus came to restore what had been damaged.  That's why He's referred to as the Second Adam.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What I'm getting at with the questions on the duality is that which the Council of Nicea tried to address ...



Nicea was not the "last word" on the subject.  It came up again at Chalcedon (451) and, to a lesser extent, at Ephesus (431) and Constantinople (680.)


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok, so this is me opening myself up for some potential growth. I am not, repeat, not in here to incite anything. I have 3 questions that I would like answered on individual terms, meaning what your take on the matter is. The first two are open ended to any faith, the last is specifically directed at Christians.
> 
> This is all predicated on me being raised in a home that didn't go to church every weekend, but had parents who had some measure of faith. As some of you know, I identify as an agnostic in that I leave room for the possibility of a creator, I just don't know them. Having said that, here we go;
> 
> ...



1, It started at home when I was just a boy and concretely with the children's bible and specifically with the book of Jonah.

2, The bible as inspired word is man's word without vanities. There are really no errors of integrity in these words. There are errors of interpretation because different people bring to it their differing vanities, -- their individual agendas and biases( their fallen natures) even and especially unknowingly.

3, I was always under the impression that Jesus as a adolesent overstayed his Jeruselm visit to the extent that his parents were distressed. Some say when John the Baptist baptized Jesus that Jesus was an adolesent...  And, the idea of getting better with age, as an example of hope for youth, is interesting. Jesus was tempted we are told in the Gospel, we are told it was a temptation of satin and that he wrestled with these for some 40 days... or so... This is perhaps what your looking for.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 9, 2013)

1) I was born in a Christian family so I've always believed in God and his son Jesus.
2) I don't believe the modern Bible versions are the inerrant word of God. Those guys in Nicea were men. It took them months to decide on stuff.We had Scriptures before the Bible. I explain things religiously and scientifically. I use a rainbow as an example.(two definitions) The Earth isn't flat, we don't think with our heart, there isn't a water firmament above the Earth, & my flesh doesn't make decisions.
I believe evolution, AIDs evolved.   
3) This one is easy because I believe Jesus is the Son of God. He had to learn as a young boy. He gave up his diety as a human. Every  miracle, healing, forgiveness of one's sins came from his Father.
Philippians 2:7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thanks for the thoughtful reply.







StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I have struggled with my own internalization of faith and I'd rather be agnostic than disingenuous to people around me.



For me, my struggles against the faith were actually struggles against people translated into a struggle against God.  For me, it came down to the basic fact that existence without a creator made no sense logically.  Christianity comes by faith.  A belief in God comes to me through logic.  But, we reach our own conclusions when we search for answers.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So you take the allegorical view on the details of the Bible; but where, specifically?



Jonah, Job, 7 day creation, etc.  Things that don't really line up with creation as currently configured.  That doesn't mean I believe they are lies, that would only be the case if it was intentional deception.  I believe they are stories with a lesson for the reader.  Job, specifically, is a poem.

Many disagree with me on this issue, and I understand thier perspective.  I just don't see what difference it makes in the big picture.  There is a story to tell, with a message to be learned.

This doesn't mean that I believe God couldn't do those things, I recon he could if he can create the universe.  I just don't think those stories were intended to be literally interpretted.  If so, then fine, I can be wrong.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To me I have a problem with the creation model and it being complete in 7 days, unless that is a metaphor since who could define what a day is to a deity? That's what I was referring to when I said lost in translation, not the triviality of words like word.



The word "word" causes much confusion in the Christian community in how it is perceived in one particular passage in the Bible.  That's why I used it as an example. 




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Like you said, I also don't have a problem with religion or Christians, I have a problem with projectionists. Those who have found what makes them happy in life have my secular blessings, I just want theirs, or at least their absence, to find my own. I also think that others should be free in pursuit of theirs, but that's another discussion.



You and I would agree on a good bit (not all) of that statement, but, as you say, another discussion.  I currently have a thread going on a similar topic up here.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Who is the author of the Bible? You've drawn a link between questions 2 and 3. If God wrote the Bible through man then the message shouldn't be altered, right; imagine the arrogance of man trying to proofread his creator. If man wrote the Bible then it can't be the true word of God and can't be held up as objective reference material for discussion on God's will. At least that's the way it seems to me.



God didn't physically write the Bible.  Many authors collaborated over thousands of years to create the collection of books.  It is God "inspired."  Does that mean he took the hand of the authors and wrote the words himself, or did he give the message to the messenger to deliver?  I dunno.  Either way is "inspired."

Read Genesis, then Read 1 Corinthians.  Two very different voices come through.  Read Psalms, then Hebrews, and the same scenario plays out.  Each author's "voice" appears in the words.  Multiple authors.

There is a scripture in the New Testament where Paul asks his intended recipient to bring him his coat and scrolls.  This is passed through the ages to us, and we can see a personal anecdote between two giants of our faith.  Did God make Paul make that request?  Or did God inspire the letter to Paul, and the humanity of the request allow us to see that these people were humans, just like us, who got cold in the winter?  I tend to think it's a personal anecdote.

Then again, you are also needing to define the meaning of the word "word."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok, so this is me opening myself up for some potential growth. I am not, repeat, not in here to incite anything. I have 3 questions that I would like answered on individual terms, meaning what your take on the matter is. The first two are open ended to any faith, the last is specifically directed at
> 
> This is all predicated on me being raised in a home that didn't go to church every weekend, but had parents who had some measure of faith. As some of you know, I identify as an agnostic in that I leave room for the possibility of a creator, I just don't know them. Having said that, here we go;
> 
> 1) At what point did you make the "leap of faith", for lack of a better phrase? When did your faith internalize itself into your life and your belief begin? I've listened to sermons, engaged religious leaders in discussion one-on-one, and been to myriad services from different denominations. I was even confirmed in a Lutheran church simply because I was told it was right. The rub of it was that it didn't feel right to me because I didn't fully believe. When did that happen, and what caused it,  for you?.



First of all I appreciate you asking these questions.  It's important that you know why you believe what you do; to ask for and expect evidence.  I'm gonna suggest some books that I read that really helped me.  If you read them you will come to understand that faith is not blind, but based on evidence.  That being said there is still a leap of faith involve, but its not as great as you probably think.  It's more akin to expecting tomorrow to come, based on the fact that all the days before it came.  

 I would urge you not to rush into joining any church.  Step back and first understand what the Bible says and what exactly Christianity truely is.  In other words, find the truth then find a church that conforms to it because there are a lot of them out there that don't.

My best suggestion based on the fact that you are agnostic is to read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.  After you read it you will understand why it's considered  by many THE MANIFESTO of Christian Apologetics.  It's basic and very common sensical and an easy read.  Then read The Gospel of John and then Romans in that order.  



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 2) How can you assert the book of your religion as irrefutable fact, akin to an Encyclopedia in terms of ability to be referenced, when it was supposedly delivered through divine inspiration? Case in point is the game that kids play dealing with a whispered statement making its way around a circle and the inaccuracies that arise even there. Now, I know that's kids and all, but the point about being lost in translation is still applicable since they are of approximate equal education and intelligence and, the kicker, sitting literally right next to each other. If the book is the literal word of God, whomever you hold him to be, then how is there no room for error when it is the word of a deity, relayed through vision to a human, and then written down? .



I would suggest you read this book.  I cannot recommend it strongly enough

http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Faith-books/dp/0310608821




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 3) I asked this one of every religious leader I could find, those specifically related to Christianity, and I never got an answer that sounded knowledgeable. Maybe you guys can shed some light. Why is there, as I remember, no reference to Jesus in his adolescence? It seems to me that this would help youth relate to him if they could see that he became "better" with his age, showing hope for lost youth.
> 
> Thanks.



I don't know.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
> 
> I have struggled with my own internalization of faith and I'd rather be agnostic than disingenuous to people around me.
> 
> So you take the allegorical view on the details of the Bible; but where, specifically? To me I have a problem with the creation model and it being complete in 7 days, unless that is a metaphor since who could define what a day is to a deity? That's what I was referring to when I said lost in translation, not the triviality of words like word.



This is an excellent book on Creation from John Lennox.
You will be surprised by the light he sheds on the subject.  My biggest surprise personally was how much I had read into the Genesis account contrasted to what is actually written.


http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-Th...1-1&keywords=Seven+days+that+divide+the+world.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

SFD, I went to amazon and read the description of the book, and this quote stood out to me:

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-Tha...vide+the+world.



> Lennox suggests that Christians can heed modern scientific knowledge while staying faithful to the biblical narrative. He moves beyond a simple response to the controversy, insisting that Genesis teaches us far more about the God of Jesus Christ and about God's intention for creation than it does about the age of the earth.



Now, after reading that, I have to think about all of the times any suggestion that the earth was any more than 7k years old was considered heresy, and that I was calling the Bible false.

The truth is that I never sat down with the Bible and calculated what I thought it said about the Earth's age.  I had been taught, my whole life, that it was only 7k years old.  Same with most Christians.  Then, I took a creation course while in college at Liberty University, as an elective, to get an "insider's" reasons for such a claim.  The basis for such a claim is a literal interpretation of the current translation of the Bible......primarily, the translation of the word "day" (yom).  And, that's it, really.  Is it 7 24 hour periods?  According to most, yes, and suggestion otherwise means you are questioning God himself.

For me, my question is of the interpretation of the scripture, not God.  There is a huge difference.


----------



## leemckinney (Jul 10, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok, so this is me opening myself up for some potential growth. I am not, repeat, not in here to incite anything. I have 3 questions that I would like answered on individual terms, meaning what your take on the matter is. The first two are open ended to any faith, the last is specifically directed at Christians.
> 
> This is all predicated on me being raised in a home that didn't go to church every weekend, but had parents who had some measure of faith. As some of you know, I identify as an agnostic in that I leave room for the possibility of a creator, I just don't know them. Having said that, here we go;
> 
> ...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> SFD, I went to amazon and read the description of the book, and this quote stood out to me:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-Tha...vide+the+world.
> 
> ...



I would urge you to read the book.  Regarding the 7 24 hour days.  The sun and moon were not created until the 4th day so up until then they could not have been 24 hour days as we know them today.  And yes there is a huge difference.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The sun and moon were not created until the 4th day so up until then they could not have been 24 hour days as we know them today.



I would agree with that statement.  I was definitely the "outsider" in that class I mentioned, though.  The prof made it his mission to convert me to a "young earth" creationist.


----------



## formula1 (Jul 10, 2013)

*Re:*

1) As a young teenager of 13, I went to a Billy Graham crusade and on that day I gave my life to Christ, though I admittedly did not fully understand it.  I spent about a year or so after that learning from  my pastor, the scriptures, and other teachers and it wasn't until then that I decided to be baptised in my home church at 15. As truth would have it though, I was a mess still and struggled in living out the life and really did not fully give myself over to God until an encounter I had with Him via the Holy Spirit when I was 22. I would say my journey in Christ really became possible at that point, though I am still at 53 learning to trust Him everyday.  If any believer is honest, they too have experienced this on a daily basis. All through the years, God's blessings have confirmed my faith and strengthed my trust in Him.  I could not see myself following any other given the complete impression He has made upon my life and still is making daily.  I really can't explain it any better than that, except to say you can trust your life to Christ and He never leaves you alone.

2) For me it is not the book alone that I consider 'fact' or the better word might be  'truth'. It is the confirmation of His Truth working in my life as I follow Him.  That's partly reading and understanding but more accurately learning to hear God's confirmation of His Words on a page through the inner man (or the Holy Spirit) if you will.  In terms of accuracy, everything that God has taught me proves true.  God doesn't spend His time expaining to me about how He created the earth though.  I probably would not comprehend it anyway.  But I have learned that 'Loving your Enemy' actually works and "Repenting of my sins' leads to true freedom from it's bondage and to forgiveness, love and hope in the eternal. God's grace is ever pouring out to folks who will say to Him, 'You are all that matters!'  This much I know, God will reveal Himself to one who is willing to take that step and you will know the 'book' in the sense of what matters in your relationship to Him.

3) Except for the reference to Jesus at 12 years old, I know of no other. Why?   My suspicion is that perhaps He meant for us as His followers to live out a Godly life before our kids as it would mean so much more to a young person than words on a page. Then it becomes my imperative to live as He would have me before those whom I influence.  On our own that cannot be done successfully, but with Christ working in us it is possble to positively influence young people with His message.  I see Christ's mission of redemption for each on of His followers as exactly the step necessary to make it possble for us to begin leading lives of example and it would not be possible otherwise.

I hope that helps in your searching!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 10, 2013)

So let me make sure I understand a few of these points. 

1) The Earth was created first, and for 3 "days" there was no sun or moon, right? What about the rest of the observable universe? I can understand that it would be hard to have a day with no sun, but the moon is irrelevant for purposes of defining a day as there are planets that have no moons. 
Planetary scientists have now observed solar system creation in other galaxies, and even within our own Milky Way. A cloud of gas compresses into a star and the remnants form an accretion disc that then coalesces into planets. How does that observable condition jibe with the Bible? Was our solar system created under special circumstances removed from the rest of the universe, while the remainder was left to follow natural laws? 

2) Science has proven that something can indeed arise from nothing. It's called the Big Bang and it was proven when we detonated Fat Man and Little Boy. We converted matter into pure energy. Since it is an equation that E=MC^2 and that the energy released in the explosion was equal to the mass of the detonated materials multiplied by the speed of light squared then the reverse is also true, that pure energy can convert into matter, if it loses the equivalent energy from the equation. So as the universe expanded and cooled, following the misnomer Big Bang, matter did arise from nothing (energy). 

3) If the Earth was created first, and has been left unchanged, then the Sun and Moon, then how can you square the fact that moon rocks retrieved during Apollo have been chemically proven as having originated on the primordial Earth's crust? The Bible says nothing about the moon being taken from the rib of the earth, as Adam gave rise to Eve. 

For further clarity, let me just say that I believe that Science and Religion are two languages telling the same story. We've learned that for every question we seemingly answer that there is at least one more that results from it. I believe that so long as we are unable to resolve in complete detail what Stephen Hawking calls the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) that there will always be room for a Creator. More so, even after we answer all of those questions, there will still be room for Him. 

Case in point, we can very accurately define what the gravitational constant is. We have also run experiments where it has been proven, through supercomputer simulations, that a tiny variance in that intensity would result in precisely nothing in the universe. That implies an intelligent design to the universe to me, not pure luck. It could be, and this is me acknowledging that I will never have all the answers, that this is but one of many countless "Big Bangs" that have occurred in the universe. That we expand and contract over and over again, and that by crossing the threshold to and from Big Bang that any record of the previous iteration is lost. Therefore we could be blissfully ignorant of the possibility that, while this iteration is only 13 billion years old, the same material could have gone through previous cycling many, many times and the actual age of the universe, counting through Big Bangs, could be in the trillions of years and that we are a result of nothing more than a statistical anomaly. Think in terms of the adage that if enough monkeys hammer at typewriters long enough that a Shakespearean sonnet will eventually result. 

Sincerely, thank you all for your thoughts, suggestions, and input. I will be looking to read these books in the near future.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

Striper.....what went "bang?"


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Striper.....what went "bang?"



That's why it's a misnomer that even Hawking acknowledges. Take a look at his "Into the Universe" series, I think it's still on Netflix. 

The Big Bang had to have happened in complete darkness and silence simply because anything that could have transmitted light, heat, or sound was within the "shell" of the universe that is currently expanding. Therefore, nothing went Bang in the onomatopoetic sense that humans rationalize. Furthermore, it was actually very small; theorized to be smaller than an atom based on our current understanding of singularities that create black holes. It is inferred that the Big Bang was a singularity for the entire content of the universe, but not in a material sense since that matter was all in an energetic form of a type of plasma.

The short answer was that everything, on the inside of the event, went bang, but that there was nothing on the outside to observe it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 10, 2013)

Based on my faith in the Big Bang model I would believe that the Creator set the conditions for the bang, and the laws that governed what happened following the instance of expansion. There's still no explanation for how long, since time didn't exist, that singularity had remained stable and compact prior to the expansion, so I take that as another sign of a Creator. 

It didn't expand until the Creator was ready for it, and had defined the variables as they saw fit. They then removed themselves from the equation and let the "simulation" run its own course to whatever eventuality it would result. 

It could be that the variables were specifically chosen to allow galaxies, then solar systems, then planets to form. And then further to allow this one to form within the habitable zone, protected by magnetic forces from cosmic rays and solar wind, and shielded from physical impacts by defensive gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn. I don't know the answer to that, but observable evidence would suggest something akin to that.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's why it's a misnomer that even Hawking acknowledges. Take a look at his "Into the Universe" series, I think it's still on Netflix.
> 
> The Big Bang had to have happened in complete darkness and silence simply because anything that could have transmitted light, heat, or sound was within the "shell" of the universe that is currently expanding. Therefore, nothing went Bang in the onomatopoetic sense that humans rationalize. Furthermore, it was actually very small; theorized to be smaller than an atom based on our current understanding of singularities that create black holes. It is inferred that the Big Bang was a singularity for the entire content of the universe, but not in a material sense since that matter was all in an energetic form of a type of plasma.
> 
> The short answer was that everything, on the inside of the event, went bang, but that there was nothing on the outside to observe it.



....so, something didn't come from nothing.

Good discussions on this stuff down in the AAA forum, you should jump in there sometime.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Based on my faith in the Big Bang model I would believe that the Creator set the conditions for the bang, and the laws that governed what happened following the instance of expansion. There's still no explanation for how long, since time didn't exist, that singularity had remained stable and compact prior to the expansion, so I take that as another sign of a Creator.
> 
> It didn't expand until the Creator was ready for it, and had defined the variables as they saw fit. They then removed themselves from the equation and let the "simulation" run its own course to whatever eventuality it would result.
> 
> It could be that the variables were specifically chosen to allow galaxies, then solar systems, then planets to form. And then further to allow this one to form within the habitable zone, protected by magnetic forces from cosmic rays and solar wind, and shielded from physical impacts by defensive gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn. I don't know the answer to that, but observable evidence would suggest something akin to that.



So you are more accurately defined as a deist?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....so, something didn't come from nothing.
> 
> Good discussions on this stuff down in the AAA forum, you should jump in there sometime.



I'll head over there, but I was looking more for a targeted audience with this. I wanted to ask these questions of people that specifically subscribe to faith and religion. 



JB0704 said:


> So you are more accurately defined as a deist?



Actually, no. They, apparently, believe in a totally hands off role for the Creator once the "simulation" is set off. I do believe that the Creator can work within their own rules to effect unforeseen changes. Spontaneous remissions of cancer are a great example of this. Further, I reject the notion of pigeonholing like that. Nothing personal against you, but denominative and restrictive spirituality are a prime source for many of the problems that religion has with itself and its outliers.

That's not to say that I'm arrogant enough to think that I have my own religion; I do however hold that my beliefs are my own and borrow notions from most others.


----------



## Israel (Jul 10, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'll head over there, but I was looking more for a targeted audience with this. I wanted to ask these questions of people that specifically subscribe to faith and religion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



mostly...as with everything...it really depends on how far down the rabbit hole you wanna go.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So let me make sure I understand a few of these points.
> 
> 1) The Earth was created first, and for 3 "days" there was no sun or moon, right? What about the rest of the observable universe? I can understand that it would be hard to have a day with no sun, but the moon is irrelevant for purposes of defining a day as there are planets that have no moons.
> Planetary scientists have now observed solar system creation in other galaxies, and even within our own Milky Way. A cloud of gas compresses into a star and the remnants form an accretion disc that then coalesces into planets. How does that observable condition jibe with the Bible? Was our solar system created under special circumstances removed from the rest of the universe, while the remainder was left to follow natural laws?



Two really good books.  One from a skeptic and one from a Christian.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Goldilocks-Enigma-Universe-Right/dp/0547053584

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-Th...F8&qid=1373535354&sr=1-1&keywords=John+Lennox




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 2) Science has proven that something can indeed arise from nothing. It's called the Big Bang and it was proven when we detonated Fat Man and Little Boy. We converted matter into pure energy. Since it is an equation that E=MC^2 and that the energy released in the explosion was equal to the mass of the detonated materials multiplied by the speed of light squared then the reverse is also true, that pure energy can convert into matter, if it loses the equivalent energy from the equation. So as the universe expanded and cooled, following the misnomer Big Bang, matter did arise from nothing (energy).



May I suggests both examples you provided had and intelligent designer.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 3) If the Earth was created first, and has been left unchanged, then the Sun and Moon, then how can you square the fact that moon rocks retrieved during Apollo have been chemically proven as having originated on the primordial Earth's crust? The Bible says nothing about the moon being taken from the rib of the earth, as Adam gave rise to Eve.



The Bible is not exhaustive as a Science book.  It certainly doesn't exclude your example.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For further clarity, let me just say that I believe that Science and Religion are two languages telling the same story. We've learned that for every question we seemingly answer that there is at least one more that results from it. I believe that so long as we are unable to resolve in complete detail what Stephen Hawking calls the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) that there will always be room for a Creator. More so, even after we answer all of those questions, there will still be room for Him.



I agree with your first sentence.  As far as Hawkins goes, there are a lot of scientist that are not convinced the GUT exists.  It would be nice, but not necessary.  Davies covers this in his book and another great book that supports your first statement is 


http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertak...F8&qid=1373535354&sr=1-2&keywords=John+Lennox



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Case in point, we can very accurately define what the gravitational constant is. We have also run experiments where it has been proven, through supercomputer simulations, that a tiny variance in that intensity would result in precisely nothing in the universe. That implies an intelligent design to the universe to me, not pure luck. It could be, and this is me acknowledging that I will never have all the answers, that this is but one of many countless "Big Bangs" that have occurred in the universe. That we expand and contract over and over again, and that by crossing the threshold to and from Big Bang that any record of the previous iteration is lost. Therefore we could be blissfully ignorant of the possibility that, while this iteration is only 13 billion years old, the same material could have gone through previous cycling many, many times and the actual age of the universe, counting through Big Bangs, could be in the trillions of years and that we are a result of nothing more than a statistical anomaly. Think in terms of the adage that if enough monkeys hammer at typewriters long enough that a Shakespearean sonnet will eventually result.
> 
> Sincerely, thank you all for your thoughts, suggestions, and input. I will be looking to read these books in the near future.



You're welcome.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 11, 2013)

Israel said:


> mostly...as with everything...it really depends on how far down the rabbit hole you wanna go.



Please clarify. What depends on how far down we want to go?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Two really good books.  One from a skeptic and one from a Christian.
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Goldilocks-Enigma-Universe-Right/dp/0547053584
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-Th...F8&qid=1373535354&sr=1-1&keywords=John+Lennox
> ...



Yeah, I realize that even in my understanding of how things work that there is an intelligent designer, similar to the "God" model. That's why I consider myself an agnostic rather than a deist or atheist. There is still room for that creator to act within the rules they set up. The other option, when taking the scientific approach is the anthropic principle. That the rules simply exist the way that they do because anything different wouldn't result in life capable of observing them. I consider myself agnostic simply because I believe that there is a creator, I just don't know them on a personal level, like most of you do. 

I think that a lot of the problem that people have with Hawking is that he seems to propose the eventuality of one equation that accounts for all natural laws. I don't fully subscribe to that myself, but do share the belief that there is a set of equations that will eventually cover it all. So far as we can tell electromagnetism has no bearing on gravity, and vice versa, so there's no corollary between the two, and thus can be no inclusion of both in one equation. 

Thank you for pointing it out, but I also realize that the Bible isn't a scientific text. It has a prerequisite of being capable of logical leaps when comparing it to the observable universe. That's why my questions tend to gravitate (pun intended) towards asking how believers square that discrepancy within themselves. 

I'm building a list of all of these books and the next time I get an Amazon gift card I'll load up my kindle app with them.


----------



## formula1 (Jul 11, 2013)

*Re:*



Israel said:


> mostly...as with everything...it really depends on how far down the rabbit hole you wanna go.



Indeed.. we can tend to claustrophobia! Yet some indeed overcome it!


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Nothing personal against you, but denominative and restrictive spirituality are a prime source for many of the problems that religion has with itself and its outliers.



I meant deist in the sense that you are convinced there is a creator.  I would think pure agnostic would line up more leaving open the possibility that such does not exist.

I don't see Christianity as restrictive, as it is chosen by the individual (according to some).  It only becomes restrictive when it is forced.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I meant deist in the sense that you are convinced there is a creator.  I would think pure agnostic would line up more leaving open the possibility that such does not exist.
> 
> I don't see Christianity as restrictive, as it is chosen by the individual (according to some).  It only becomes restrictive when it is forced.



I didn't say it in so many words, but I have done the research on agnosticism and I do acknowledge that I might be wrong about my belief that there is a creator. So not only do I not know the creator personally, I don't know fully if one exists, I just believe that there is one. 

There isn't a fine line between belief and knowing, there is, in fact, a Grand Canyon between them. It's a huge gap to cross from believing in something to knowing something. 

When I say that Christianity is restrictive I mean that they have their own rites, their own rituals, and their own worship styles. Case in point, Catholics hold that the Virgin Mary is worthy of praise, and is possibly divine in her own right, protestants typically don't. Catholics also believe that statues in the worship hall aren't a bad thing, protestants typically believe that it violates the Commandment on idolatry. To be a member of the denomination or the religion you have to subscribe to certain inclusions/exclusions of that, or at least be able to overlook it. That's why I say it is restrictive, in that it requires certain things of its members, as does any religion.


----------



## Israel (Jul 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I meant deist in the sense that you are convinced there is a creator.  I would think pure agnostic would line up more leaving open the possibility that such does not exist.
> 
> I don't see Christianity as restrictive, as it is chosen by the individual (according to some).  It only becomes restrictive when it is forced.



Maybe something that is real simply is...and the deconstruction of logic becomes apoparent when we believe we can force something that which, by it's very nature...is free.

Forcing "christianity". 

Akin to this..."let's say there is no God...what then?"


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

Israel said:


> Maybe something that is real simply is...and the deconstruction of logic becomes apoparent when we believe we can force something that which, by it's very nature...is free.
> 
> Forcing "christianity".
> 
> Akin to this..."let's say there is no God...what then?"



I was speaking of an individual acceptance of the system, or forcing a non-believer to adhere to the specific principles relevant to Christian morality.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> forcing a non-believer to adhere to the specific principles relevant to Christian morality.



This happens everyday. I don't want this to derail but there's no way around it. 

Homosexuality and marriage. They are restricted by the religious viewpoints of others and aren't "allowed" to. Forcing me to wait until after 12:30 on a Sunday to buy alcohol. The list goes on from there.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> This happens everyday. I don't want this to derail but there's no way around it.



It's your thread 



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Homosexuality and marriage. They are restricted by the religious viewpoints of others and aren't "allowed" to. Forcing me to wait until after 12:30 on a Sunday to buy alcohol. The list goes on from there.



I will agree with you on these points.  And that is kind-of what my "I don't care" thread is about.  

Christianity is relatively uniform in what we believe is right and wrong.  We believe that morality is from a single source (God).  Where Christians will differ amongst themselves is the method and approach to achieving that morality.  It's a lively debate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It's your thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...





JB0704 said:


> It's your thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, but we all know some people have RSS feeds for those kinds of keywords to come in and derail threads. I was hoping that it wouldn't happen here. Maybe they're like Beetlejuice and you have to say their word 3 times. We've still got 2 left by that logic so we're cool. 

Back on point of that post, I agree that you guys are uniform in your beliefs. Consistency wasn't the issue. The transfer of those beliefs onto non-believers is, but that's also not the point of this thread, so I digress. 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:24-27&version=NIV

The problem is that the "rock" of your faith is only a rock to you, and those who share the belief. To outsiders it is sand, the same as their beliefs are to you. That's where I argued with String about the human worldview since we can all agree that we are rocks in our own right, even though we may come from different faiths and backgrounds, simply because we are all part of the same human race.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jul 12, 2013)

1.  This was many years ago.  It began as my young wife and I looked down upon our dying newborn son. He lay listless and yellow, trembling from seizures in a NICU bed.   My wife remained at his side, sobbing.  Helpless never set well with me. So it was then, as I cursed a god who would cause or allow such to happen to any child let alone my beautiful wife's new baby. I demanded that if god really existed, he take my life and spare my boy and wife. Straight across, my life for theirs. As it turned out, that is in fact what our one true God in 
heaven did.  My boy was spared and still lives with us today.  That pathetic creature cursing at God ceased to exist -- transformed on a rock named Jesus 
Christ.  This occurred over a journey of several months. It culminated with a 
public confession that Jesus is my Lord, and savior. Following that was an emotional reaction or sense of release or washing of all fear, pain, guilt and hate -- woosh.  White hot bitter murderous anger one moment, joyful contentment and peace the next.   Over the years, I have many times had to recall the clarity 
of that moment at the foot of the cross.  The Word is true and real whether we know Him or not.  Take away: Don't sweat the little stuff.

2. and  3.   Please see response to No. 1 above.


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2013)

BT Charlie said:


> 1.  This was many years ago.  It began as my young wife and I looked down upon our dying newborn son. He lay listless and yellow, trembling from seizures in a NICU bed.   My wife remained at his side, sobbing.  Helpless never set well with me. So it was then, as I cursed a god who would cause or allow such to happen to any child let alone my beautiful wife's new baby. I demanded that if god really existed, he take my life and spare my boy and wife. Straight across, my life for theirs. As it turned out, that is in fact what our one true God in
> heaven did.  My boy was spared and still lives with us today.  That pathetic creature cursing at God ceased to exist -- transformed on a rock named Jesus
> Christ.  This occurred over a journey of several months. It culminated with a
> public confession that Jesus is my Lord, and savior. Following that was an emotional reaction or sense of release or washing of all fear, pain, guilt and hate -- woosh.  White hot bitter murderous anger one moment, joyful contentment and peace the next.   Over the years, I have many times had to recall the clarity
> ...



Bless you brother...

And yes...if you still wonder about how deep the rabbit hole is...re read #1, above.

It's a place you take nothing with you, all other things scraped off in its narrowness and seeming darkness...where your voice seems to echo back to you out of the hollow...but which you know you cannot, will not escape unless someone comes to help...you are "lost" in the world...a place vaguely familiar...yet, at the same time, horribly deformed and terrible...and all is left is the crying out.
And the hearer of all, seer of all, knower of all...and yes....lover of all has purposed to meet you there...this place you would never go, could never go, on your own...and sets your feet in a large...a very large place.

We find out seeking with "all our heart", even at the discovery of the "all" that is in it toward our maker, our one true friend...he is not unable to handle...and we see the one prepared to take it all, purposed to take it all...from us...and for us.

You may hear him say "I know a few things about tight spots myself, may I tell you?...I know you will find it a help"


We stop trying to be a good volunteer. When you discover even the Son of man was drafted, conscripted...not here to try and show his own magnanimity of heart...you won't be ashamed to discover how little your "own" heart has.


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I was speaking of an individual acceptance of the system, or forcing a non-believer to adhere to the specific principles relevant to Christian morality.





as to those words, they have lost all meaning to me...there is Christ...and then...there is everything esle.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 12, 2013)

Israel said:


> as to those words, they have lost all meaning to me...there is Christ...and then...there is everything esle.



I understand.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 12, 2013)

BT Charlie said:


> 1.  This was many years ago.  It began as my young wife and I looked down upon our dying newborn son. He lay listless and yellow, trembling from seizures in a NICU bed.   My wife remained at his side, sobbing.  Helpless never set well with me. So it was then, as I cursed a god who would cause or allow such to happen to any child let alone my beautiful wife's new baby. I demanded that if god really existed, he take my life and spare my boy and wife. Straight across, my life for theirs. As it turned out, that is in fact what our one true God in
> heaven did.  My boy was spared and still lives with us today.  That pathetic creature cursing at God ceased to exist -- transformed on a rock named Jesus
> Christ.  This occurred over a journey of several months. It culminated with a
> public confession that Jesus is my Lord, and savior. Following that was an emotional reaction or sense of release or washing of all fear, pain, guilt and hate -- woosh.  White hot bitter murderous anger one moment, joyful contentment and peace the next.   Over the years, I have many times had to recall the clarity
> ...



Thank you for your story. It is both touching and compelling. I am happy for you that you have had such an experience and that it shaped you so fundamentally. 

I have yet to have anything even minutely like that happen, perhaps that's why I have a hard time coming off the fence. 

I've sat in services and I've had some hard times myself, believe me, but I still haven't seen anything as profound and as nakedly obvious to me as you have. 

Without anyone else's life in the balance, I hope to someday.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 12, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So let me make sure I understand a few of these points.
> 
> 1) The Earth was created first, and for 3 "days" there was no sun or moon, right? What about the rest of the observable universe? I can understand that it would be hard to have a day with no sun, but the moon is irrelevant for purposes of defining a day as there are planets that have no moons.
> Planetary scientists have now observed solar system creation in other galaxies, and even within our own Milky Way. A cloud of gas compresses into a star and the remnants form an accretion disc that then coalesces into planets. How does that observable condition jibe with the Bible? Was our solar system created under special circumstances removed from the rest of the universe, while the remainder was left to follow natural laws?
> ...



I think you are correct. I think perhaps a way of viewing these two "Languages" is that one language is spoken from the perspective of looking at it from without\in ( scientific tradition) and  the other "language" or that of  spiritual tradition looks from within outward.

Or put it this way, (this is perhaps very crude, especially that I worked all night and have slept but two hours this morning.!!!) if the universe or creation was the shape of an bird egg science would try to look at it objectively, with it's decipline devorced from inside influence or from an appreciation of being outside of the object or subject studied. Or its view would be from the outside in. On the other hand, spiritual tradition would view creation from  the inside out. And we know that in the end, no matter what spin we impose on it, a rose is a rose is a rose.


Ok, without being scolarly ( I don't have the time or brians right now) I'm gona try to make a point or two.  Our spiritual natures have an easier time with the devine then our scientific nature. One nature suposes itself outside of creation and therefore outside of any manifestation of the devine or the creator. The other is intimate in the devine creation and it is part His creation.

In the spiritual tradition the devine can manifest at will. For creation or the universe or "iteration" is the canvas, the painter and the viewer... the seer, the visionary, the object, the subject, the adjective, the .....inspiration, ...man and God.

Now with christianity the divine is super infused in the life of man, his spiritual nature reaching out very far for the relationships offered by the creator. And this is rare, even that most christians don't appreciate it or have no real perspetives on it.

For the cross, for Jesus, for a few of his initial desciples the worlds of christians is now very very close to God, His will, His creation, His Spirit. And that spirit is supremely subjective, not because it imposes but because it supposes love. Love, not just any vain or dogmatic love, but a spirituality that suposes that love is the builder of creation, of justice, of peace, of all of creation. And it is through love than man can appreciate and affirm true discipline, true science,  or truth itself, reality itself, consciousness itself.

Personaly even knowing that there was a loving God as a boy, a God that loved people, the poor, the oppressed, the  God that called out, "Hey you!" I have heard the prayers of the captives and this is my plan.... I knew that there was a place  not unlike a physical place, but in a parrallel reality, just as real or perhaps more real than my physical realities and a basic faith in my creator--even a spiritual place or reality that acted on the physical with dominion and a relationship in the devine quite in intimacy.

As I grew and matured in the faith, I  progessively realized that that place,  that mystical, supernatural place, was available for the cross, the church  and the Kingdom to all, and that the christain church ( christian spirituality)  and the walks of all the faithful before it and since-- but especially the place of spiritual vision and reality where God is very near to us all, and physically present, where His reality and spirit is not an issue . And that place is in Christ, in the manifestation of Christ in an individual, a spiritual and a physical manifestation. In the forgiveness of sin and in the resurection of the dead, and from him the Father 's will, the Holy Spirit and the christian Kingdom, His Kingdom in our minds, in our hearts, in our lives--we are made whole and so is creation.

The perspectives of christians come from within the egg, from within creation itself, intrinsic, of and by the Spirit of God as word ( physical reality) and the word made flesh( spiritual reality)--and the word as creator ( the unity of both physical and spiritual reality into one reality...as devinely intended.
---------------------
Now I have a question, if a planet size object was to come from the depts of our galaxy and was trapped to participate as a planet in our planetary system would gavity here on earth change? The point being that would an incease in mass in our solar system increace gravity here on earth.

Now to get real spooky... how much would a dinasour weight tomorrow if he was ten tons today, and the moon got to be 5 times its mass tomorrow at around three am.   At 3 am would there be a change in weight of that beast? Would his knee joints feel differently?


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thank you for your story. It is both touching and compelling. I am happy for you that you have had such an experience and that it shaped you so fundamentally.
> 
> I have yet to have anything even minutely like that happen, perhaps that's why I have a hard time coming off the fence.
> 
> ...



Charlie has a testimony. It is profoundly deep. And because of its depth I couldn't begin to address its particulars. 

God knows every man's address...precisely.

But I would ask you this...in the presence of Charlie...and both of you, either of you , or neither of you who are completely free may respond. 

Do you really think it was the baby's life that "hung" in the balance?
I see a man who came to understand what he thought was his...wasn't...in each and every respect...and that learned that the One who gives life...is the only one that can be trusted with it...and for it.

We men condemn ourselves, and rightly so...before the righteous judge...when we sit at the table of "being" and eat the biscuits served...yet call the Baker a jerk....because WE will pick and choose and decide...good from bad.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2013)

Israel said:


> Charlie has a testimony. It is profoundly deep. And because of its depth I couldn't begin to address its particulars.
> 
> God knows every man's address...precisely.
> 
> ...



High on a very long list of things that I do not understand is the concept of evil.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 12, 2013)

hummerpoo said:


> High on a very long list of things that I do not understand is the concept of evil.



" Neotic effect of sin", I find interesting.... you might as well. Perhaps you already know about it.

http://www.theopedia.com/Noetic_effects_of_sin


----------



## BT Charlie (Jul 12, 2013)

This morning your description of the rabbit hole moved me to tears, Israel.   And your recent post is again spot on.

At the end of human strength, lost and broken, I purposed my own demise.  From this vantage point, I was privileged to experience God's strength.  Did some groaning remnant in the walking tomb I had become in the fall down the rabbit hole already know that Christ was the only life-giver?

 Once cursing Him, in what could have been my last intended breaths on this 
planet, I begged for forgiveness.  (I vomitted in my self hatred at this procrastinating cowardice.) For rescue.  (That was a coward's plea; real men fix things real quick, for good.) For mercy.  (I want to live for my wife and boy, but 
this hand I drew -- it's Aces and Eights.) For life. (You are not deserving of life, now get on with this.)  Not me-me-me, but You... (No one is coming for you, because no one is really out there.) 

I knew time was passing, but it also seemed frozen as these irreconcilable thoughts accelerated.  Madness...trembling madness. Suffocating hatred. Icy heart gripping fear.  Vomit on my breath. Snot and tears. 

My felt board Jesus experiences had not really helped me understand what would hang in the balance or how it would be reconciled.  But they were sufficient to plant a tiny seed that burst forth after the right germination.  I was 
a physical mess, but could look upward to the cross with a joyful smile, no shame and a single hope ... The Hope of this world.

For Striperr, thanks for your kind words. May I say I pray for a precious life hanging in the balance, which has been the impetus for my telling you these stories.

(I should have probably just said "yes, brother, another life hangs in the balance.  Thanks for receiving that.  I'm sorry for rambling, etc.)


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> " Neotic effect of sin", I find interesting.... you might as well. Perhaps you already know about it.
> 
> http://www.theopedia.com/Noetic_effects_of_sin



Yes Gordon, this is new to me, and an interesting line of thought, and quite humbling.

http://hermeneutica.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/the-noetic-effects-of-sin/
“So it should be clear that the flaws or errors in our thinking (its processes and results) are not always the effect of sin. We all have a capacity to know, to understand, but most of the time this requires effort and work. Understanding and misunderstanding are simply part and parcel of the way in which our thinking/inquiring is designed to function, and I do not think that this is the result of a “fall.” I think it is simply how God has chosen to create us. It is Sin that we introduced into the world which complicates the whole Endeavour.”

A good example of why I get confused: When the author of this critique interjects into his proposition the factor that “we introduced” does he not add to, and thereby corrupt, “how God has chosen to create us” resulting in us "designing our own function".
Had he not questioned the effect of the “fall”, his proposition would have been all about God and without contradiction.  But what do I know…my thinking is full of flaws and errors.


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2013)

BT Charlie said:


> This morning your description of the rabbit hole moved me to tears, Israel.   And your recent post is again spot on.
> 
> At the end of human strength, lost and broken, I purposed my own demise.  From this vantage point, I was privileged to experience God's strength.  Did some groaning remnant in the walking tomb I had become in the fall down the rabbit hole already know that Christ was the only life-giver?
> 
> ...



I neither see nor hear rambling...each word born in fire, tested in a crucible...and coming forth pure. 

I don't know that any man could choose to know himself as a trembling snot stained blubbering mess...when so many convenient and shiny lies are available, instead.

Despite this, the Lord keeps all his appointments.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 13, 2013)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes Gordon, this is new to me, and an interesting line of thought, and quite humbling.
> 
> http://hermeneutica.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/the-noetic-effects-of-sin/
> “So it should be clear that the flaws or errors in our thinking (its processes and results) are not always the effect of sin. We all have a capacity to know, to understand, but most of the time this requires effort and work. Understanding and misunderstanding are simply part and parcel of the way in which our thinking/inquiring is designed to function, and I do not think that this is the result of a “fall.” I think it is simply how God has chosen to create us. It is Sin that we introduced into the world which complicates the whole Endeavour.”
> ...



Yes I see what you mean.

First things first, I know you enough that all the flaws and errors you see in yourself are but lemonaids waiting to be. And many reasonings have flaws and errors, but like they also have happy accidents that are a way out and tangible moments of light which change us.

I was thinking last nite that perhaps sin or evil and good in the world( in our universe) is a means to give us perspective on reality, especially spiritual reality. Our thinking and acts are bounced from these two pinpong paddles. But as per yourself, I am surely only partly in the truth of it, my reasonings full of flaws and errors.

Right now my mind is saying there is a relationship between good and evil and justice as if justice was  the "just"  or correct light to bring on the subject. Someday we should pick it up with specifics as example. Someday when we could use the war in Iraq, Sadam Hussain's crimes, and if the manner the world saw him get justice was just! true to what is good. But I think we should wait, politics is a strong man to put a binder on.

Also simply ,and this is simple, we are physically predators and we can release our "natural reasonings" to justify being and acting accordingly. But in doing so we become animals and not man. In doing so we choose to go down to that which we are spiritualyl supposed to have dominion on but don't. We cut ourselves not only from going upwards to the devine but to our humanity as well. I talked with a WW11 vet last week that told me that the war he experienced which he was a part of, ( he was an allied artilery soldier in Italy and in Northern Europe) was "men behaving like animals." I would venture to say that from my observation some men make the error of believing that the behaviours the old soldier talked to me about were part and parcel of the behaviors of men as per their creator. I personally think not and can point out many examples why not...which I won't do. But simply the idea that might is right is a crock...if it is used as a positive attribute of mankind.

I am always facinated by the Indian Emperor Ashoka how being a king in  India thousands of yrs ago it was his duty to his people to make war on other peoples. It affirmed his ligitamacy as a ruler at home and abroad,  but also brought prosperity to his own people, from the bounty of war ie; land, properties, slaves, protection for his own for a strong battle trained army etc.

And then once ( one season) he made war on a pacific people and visited the battle scene right after the battle. He found women and children, boys, girls, the elderly dead and dieing having been all run through by the weapons of his soldiers. He was shoked by the suffering he had caused, litterally and felt a great remourse.

And a great regret came apon him, a great remorse and Ashoka never went on a war of aggression again. Not only did he change his military outlook, he changed the way justice was done for his people. And it changed India to the point that his influence on India and the India people, the indian psychi is still present today. Ashoka(304–232 BCE) the emperor of emperors, ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka


----------



## Israel (Jul 13, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> Yes I see what you mean.
> 
> First things first, I know you enough that all the flaws and errors you see in yourself are but lemonaids waiting to be. And and reasonings have flaws and errors, but like they also have happy accidents.
> 
> ...



Yes...we all battle shadows...archetypes of evil (to us)...till God is finally able to break through and put a face upon our aggressions...our own self. The ability to recognize the "me" in you...is a miracle...of blood.
And so we come to thank God for the most depraved sinner of whom we were sure he could never enter the Kingdom...for he has helped me to see me...as I truly am...and find mercy "for him". 

And we discover the "evil one" is always the one who would have me think I am different than you.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 13, 2013)

Israel said:


> Yes...we all battle shadows...archetypes of evil (to us)...till God is finally able to break through and put a face upon our aggressions...our own self. The ability to recognize the "me" in you...is a miracle...of blood.
> And so we come to thank God for the most depraved sinner of whom we were sure he could never enter the Kingdom...for he has helped me to see me...as I truly am...and find mercy "for him".
> 
> And we discover the "evil one" is always the one who would have me think I am different than you.



Very good points Isreal. Just off the cuff, or a literty I take from writing several paragraphs to reach this sentence. Culturally we are all bent into/out of shape from our intended sameness.

Man, the spiritual being, is really the same biped all over the world, but if our cultures bring us down to the point of knowing the Vietnamese as gooks and the yankee sailor as Joe... the polish as vermin, the germans as huns, ...the arab a towel head, an american, a brit, a canadian, the french as satin....

What is the mystics remedy in Christ? What is the church's remedy or participation in this? What dog gone visions do we have regards good and evil in this?

Some say we should preach christ to all creation. But look...! Northern Germany is protestant and the south is catholic! Look at the southern US since the beginnings how christian it was/ is; and look at how war have been to their mind as an instument of justice and validation of who they are! Look at Boshnia and Herzegovinia and the ways of christians there.

Preach to me my friend! Preach to me that in Christ the Prince of Peace that he is not prince of our inner peace only. What peace is mine that I am divorced from my sister and her's my children? What peace of mine is there in that the christian, the preacher, the mystic, who can answer me just died this morning in Seria along with his whole family?

Jesus come...please come... Tell me my Lord, through the church, through my spiritual family, through my enemy, is there more for you to pay for? What is my blindness, where is my sin? Jesus hear me, and I will be healed. 

Isreal, and all my family ...please drop me through someone's roof.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> Yes I see what you mean.
> 
> First things first, I know you enough that all the flaws and errors you see in yourself are but lemonaids waiting to be. And many reasonings have flaws and errors, but like they also have happy accidents that are a way out and tangible moments of light which change us.
> 
> ...


...


----------



## Israel (Jul 13, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> Very good points Isreal. Just off the cuff, or a literty I take from writing several paragraphs to reach this sentence. Culturally we are all bent into/out of shape from our intended sameness.
> 
> Man, the spiritual being, is really the same biped all over the world, but if our cultures bring us down to the point of knowing the Vietnamese as gooks and the yankee sailor as Joe... the polish as vermin, the germans as huns, ...the arab a towel head, an american, a brit, a canadian, the french as satin....
> 
> ...



I'm there with you brother, I hope the pallet they use is big enough for two.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 13, 2013)

hummerpoo said:


> ...



Yep! lol... I know what you mean... LOL

No... seriously...

Quote: "Those send me instantly to my knees … but later bring great regret, as I desperately search for the facility to utilize them."

 Someone recently pointed out to me that for Jesus, imagine for Jesus, it was not always easy to utilize the spirit given him from his Father... as he was often accused of blasphemy or of no account or especially misunderstood by his closest... I think we have to drag along our crosses and die to worries.

For example I have often felt that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God  each individualy or as one, was\were active in other world religions ( other than christianity). I come by this from individual prayer, but also from my church which says that all major christians denominations ( of protestant roots) have the Holy Spirit active in their churches, in their membership. But I have been shot down for this belief many, many times in the past-- even by the pilars of my denomination (RC). And now I hear other christians with the same ideas. Fifteen yrs ago I was worried that I was under a curse for thinking this way. Today it is the current on the table of many christians-- from recent converts to the faith to the pope!

 From regret, rejection, and worries for entertaining oddball christian idea that today is even given the fresh name of "universalism"! I bet that all the folk who even said my ideas were of the devil ( one pastor especially), don't even remember saying this today. And that the next traveling preacher to his church is gona bring this message via the Holy Spirit anytime soon... to which he will flip out on for joy!!!!!

I think regret is perhaps the incorrect word, worry might be better. Jonah worried enough for all of us. Good beach weather your way I hope. Or Moses tapped twice on a stone...for no good reason but impatience.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 15, 2013)

Israel said:


> Charlie has a testimony. It is profoundly deep. And because of its depth I couldn't begin to address its particulars.
> 
> God knows every man's address...precisely.
> 
> ...



I was referring to physical life, alone; removed from spiritual life. With my perspective I can do that, whereas from a religious, or faith-based, viewpoint I concede that they could be the same thing to you, with the spiritual life being vastly more important. 

Basically what I was saying was that I hope to have the same epiphany he did, one day, without the need to have a child in a physically perilous position. In short, endanger me over anyone else, so that I may learn that lesson if there is indeed one to be taught. 

That's another problem I have with faith and religion, and it's not with them, it's with the notion that our existence is a test, or a lesson, or geared towards a life in "the Kingdom". Why even bother? If the Kingdom is real and great, and God loves His creations; why put us here? It's not a question that anyone can answer, merely rationalize for themselves. 

For me it all boils down to proof and, in the absence of that, experience. I have neither, but that's how my mind is wired and I think that the Creator, who made me, would rather me walk through this world honestly agnostic, and struggling, than be falsely faithful.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Basically what I was saying was that I hope to have the same epiphany he did, one day, without the need to have a child in a physically perilous position. In short, endanger me over anyone else, so that I may learn that lesson if there is indeed one to be taught.



There are many who come to the same conclusions without such a scenrio playing out.  All the evidence is there, one way or the other, the conclusion is based on how you look at it.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's another problem I have with faith and religion, and it's not with them, it's with the notion that our existence is a test, or a lesson, or geared towards a life in "the Kingdom". Why even bother? If the Kingdom is real and great, and God loves His creations; why put us here? It's not a question that anyone can answer, merely rationalize for themselves.



I ask this a lot in the AAA forum, but, if God is real, does your perspective of him really matter in the grand scheme of things?  Reality is what it is whether we like what it is or not.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I have neither, but that's how my mind is wired and I think that the Creator, who made me, would rather me walk through this world honestly agnostic, and struggling, than be falsely faithful.



I can agree with that. But, I think the creator would also prefer you have a different conclusion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> There are many who come to the same conclusions without such a scenrio playing out.  All the evidence is there, one way or the other, the conclusion is based on how you look at it.
> 
> I ask this a lot in the AAA forum, but, if God is real, does your perspective of him really matter in the grand scheme of things?  Reality is what it is whether we like what it is or not.
> 
> I can agree with that. But, I think the creator would also prefer you have a different conclusion.



Evidence is objective and irrelevant of perspective, at least to my mind. 

No; my perspective on God, I would imagine, matters to Him about as much as that coming from an ant on a hill in Africa does to us. Further, that ant speculating on our existence in America is about as founded in facts as our speculation into the existence of God. There are tons of ants who have been standing at the foot of an American on safari, but there are others, still, who have yet to witness. For those on the "inside" they have an experience to share, but little in the way of physical proof to sway the naysayers. 

My perspective is within the Creator's purview to change, is it not? My existence, and my personality, if we are to subscribe to the Christian belief that God knew me before I was born, were set by God and shaped by experiences that He still has some measure of control over. Therefore, God knowing me and how my mind works, since he created it, also knows that there is a convert to be won given the right circumstances. Yet, there hasn't been anything that I have witnessed that made me recant my position. Some will come back and say that I just wasn't looking closely enough, but I ask you a question in return; if I wasn't looking would I be in this forum talking with you about it, and talking with others in my actual life? No. I am searching but haven't found what I am looking for, yet.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Evidence is objective and irrelevant of perspective, at least to my mind.



Yes.  But perspective really has a lot to do with the story we see the evidence tell.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My perspective is within the Creator's purview to change, is it not?



Depends on whether or not the creator gave you free will, I suppose.  You will find lively debate either way.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My existence, and my personality, if we are to subscribe to the Christian belief that God knew me before I was born, were set by God and shaped by experiences that He still has some measure of control over.



Again, it depens on whether he determines for you to believe at a set point in time, or wishes for you to believe through your own conclusion (which would place the burden on you).



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Therefore, God knowing me and how my mind works, since he created it, also knows that there is a convert to be won given the right circumstances.



Well, you must first determine the nature of God's interaction with man before you can make such an assumption.  In order to do so, you would have to accept God exists, then, in that context, study the evidence before you to decide whether or not you were given free will.  If so, then, God is waiting, if not, he'll get around to if and when he chooses.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yet, there hasn't been anything that I have witnessed that made me recant my position. Some will come back and say that I just wasn't looking closely enough, but I ask you a question in return; if I wasn't looking would I be in this forum talking with you about it, and talking with others in my actual life? No. I am searching but haven't found what I am looking for, yet.



Hmmmmm, I think you will recant when you do. Until then, the choice is yours, and the burden is not on God to make it for you.

However, I could be very wrong, and your decision to not believe is actually God's, and you are acting in his will by not believing, therefor you cannot believe until such a moment that he decides to let you.

Or, I could be wrong in my original premise that God exists, and, you have outsmarted me with your skepticism.

Either way, I don't think it's the fault of the evidence that you do not believe.  Since I am a "free will" believer, I tend to think the evidence is there and the burden is on you to see it.  Faith would be easy if we could see the angels, wouldn't it?  And under such circumstances, it really wouldn't be faith at all.

So, we either have a God who asks us to ahve faith, or we have a God who gives faith when ready, or we don't have a God.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I am searching but haven't found what I am looking for, yet.



You and Bono.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's another problem I have with faith and religion, and it's not with them, it's with the notion that our existence is a test, or a lesson, or geared towards a life in "the Kingdom". Why even bother? If the Kingdom is real and great, and God loves His creations; why put us here?



God put us in Eden.  We put ourselves here.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But perspective really has a lot to do with the story we see the evidence tell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off, it's not my intent to convert anyone or talk anyone out of their faith. If it happens as a result, then so be it, but it's not a goal. My goal here is to understand how individuals have squared the problems I have with faith within themselves, if they have even faced them. 

Free will, I believe is one partition within the human condition. We are, generally, hard wired for certain things, instincts for one, and some personality quirks, by our "biology" which is another way to say, "beyond our current comprehension of both science and religion."

Descartes couldn't identify, and we still can't figure out with any accuracy, where the personality arises from within the brain or how it is related to the physical mapping of neurons therein. Basically, all we can see are the lights and clockwork that make a human, but we can't see how that results in self-aware creatures capable of our abilities. 

My point is that some things are hard wired into a person, like for me it's a passion thing. I'm a very passionate man and that has upsides and downsides. When my mood is positive I am capable of great things. When my mood is bad I can really be a force to be reckoned with. Try as I might to control it I have only found ways to marginalize the bad times. That shows that I am both in control of my ability to wrangle in my emotions, i.e. free will, but still have the quirks wired within me. 

As far as my belief goes, it comes back to the ant in Africa. Why would it matter to God, as why would it matter to us, what we, the ant, think of them? He's God. He doesn't need my approval or my praise, does He? I wouldn't think so, but I could be wrong. 

Further, what's the purpose of faith? That goes back to my question on why have this plane of existence, anyway? If I am supposed to have faith that there is a Kingdom in Heaven and that, if I accept Jesus into my heart, I have a place there, what's the purpose of anything we do here? It's all transitory and the only thing that I can think of keeping us from offing ourselves like a cult is that, from what I understand, suicide is a sin and warrants a place in Hades. Why would the Earth, and Hades, even exist if God knows us all before we are born, and wants us to turn/return to Him, in Heaven? Why not just create us in Heaven, skip the middle man, and allow us all to enjoy the perfection that is His Kingdom? What's the point of time on Earth if not a test, or lesson?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 15, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You and Bono.



Thankfully, that's the only time I've ever been grouped with him and, provided it's only lyrically, that's ok with me.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I was referring to physical life, alone; removed from spiritual life. With my perspective I can do that, whereas from a religious, or faith-based, viewpoint I concede that they could be the same thing to you, with the spiritual life being vastly more important.
> 
> Basically what I was saying was that I hope to have the same epiphany he did, one day, without the need to have a child in a physically perilous position. In short, endanger me over anyone else, so that I may learn that lesson if there is indeed one to be taught.
> 
> ...



The Kingdom is now to a christian. According to scripture God says He is a teacher, Exodus I believe.  The Kingdom is a spiritual place in our hearts, as America is a tangible and patriotic place in american hearts seperate of physical America...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 15, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> God put us in Eden.  We put ourselves here.



God put Adam and Eve in Eden, and then punished them by sending them here for the Original Sin. 

Why not give us all the benefit of the doubt and place us all in Heaven/Eden first, and then here if we fail?

Maybe that's exactly what happened, but what purpose does the grand mystery serve? 

For example, anyone who has had a puppy knows that you have to train on faults as they happen. A puppy won't know that you're yelling at it for an error it made 30 minutes ago, unless you rub his nose in it. 

Likewise, I wasn't present to give the original sin so how am I liable for it? If I was in Eden prior to the Earth and I failed, what good is it to wipe any recollection of it from my memory so that the whole point of the lesson is lost? 

If the goal is to teach me a lesson, or to have my pass a test, then it would be a good idea to let me know which material to study/learn; wouldn't it?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 15, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> The Kingdom is now to a christian. According to scripture God says He is a teacher, Exodus I believe.  The Kingdom is a spiritual place in our hearts, as America is a tangible and patriotic place in american hearts seperate of physical America...



Just to clarify; this existence is your Heaven? 

I'm lost here.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> First off, it's not my intent to convert anyone or talk anyone out of their faith. If it happens as a result, then so be it, but it's not a goal. My goal here is to understand how individuals have squared the problems I have with faith within themselves, if they have even faced them.
> 
> Free will, I believe is one partition within the human condition. We are, generally, hard wired for certain things, instincts for one, and some personality quirks, by our "biology" which is another way to say, "beyond our current comprehension of both science and religion."
> 
> ...



 For what it,s worth, Paul the apostle says man is the glory of God.  So if this is correct, God is not indifferent of man, or even an ant perhaps... And while the ant might be indifferent, man was not made that way. Otherwise, man would not ask, W5 quiries.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 15, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> For what it,s worth, Paul the apostle says man is the glory of God.



Can you provide the verse for that statement? I'd be curious how they deal with the evil men on the planet in that context.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Likewise, I wasn't present to give the original sin so how am I liable for it?



Even though we are not directly responsible, we still have to pay for the mistakes of our ancestors.  Look at the amount of debt we're loading onto the backs of future generations.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 15, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Even though we are not directly responsible, we still have to pay for the mistakes of our ancestors.  Look at the amount of debt we're loading onto the backs of future generations.



Well, now you're lumping in political fallout with religious. 

Basically you're saying that the sin of my ancestors is on my soul, correct? Or is it just limited to Adam and Eve? 

So let's say that my grandfather, hypothetically, was a philanderer. That cross is mine to carry, too? That doesn't hold weight with me, each individual is responsible for their own sins (in my eyes) and not bound by blood or familial ties. What if I were just related to the philanderer by marriage and my grandmother was the blood relation?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Basically you're saying that the sin of my ancestors is on my soul, correct?



No, I'm saying the _result_ of his sin is on you.  

For example, "60 Minutes" once did a story on Dr. Josef Mengele, the "Angel of Death" of Auschwitz.  The Mengele family name was well-known and respected in Germany, but it has been forever tainted by the crimes of Josef. 

Likewise, you are not guilty because of what Adam and Eve did, but you now face the result:  sin and death.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, now you're lumping in political fallout with religious.



Only as an example.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> As far as my belief goes, it comes back to the ant in Africa. Why would it matter to God, as why would it matter to us, what we, the ant, think of them? He's God. He doesn't need my approval or my praise, does He? I wouldn't think so, but I could be wrong.



In the beginning God created…

That’s as far as I’ve gotten … not as far as I’ve figured it out … as far as I’ve considered.
I thought about “In the beginning” for a few years, but gave up … kinda like, gave up on my first $1,000,000 so I started on my second, but I started thinking about “In the beginning God”.  I thought about that for a looong time.  Never really got that either, but it sure helped with a lot of other stuff.  A couple of years ago I started working on “In the beginning God created …”.  I still spend some time on the other two (especially “In the beginning God” … it’s just such a big idea I can’t really leave it behind), but now it’s mostly “In the beginning God created…”.

“In the beginning God” seems to me that it shed’s some light on the ant’s perspective, while “In the beginning God created” may help with the view in the opposite direction.

I’ve been thinking lately that I’m getting ahead of myself, I may need to go back to “In the beginning God” for my primary effort.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2013)

We've inherited the guilt of Adam's sin, not his sins or any sins of our ancestors. 
Makes me wonder though if the first man couldn't make it without sin, why would the next or the next. I can't see over a couple of generations making it anyway.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 15, 2013)

That's a very good question about why God doesn't put each one of us as individuals in Eden as a personal test rather than inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin. 
Then there is the question of God knowing Adam would fail anyway. You can eat any piece of candy in the store except this piece right here or you can play with any toy in the box except this toy right here.


----------



## Israel (Jul 16, 2013)

If we do not recognize we are the same as Adam...we are deceived.
To think one would "do" better than Adam, is to show just how much a son of Adam one is.
Have WE sinned? What is our excuse? Others tempted me? (Sound familiar?) The world was full of it when we came? How do we know? Sin by its nature is deceptive...how could we then claim to ever see anything "right", correctly, or clearly?
The one who wonders "what would "I" have done?" Already has all the proof they need...

"Honor thy father and mother" is really no more applicable than here. To think one is better than their parents, and finds whatever excuse for reviling that is convenient...will soon find...the reviler has no place in length of days and wellness.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> We've inherited the guilt of Adam's sin, not his sins or any sins of our ancestors.
> Makes me wonder though if the first man couldn't make it without sin, why would the next or the next. I can't see over a couple of generations making it anyway.



But we are within God's ability to purify, right? Why would God make imperfect creatures that should attempt to strive towards, but never achieve, perfection? He created the angels, too, and they are closer to perfection but further from His heart than we. That's why Lucifer was cast down, if memory serves. Why the apparent caste system? 



Artfuldodger said:


> That's a very good question about why God doesn't put each one of us as individuals in Eden as a personal test rather than inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin.
> Then there is the question of God knowing Adam would fail anyway. You can eat any piece of candy in the store except this piece right here or you can play with any toy in the box except this toy right here.



It seems set up from the onset to fail. Handing someone a deck of rigged cards and then taking all of their money when they don't win hardly seems like the acts of a benevolent deity to me. Now, if we are all here because we failed our Eden test then the question remains; why leave us ignorant of that failure? 



Israel said:


> If we do not recognize we are the same as Adam...we are deceived.
> To think one would "do" better than Adam, is to show just how much a son of Adam one is.
> Have WE sinned? What is our excuse? Others tempted me? (Sound familiar?) The world was full of it when we came? How do we know? Sin by its nature is deceptive...how could we then claim to ever see anything "right", correctly, or clearly?
> The one who wonders "what would "I" have done?" Already has all the proof they need...
> ...



Yes, I have sinned, on the given information in the Bible. Even without the Bible I recognize that I am far from being a perfect man. I am not trying to excuse that sin, or that failure, in the event that I am confronted with a judge upon my death. Just like when my parents discovered that I had done something wrong I will hang my head in shame and hope for forgiveness or, at least, fair punishment. 

That goes back to the beginning though. If God created us all and knew us all before we were born then we were set up from the beginning to fail. Those who fail bad enough are condemned to Hades. Why would God create something that he loves and then condemn it to a life in purgatory if it is also within his control to prevent. Also, it is within his understanding to grasp the concept that, by having a judgment upon our death, this can all be considered a test which none of us can truly pass. I can't derive from any of that a purpose. 

It's a logic loop for me, and one that I can't get around.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 16, 2013)

If you believe in total predestination and election your answers will be easier. If you believe in freewill with God intervening such as answering a prayer, your answers will be harder.
So much of the Bible leads to predestination & election.
So much of the bible leads to freewill with me having to make and seek my own destiny. God can change his mind and even get angry. Isn't there a verse where God felt bad about the flood like he second guessed his decision? He could answer your prayer and change the whole course of events of your life. Some believe your freewill stops after you are saved.
It does get confusing when you divide your freewill with God's sovereignty.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 16, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Can you provide the verse for that statement? I'd be curious how they deal with the evil men on the planet in that context.




 Corinthians 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 

-------------------

As males are not indifferent to females, God is not indifferent to males, and by definitions man as individual and as a community.

Who are "they" in you question "I'd be curious how they deal with evil....????

Now dealing with evil is an ongoing thing for christians. It is conquored by increments... a bit here, a bit there. A good example in the american context of this might be the christain discipline in one Martin Luther King. His ministry for christian  history,values, example and experience got us to were we are today regards institutionalized racism in the US. 

Note that the civil war which was basically fought over it, the institution of it, did not really settle the hearts of men on the issue. Man's outlook, and his spirit of freedom and liberty did not wrestle the issue down--even for war and its many sacrefices.  But the "Christ" or God and Martin, and many others who recongnized it for what it was, the spirit of the divine, the freedom of( according) the devine, the liberty of ( according) the devine-- did.

Now the same example can be given for Nelson Mandella, Desmond Toto, Gandi,  Marshall ( Marshall Plan post ww11) The courts at The Haige, and many, many more....


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> If you believe in total predestination and election your answers will be easier. If you believe in freewill with God intervening such as answering a prayer, your answers will be harder.
> So much of the Bible leads to predestination & election.
> So much of the bible leads to freewill with me having to make and seek my own destiny. God can change his mind and even get angry. Isn't there a verse where God felt bad about the flood like he second guessed his decision? He could answer your prayer and change the whole course of events of your life. Some believe your freewill stops after you are saved.
> It does get confusing when you divide your freewill with God's sovereignty.



I hear ya. I believe in a mix of the two. That the creator can, and has in some cases, reach down and impact lives directly but that they also allow things to happen according to two things. First, is the natural law that was set out at the onset of everything, and two is your free will. That can be hemmed and hawed over as to if free will is actually free will, but that's for another time. 

For these purposes I believe that free will is free, and that the creator, being the creator, can alter their plans/rules at any time. 

I can't relinquish my skepticism and my free will without also feeling like I am betraying my own nature, which is a combination of my biology and my experiences. 

I think there is a capacity for God to change his mind about things, that's why He impacts lives. Either A) it was predetermined that he would impact their lives in that way, or B) he reached down in order to show his might/compassion/etc. and touched those lives. I believe in B seeing as how I can't comprehend that God would give us free will without having it himself. 

Even after you are saved I would argue that you have free will, you just choose to preempt your own desires and wishes with His. You could opt out at any time, I believe. That's why I have a problem with "saving", too. I don't at all have a problem with those people who wholly buy into it and live their entire remaining life in that fashion. It's those who are falsely religious that think they are "saved" and that the one act washes all away. If there is a God who wants us to live our lives in a certain manner, and wants us to be judged for our actions on Earth, then I would think that He places more importance on the lifestyle you keep than the singular processes or rituals you partook of. 

That gets into the church for the sake of church thing. I was raised as having to go to church pretty regularly. So, being a child at the time, I went and I listened as well as a child of my skepticism and attention span could. It struck me one day that why does God care about buildings and clothes. It came as an immediate conclusion thereafter that He doesn't. Jesus tended the unwashed masses the same as royalty who accepted God. So how do you get Mega Churches, and gold crucifixes, and Sunday best clothes out of that? I don't know. 

We attended Catholic church in my teen years and went to Saturday evening service, which was cool because we didn't have to get up early and feel like an entire day was lost, since there is stuff to do even on Sundays. More importantly, we didn't have to dress up. Come in jeans, shorts, Tshirts, whatever, just come. It was really cool because we were coming to God honestly, and we weren't putting on a fashion show for the congregation. Some people still dressed up, because they felt right doing so, but there wasn't an unwritten "requirement" for it. It was refreshing, even though I was still highly skeptical. I talked with my Father, priest, about my skepticism and some of the same questions I had at the onset of this thread and had great discussions but very few answers. 

That's where I found that if I am going to answer these questions I have then I'll not be able to do so within the church so much as finding them for myself, or being shown by the Creator, Himself. It was then that my church became the lake at sunrise, the Bible became a guidebook rather than an encyclopedia, and God became "the Creator" for me. It took the faith out of religion, and the certainty out of that which, by its very nature, can't be proven and thus not considered "factual".


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 16, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I hear ya. I believe in a mix of the two. That the creator can, and has in some cases, reach down and impact lives directly but that they also allow things to happen according to two things. First, is the natural law that was set out at the onset of everything, and two is your free will. That can be hemmed and hawed over as to if free will is actually free will, but that's for another time.
> 
> For these purposes I believe that free will is free, and that the creator, being the creator, can alter their plans/rules at any time.
> 
> ...



The answers you are looking for are in the church! Not only the CC but also any mainline church.

Many people squander their church experience, especially   people who have questions of the "way" " where" and "how" nature. Now young people have lots going on... and can't be blamed for not knowing Solomon's wisdom by their 17th birthday. 

All churches are full of usefull information. They have libraries, websites, specialist in this field or that. Now it is not fair to ask esoteric questions of one individual in the church, be that person a pastor or a parent, who have their plate full of day to day ministery and your question refers to a point which is clarified by a church writer (saint) of the 1700s--which is vaguely familar to them.

There are tons of information in our chruches which will answer tons of questions and be helpful. YOU just have to get yourself plugged in. And with the www,--- this is relatively easy today.

I know the church as the body of Christ, and I mean mostly all denominations...as the body of Christ will minister according to their abilities and gifts to the mind, the spirit, the body, of everyone... There is a member or members, a resource, that can answer you... somewhere, sometime, someplace... etc... And sometimes just attending a church sponsored teachings, a fundamental things like a study of Mathews Gospel, or Exodus will change you life, litterally!

I will give you a link for example that you can search according to topics. Now there are many more... and I don't give it to you to promote the denomination which put it up.  Here ya go... and remember this, "Though shall not squander food given ( cast) to and from doves." gordo

 And for what it's worth I believe that being a christian is a mystical experience that one experiences from the inside, not from surveying  it from the outside. And that can mean just walking through the door of a bible study or worship service. If any of these are then not to your pallet or ear, you can always run out and head for the hills of spirituality... but them hills are a long, long, long walk. More than not God has sent a christian pastor or his church to minister to folk like you right next to your home.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 16, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> The answers you are looking for are in the church! Not only the CC but also any mainline church.
> 
> *Many people squander their church experience, especially   people who have questions of the "way" " where" and "how" nature.* Now young people have lots going on... and can't be blamed for not knowing Solomon's wisdom by their 17th birthday.
> 
> ...



Apparently I was misunderstood. I did say that I questioned my priest, not that I ONLY questioned my priest. I have also read on the matter and haven't found anything that I could wrap my head around. 

As to that which I bolded up above, are you saying that I' squandering my church experiences by asking the important questions with regards to anything that a human believes? Meaning that the 5W's are somehow unacceptable in terms of religion or faith?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 16, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Apparently I was misunderstood. I did say that I questioned my priest, not that I ONLY questioned my priest. I have also read on the matter and haven't found anything that I could wrap my head around.
> 
> As to that which I bolded up above, are you saying that I' squandering my church experiences by asking the important questions with regards to anything that a human believes? Meaning that the 5W's are somehow unacceptable in terms of religion or faith?



No I did not mean that. But the church is more than one priest and a parent and a few books...

 I'm sure you are a smart and articulate person...but the world is not smart and articulate... and for many christians being smart and articualte is not their gifts and yet they minister the gospel! They have assimilated it and work at walking it.

 Sometimes our poverties prevents from seeing; and sometimes are riches do. Sometimes our smarts are over excited, and we are exceptionally gifted, and yet our souls  are victim to a spiritual ADHD. And it is good that being ADHD we accept ourselves as we are. However, having perhaps a broader perspective than ordinary folk we have no excuse to not be thought as they were or are and stand still with them long enought to assimilate the Good News which is common to all christian people. This comes from inside the church, not standing out looking in.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 16, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> This comes from inside the church, not standing out looking in.



So I should go to church, though I don't believe, so that I can listen to what other people, who can't convince me out of church that theirs is the right God, have to say on the matter? 

I'm already talking to these same people, just one example of many would be this thread, and can't be brought to conclusion. What's the venue going to change?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 16, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> No I did not mean that. But the church is more than one priest and a parent and a few books...
> 
> I'm sure you are a smart and articulate person...but the world is not smart and articulate... and for many christians being smart and articualte is not their gifts and yet they minister the gospel! They have assimilated it and work at walking it.
> 
> Sometimes our poverties prevents from seeing; and sometimes are riches do. *Sometimes our smarts are over excited, and we are exceptionally gifted, and yet our souls  are victim to a spiritual ADHD. And it is good that being ADHD we accept ourselves as we are. However, having perhaps a broader perspective than ordinary folk we have no excuse to not be thought as they were or are and stand still with them long enought to assimilate the Good News which is common to all christian people*. This comes from inside the church, not standing out looking in.



After looking at it after replying to your last comment I have a few other problems with this that I can't get past. 


> But the church is more than one priest and a parent and a few books...



That's largely presumptuous, or at least it seems that way, about how you feel that I've conducted my research. There's no way for you to know, because I don't have an accurate count seeing as I've lost track and haven't said as much in here, as to how many people I've talked to, or books/articles I've read, about this. Going soup to nuts and saying that I've only talked with one priest, one parent, and read a couple books is pretty dismissive. 

As far as people not being articulate in terms of their spirituality I can accept that about the congregation, but not the minister who has taken it upon themselves to be a shepherd of the flock. They should know what they are talking about and be able to communicate it clearly. If they can't then they have no place in the pulpit, IMO. Preaching to the converted 100% of the time is fine for maintaining the flock, but I thought a goal of religion was to grow the flock and save more sinners. That takes education, knowledge, and articulation. 

I don't want to assume anything about what the bold section means. Please explain because it sounds like you're saying that I'm ADHD spiritually for asking the 5W's of religion. 

How can anyone have a broader perspective on religion than "ordinary folk", whoever they are? 

Acceptance takes place in the heart, understanding takes place in the mind. 

Assimilation denotes understanding in one definition of the word. How can there be understanding if no one can be trusted to explain it, or if the explanations don't exist? Like I said, short of opinion books based on people's own faith, the Bible itself, and the witness of those who feel the faith, religion runs very light on facts and reason. None of those are objectively verifiable.


----------



## Israel (Jul 16, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It seems set up from the onset to fail. Handing someone a deck of rigged cards and then taking all of their money when they don't win hardly seems like the acts of a benevolent deity to me. Now, if we are all here because we failed our Eden test then the question remains; why leave us ignorant of that failure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you are a much better person than I am...obviously of far more noble stock. This is either true or not...but not me being facetious.

I didn't do any of your blue words...what I did was, when I broke something, I would half baked mend it, get my sister to play with it, watch it fall apart in her hands and then say "don't worry, I won't tell..."

I don't ever remember hanging my head in shame before my parents...except after I'd been diligently sought out to be found out...that is...when my lies were so exhausted even I couldn't spin a tale to get myself out. And I knew it. Then any head hanging was more to do with my own frustration of not being clever enough to beat the charge. I wish I was noble enough to desire fair punishment...no...I would much rather have arranged for the blows to fall upon ANYONE else...fairly or unfairly...and for me to escape unscathed.

This is the man I am. I aspire to be what you say you were as a child. Perhaps someday. But maybe you see why I view salvation as a necessity of my very being...as opposed to a mere hope or intellectual question. 

A thing like me is not fit for its next breath...for the righteousness I barely see...I stand condemned before.
The thing is...I know it is real...this righteousness I barely see...for even though I must confess I have none of my own that testifies to it, I am brought, miraculously, (I must believe)...to see it is there regardless of all my deviousness to suppress it.

Now, the most peculiar part is this...in judging what is painfully obvious to me...that there is a righteousness that I am not...a righteousness that one could even say "how could you possibly believe in something you say you see in someone you have never met...and none of it resides in you so its origin couldn't possibly be from "you"...how can you believe it exists?" All I know is...I believe.

I cannot answer for anyone else. I don't get their mail. But again, to the most peculiar part...this testimony of a righteousness that is not "of me"...from me, nor originated "in" me...when I see the judgment upon one such as me...and no longer can deny its "right" to exercise...that next breath...of which I know I have no right...comes remarkably freely.

Some may say...."who would ever want to live there...in that place where all of you is constantly judged?"

For me, I say I have no choice. It's just nakedly true. 

But also...the more I get to see of that "righteousness"...the more I want to see of it. It really is lovely, and remarkably engaging. And has, in that righteousness...even promised a place to forever behold it...even...yes even...for someone like me.

I am told by that righteousness...it is there for anyone to enjoy...He is there, for anyone to enjoy...if they can simply do the only thing that was impossible for them before they glimpsed it...admit they...are not...Him.

It takes two to tango. One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do.
Now comes "my" secret...the thing I always needed was to know I was not alone...and in meeting this one who is "totally" other...but has by mercy taken me in...I have a proof in myself now that there really is "another". And he is for me. And I for him.
The peculiar thing he has told me that so very few may understand...and that most will either despise or laugh at...is that "all" those other people...that "seem" to exist to a person apart from the revelation of this ONE that is totally other...are really just constrcuts in the mind...ideas of people..."trees walking" if you will...but none were ever (wife, child, mother, father) as real to me...as me.
Somehow...by getting to see him...a shell is broken...cataracts healed...and I may even be able to, as he does..."allow" that others are really as real as myself. And in that, REALLY get to know them.
All by seeing the one who would not leave me alone. Oh, how he never leaves me alone!


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 16, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> After looking at it after replying to your last comment I have a few other problems with this that I can't get past.
> 
> 
> That's largely presumptuous, or at least it seems that way, about how you feel that I've conducted my research. There's no way for you to know, because I don't have an accurate count seeing as I've lost track and haven't said as much in here, as to how many people I've talked to, or books/articles I've read, about this. Going soup to nuts and saying that I've only talked with one priest, one parent, and read a couple books is pretty dismissive.
> ...



To chose to not be tamed is a choice. It is what it is.  That religion runs very light on facts and reason one therefore could always take up tennis. The facts of what is in and what is out are facts of that game. Peace bros.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jul 16, 2013)

StriperrH, I join you in earnestly hoping you glimpse Christ's merciful glory, or behold  the epiphany, and I am strangely confident you will.  

Likewise, I agree with my forum friend JB, that all the fixin's exist for that epiphany to be received without having to experience a "scenario" as I described "playing out." Bless you JB.  

Israel again said a thing that strikes an eternal chord with me, to the effect that he needed to know he'd always been loved.  I am sorry I can't work the quotaroo on my iPad.  On the chance that such a chord is music to you, too, I would like to share another aspect of the months' long death to life struggle, er, little scenario that played out. (Oh if my appointment could have only been like
 one of the smart choosers!). 

Upon hearing a wife beseeching all men in her audience to stand strong in this 
spiritual war, to know that they were called to this time and place even though she knew it was difficult and we were being tested and pummeled, something she said triggered something deep within me, all around me, everywhere and no 
where. In an instant, forever more, and seemingly as if it always was, from before my physical birth to that moment, it was as if God himself had just communicated "See, I have always loved you." The quotation marks are real.

Perhaps all men seek this, knowingly ... blindly... 

I was so filled with contentment, and as utter joy welled up and spilled over, I saw or experienced simultaneously the recalled knowledge or images or whatever of the many hours I intentionally spent doubting and cursing God's 
designs.  As repugnant as my conduct was, and as out of place and embarrassingly shameful its odor, the joy intensely remained. At least for some time.

I have witnessed it many times since, Stripperr, in men who've laid down and stepped beyond their mere strength and other limitations to earnestly seek the truth.  They are like campfires, these witnesses, who've first seen the Light.

If you really want God to knock your socks off, which is kind of what I'm hearing, just ask Him to do it.  You don't have to curse Him and threaten your 
own life, like my little scenario.  Just take your honest discussions on this forum to Him, privately, and see what happens.  I am earnestly hopeful and interested to hear what transpires.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 17, 2013)

BT Charlie said:


> Likewise, I agree with my forum friend JB, that all the fixin's exist for that epiphany to be received without having to experience a "scenario" as I described "playing out." Bless you JB.





I learned a lot about fear and faith recently.  And, though I had faith before such a moment, I hate it that something had to shake me to prove to me what I already knew.  That's kind-of what I was getting at......faith doesn't have to be "earned" through trials.  Even though I sometimes insist on making it that way. 

I'll share that story on here sometime when appropriate.  And, believe it or not, the faith of one of this forum's members that I often disagree with really taught me a lot at that time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 17, 2013)

BT Charlie said:


> StriperrH, I join you in earnestly hoping you glimpse Christ's merciful glory, or behold  the epiphany, and I am strangely confident you will.
> 
> Likewise, I agree with my forum friend JB, that all the fixin's exist for that epiphany to be received without having to experience a "scenario" as I described "playing out." Bless you JB.
> 
> ...



That was step one. I asked Him and felt nothing in return, just silence. It could have been that I wasn't properly listening, but it felt like I was waiting with an open mind and heart.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 17, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> To chose to not be tamed is a choice. It is what it is.  That religion runs very light on facts and reason one therefore could always take up tennis. The facts of what is in and what is out are facts of that game. Peace bros.



My choice not to be tamed is in reference to man, only, and when applied to government. 

Is the second sentence an admission of an inability to fully address the questions I've brought up, and therefore an encouragement to either dismiss them or dismiss faith, entirely? 

And likewise, sincerely, peace to you as well.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 17, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That was step one. I asked Him and felt nothing in return, just silence.



Christians live by faith, not feelings.  Most people do not have a "road to Damascus" experience like Paul.  I think you're looking for something that will never happen.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 17, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My choice not to be tamed is in reference to man, only, and when applied to government.
> 
> Is the second sentence an admission of an inability to fully address the questions I've brought up, and therefore an encouragement to either dismiss them or dismiss faith, entirely?
> 
> And likewise, sincerely, peace to you as well.



Yes, in brain power, in intellect, I am your inferior...  I should have know my place from the beginning.  I am quite unable to address the questions... Perhaps this is why so may have failed.  Sorry mate...

I think your a good person. But let me put it this way, if we were studying in university I would not be in your faculty and we'd probably frequent different bars and people. The girls you'd find attractive, your ambitions, the reasonings behind your goals and motivations would probably be avoided by yours truly and visa versa I'm almost certain. And it is what it is.

 I suspect that what food I might have on my spiritual plate is just take out menu to you. And I accept this. Spiritual culture is not homogeneous. In matters spiritual I am not very refined. I'm often unshaven and my hands are often soiled. Or on a fishing trip, I'd probably be the guy to cut bait with dumb satisfaction-- while you reel them in with equal contentment. It is what it is.

We are not victims of each other; we just are true to ourselves. So I agree with you from the beginning. It is what it is.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 17, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Christians live by faith, not feelings.  Most people do not have a "road to Damascus" experience like Paul.  I think you're looking for something that will never happen.



"The road to Damascus' might just be a "reset button" in today's parlance and since reset buttons can't be proved objectively with the schemes of logic or science, the road to Damascus is probably a fiction also.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 17, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> ... the road to Damascus is probably a fiction also.



Not for Paul.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 17, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Not for Paul.


 I know and agree with Paul that it was a mystical experience. But since it is his subjective experience....well...for some it is counted as nurosis at the least.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 17, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Christians live by faith, not feelings.  Most people do not have a "road to Damascus" experience like Paul.  I think you're looking for something that will never happen.



That may be.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jul 17, 2013)

Christ followers feel, plenty.  The frozen chosen get after it once in a while. Man, even Spock had some feelings.  

Stripperr, in all seriousness,   I got a good feelin about what is ahead for you.   Some may want to parse feelings all out, but I'm livng by it. Da Debil? Doubt it.

I am praying hard that you will continue to pursue this earnestly.  Stay the course.   Press in.  Do not tire.  Revelation is ahead.

You are free from all limitations and doubt that others may wring their hands and shake their heads over.  We're free men, baby.  
Homestretch... Just chill and take your time.

Know this:  He keeps His appointments.  Tight lines! <*)))<>


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 23, 2013)

What is consciousness? If we were to put it in a soup can would we be conscious of the outside of the container sufficient that we would know to have contained it all? No. Nada. 

Consciousness is imperfect and for it there are many worlds and many heavens. It is my opinion that the word, speech, language, is the beginning and the end of it, both litterally, figuratively and spiritually.

The spiritual world is spoken into existance( by the word) just as our consciousness is and our consciousness is a child of the spiritual world and not the spiritual world a child of our creations. We are not the sole authors of our conciousness. The spiritual world is the persuit of our lives not because we create it but because it was there even before we became conscious of ourselves in it... In bible speech, "the spirit of the devine hovered over the water and God said, "Let there be light". Genesis 1;2-3 And the Gospel of John famously states 1: 1-5 In the beginning was the Word  and the Word was God...through him all things came to be. This is the paradigm of freed man and it is of this devinely created loam they are, and  on this loam they walk.

The spiritual world first is the platform of christians. Perfection is the inspiration of the devine from which we can by perspective know that our conciousness in not perfect and that love is as nessesary as red blood cells in what we call blood.

Just as our words can create, they can de-create goodness and evil. The devine, the Holy Spirit is my guide to thinking and acting with justice. It is Him that receives all the perspectives of my consiousness and it is His will that forgives, makes lively and corrects, resets, redirects when appropriate.

Now what is the portal of transendance in our worlds of consciousness, (the union of the devine conscious with the created world of men, angels, spirits, ideas, concepts, sciences, philosophies, thoughts, politics, morality, phenomenon and  noumenon)?

For this cracker it is the cross. I knock and bump against it every day. And this is for me what it is to live.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2013)

gordon 2 said:


> What is consciousness? If we were to put it in a soup can would we be conscious of the outside of the container sufficient that we would know to have contained it all? No. Nada.
> 
> Consciousness is imperfect and for it there are many worlds and many heavens. It is my opinion that the word, speech, language, is the beginning and the end of it, both litterally, figuratively and spiritually.
> 
> ...



I agree with your analogy to a consciousness stripped of the body and put into a coffee can not being able to know what is outside of it, to a certain extent. 

If you remove all sensory input from the outside of the can, and the space between the exterior and the consciousness, then I would accept that as a microcosm for religion and faith. 

I understand that faith and religion require a leap in order to be internalized. You have to accept that you don't have all the answers, and probably won't, even after you've joined the Kingdom. You'll have the ability to ask God, or the creator, I believe, but they may not answer. They also might grant you that knowledge, wholesale, upon your arrival. 

Going back to the setup, the consciousness in a can analogy, I believe that the consciousness could infer that there is a world beyond its confines but it would be fallacy to try to speak about it factually, rather than in speculation. In other words the consciousness could use terms like "I feel," or "I believe," but would have to stop short of saying "I KNOW," simply because of the presence of the veil. 

Likewise, there is little way to say "I KNOW" with regards to religion or faith and be able to convince anyone else of it. 

Tommy Lee Jones said it best in Men in Black:



> Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody *knew* the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody *knew* the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you *knew* that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.



Ignoring the dumb, panicky section because I am not trying to insult anyone here and it has nothing to do with my point, the rest of it pretty accurately describes my views on both of our positions. 

They didn't *know* that the Earth was flat; they believed it. 

They didn't *know* that the earth was the center of the universe; they believed it. 

Belief and knowledge are two totally different things. Belief is internal. Knowledge is, at least implicated to be, fact-based and demonstrable. 

Case in point, I *know* that the sun will rise tomorrow because the rate of rotation of the earth has been accurately measured, as has the hydrogen content of the sun. Therefore the sun will be burning tomorrow and the earth will rotate on its axis to present our side to it, again. 

I don't *know* that there is a creator responsible for any of that, but I believe that there is one, I just don't know Him by His name, yet.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 5, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Tommy Lee Jones said it best in Men in Black:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your faith is obviously greater than mine.  There are far more examples of man being wrong than of man being right.  Assuming that hydrogen is correct, that’s pretty unstable stuff, she might blow any time.  But like you, I believe the sun will probably rise tomorrow.

I was told in elementary school that man had started using fire 10,000 years ago, based on evidence found in a cave in China.  Some fifty years later I was told that new evidence indicated that man started using fire 18,000 years ago, replacing the previous estimate of 10,000 years, which was based on a burned bone found on a ledge in a rift in China and could have been the result of a wild fire and displacement by an animal.


----------



## Israel (Aug 6, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree with your analogy to a consciousness stripped of the body and put into a coffee can not being able to know what is outside of it, to a certain extent.
> 
> If you remove all sensory input from the outside of the can, and the space between the exterior and the consciousness, then I would accept that as a microcosm for religion and faith.
> 
> ...



We all, either admittedly...or by many refusals...respond to our name.

Yeah...that's me.

or


No no no...you got the wrong guy. You really really got the wrong guy...


Our response is generally dependent to a great extent by our expectation of the motive of the one calling us.


----------

