# Scientism



## ambush80 (Jul 22, 2019)

In response to a post I made where I said "If science discovers that evolution isn't happening that's fine with me.  If they find out that Relativity is wrong that's fine with me, too.  If they find out that Jesus walked on water that's fine with me.  That would be cool." Hummerpoo PMed me this, which he said I could share:

"Reading this this morning sent me on an inquiry into my understanding of scientism.  Among the things I found was:

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

Being a natural skeptic, I then set out to find a response, or if necessary a polemic, to the essay.  That failing I went looking for a good review.  Sadly, the best review I found was:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-folly-of-the-folly-of-scientism/

The unfortunately narrow and unimaginative approach of the best I found is typified by:

"Hughes makes lots of fancy-pants talk about Quine, philosophy, and positivism, but in the end his essay is a dog’s breakfast that leaves the reader with no idea of what the “other ways of knowing” really are, and what questions they have actually answered."

The tropisms "really are" and "actually answered" only proving the narrow and unimaginative mindset, or capabilities, of the author.

Disappointing as this little adventure has been, I thought to perhaps save a little by sharing it with you in hopes that you might find in it something of interest. "

Both the article and the retort were very good reads (the retort a bit less so) and they brought up many points that we discuss.  I took some notes which I'll share after I process them a bit.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 22, 2019)

First I will say that I agree with many of the shortcomings of the scientific method that Hughes describes.  Here are some quotes from the blog that stood out to me.   I'll just throw them out with my initial thoughts:

_Though these arguments may do some work in evading the conclusion that our universe is fine-tuned with us in mind,_

"Fine-tuned with us in mind".  That seems like a bit of an assumption and can be argued against.  
_
Either we must introduce meta-meta-laws, and so on in infinite regression, or we must hold that the meta-laws themselves are necessary — and so we have in effect just changed our understanding of what the fundamental universe is to one that contains many universes. In that case, we are still left without ultimate explanations as to why that universe exists or has the characteristics it does._

It's "turtles all the way down" or one asserts an un-caused cause. Hughes never does this himself but refers to Aquinas who does make that assertion.  I have to admit I still don't understand why Aquinas requires an un-caused cause, particularly one with a consciousness or intentions. Sounds as good as anyone else's guess.
_
While it may be plausible to imagine a fitness advantage to simple skills of classification and counting, it is very hard to see such an advantage to DNA sequence analysis or quantum theory._

Quantum theory has proven useful and practical for GPS and predicting cosmological events.  Here are a few insights from Nicolas Christakis about modern advancements in technology and how they may affect evolution.  It's the first thing they talk about:


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 22, 2019)

I'm gonna break them up so they don't get lost.

_But there is little reason to suppose that natural selection would have favored the ability or desire to perceive the truth in all cases, rather than just some useful approximation of it._

Here is Bret Weinstein challenging Richard Dawkins on Phenotypes, which I think relates to Hughes's statement:






If I understand Weinstein's position correctly, I believe that he says there's a kind of truth which is untrue but is effective enough to call it true.  Here's Sam and Bret discussing it:


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 22, 2019)

_We might still grant Harris’s assumption that neuroscience will someday reveal, in great biochemical and physiological detail, a set of factors highly associated with a sense of well-being. Even so, there would be limitations on how much this knowledge would advance human happiness. For comparison, we know a quite a lot about the physiology of digestion, and we are able to describe in great detail the physiological differences between the digestive system of a person who is starving and that of a person who has just eaten a satisfying and nutritionally balanced meal. But this knowledge contributes little to solving world hunger. This is because the factor that makes the difference — that is, the meal — comes from outside the person. Unless the factors causing our well-being come primarily from within, and are totally independent of what happens in our environment, Harris’s project will not be the key to achieving universal well-being._

I don't understand Hughes's analogy of "the meal".  He first seems to be talking about understanding digestion (I think we should try to understand it) then he says that that knowledge is useless for solving hunger.  Duh.  This reminded me of how we sometimes discuss different hypotheses of how and why religions or beliefs in gods developed.  Those inquiries wont tell us how to live a good life but they might show us why those ideas are so durable in the psyche.  That knowledge can help people interact better.  In a similar way, knowledge of digestion might help solve hunger if it leads to better food production either in creating more nutritious food or more easily digested food. 


_Unsurprisingly, Harris, an atheist polemicist, fails to acknowledge any studies that have supported a spiritual or religious component in happiness.)_

I'm pretty sure this is patently false as I can probably find where Harris cites studies that show that religious people claim to be happier, are more fulfilled, die better, and are healthier than atheists.  Since Hughes seems to think that it's useful to point out that Harris is an atheist perhaps it's useful to point out that Hughes has criticized a writer in the past for not giving the Flood story "proper consideration".  I suppose we should know where the ideas we are discussing are coming from and who the people are presenting them. 

_He does not explain the origin of these thoughts nor how their origin relates to moral choices._

I'm pretty sure Harris has said many times that the origins of thoughts are mysterious.  I like how these guys talk about the origins of thoughts:






Closer To Truth is one of my favorite programs

https://www.closertotruth.com/

The most significant part of the retort is this, which I agree with:

_The big problem with Hughes’s essay is that despite his claim that there are other ways of apprehending truth beyond science—ways that involve the three areas of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology—he gives not a single example of a question that those disciplines have answered._


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 22, 2019)

I don't actually know anybody that I would consider a practitioner of scientism.  There are questions that science can answer and some that it can't.  All of the things in my quote "If science discovers that evolution isn't happening that's fine with me.  If they find out that Relativity is wrong that's fine with me, too.  If they find out that Jesus walked on water that's fine with me.  That would be cool." can be answered by science.  They're not philosophical issues.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 22, 2019)

The claim that the universe is made with us in mind always strikes me as absurd considering how vast the space and time is which is inhospitable to our existence.


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2019)

Observation nullifying to premise.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 23, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The claim that the universe is made with us in mind always strikes me as absurd considering how vast the space and time is which is inhospitable to our existence.



It's not made with us in mind as foremost. It's made with Himself in mind.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 23, 2019)

welderguy said:


> It's not made with us in mind as foremost. It's made with Himself in mind.
> 
> The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork.



Ok 

That’s a fitting claim I suppose now that we know the firmament doesn’t actually exist.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Ok
> 
> That’s a fitting claim I suppose now that we know the firmament doesn’t actually exist.



Firmament --an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.

hmmmm...so you're telling us that the expanse of the visible sky doesn't exist. Lol. Profound.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Firmament --an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.
> 
> hmmmm...so you're telling us that the expanse of the visible sky doesn't exist. Lol. Profound.



"...And God called the firmament Heaven."
Are you saying sky and heaven are the same thing?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 24, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Firmament --an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.
> 
> hmmmm...so you're telling us that the expanse of the visible sky doesn't exist. Lol. Profound.




It's not just the sky. It's the understanding of the nature of that sky that they got wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

https://biologos.org/articles/the-f...MI_6nm9JvO4wIV2f_jBx0X3wWqEAAYASAAEgJGvPD_BwE

So we are to believe the people who wrote the bible got the nature of the cosmos wrong but got it's origin right?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It's not just the sky. It's the understanding of the nature of that sky that they got wrong.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament
> 
> ...



The fact that man gets anything accurate is a wonder in itself. That's irrelevant to what I stated. It doesn't matter what man thinks, God said His firmament shows His handiwork. Everything else is moot.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 24, 2019)

660griz said:


> "...And God called the firmament Heaven."
> Are you saying sky and heaven are the same thing?



News flash.
There's three heavens in the Bible.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 24, 2019)

welderguy said:


> The fact that man gets anything accurate is a wonder in itself. That's irrelevant to what I stated. It doesn't matter what man thinks, God said His firmament shows His handiwork. Everything else is moot.



It was man that wrote that. The same men who thought the sky was a solid dome.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It was man that wrote that. The same men who thought the sky was a solid dome.



Again, it's irrelevant what man thinks. It is God breathed.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 24, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Again, it's irrelevant what man thinks. It is God breathed.



Man thought the firmament was the work of their deity. Glad we agree what they think is irrelevant.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Man thought the firmament was the work of their deity. Glad we agree what they think is irrelevant.



Exactly. Even when man gets it right, it's still irrelevant .
Hense, "let God be true and every man a liar."


----------



## Israel (Jul 25, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Exactly. Even when man gets it right, it's still irrelevant .
> Hense, "let God be true and every man a liar."



YIKES! You kicked that door...down!


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Exactly. Even when man gets it right, it's still irrelevant .
> Hense, "let God be true and every man a liar."



You in the habit of quoting things you think are irrelevant as if they are authoritatively true? We know they got at least part of the claim wrong and there is no evidence to support the part you think they got right. If they were really speaking for an all knowing being they shouldn’t have got any of it wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You in the habit of quoting things you think are irrelevant as if they are authoritatively true? We know they got at least part of the claim wrong and there is no evidence to support the part you think they got right. If they were really speaking for an all knowing being they shouldn’t have got any of it wrong.


Those writers didn't understand their invisible buddy like Welder understands his. Only the parts Welder agrees with is correct, all the other stuff is the fault of those writers. 

I wonder why Sky Guy has not contacted and inspired Welder to officially set the record strait?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 25, 2019)

welderguy said:


> News flash.
> There's three heavens in the Bible.


Focus Grasshopper.
Are you saying sky and heaven are the same thing?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You in the habit of quoting things you think are irrelevant as if they are authoritatively true? We know they got at least part of the claim wrong and there is no evidence to support the part you think they got right. If they were really speaking for an all knowing being they shouldn’t have got any of it wrong.



Never said God's word was irrelevant. You did in so many words. You believe  the Bible is totally man-inspired. I believe it is totally God-inspired. That is our disconnect here. Don't put your words into my mouth.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2019)

660griz said:


> Focus Grasshopper.
> Are you saying sky and heaven are the same thing?



When referring to the first heaven in the Bible, then yes, it is same as saying sky.
(I see you still don't quite grasp the concept of the three heavens)


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Those writers didn't understand their invisible buddy like Welder understands his. Only the parts Welder agrees with is correct, all the other stuff is the fault of those writers.
> 
> I wonder why Sky Guy has not contacted and inspired Welder to officially set the record strait?



.... speaking of irrelevancy...


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Never said God's word was irrelevant. You did in so many words. You believe  the Bible is totally man-inspired. I believe it is totally God-inspired. That is our disconnect here. Don't put your words into my mouth.



The Bible was written by men. It is the words of men. And it got the nature of the sky wrong. Turns out there is no firmament as the authors of the Bible believed. Ever read the story of the Tower of Babel? Notice how it says the lord “came down” to see what the people were doing? Down from where exactly? From the heavens they were attempting to reach? Also notice the response. It says they are of one language and “nothing will be impossible for them”. This indicates what they had set out to  do, to build a tower that would reach the heavens, was possible and it concerned god. Shouldn’t have. We now know there is nothing up there but atmosphere and space. A god that knew this would have known what they set out to do was not possible. But this god didn’t know that or to state it more accurately the people telling this story didn’t know that. They got it wrong. What they claimed we now know wasn’t true. If they were really speaking at the behest of a deity (and why would a deity need anyone to speak for them?) then the message from that deity is untrue. So what is more likely? That god got men to lie on his behalf? Or ignorant men made up stories that aren’t true?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The Bible was written by men. It is the words of men. And it got the nature of the sky wrong. Turns out there is no firmament as the authors of the Bible believed. Ever read the story of the Tower of Babel? Notice how it says the lord “came down” to see what the people were doing? Down from where exactly? From the heavens they were attempting to reach? Also notice the response. It says they are of one language and “nothing will be impossible for them”. This indicates what they had set out to  do, to build a tower that would reach the heavens, was possible and it concerned god. Shouldn’t have. We now know there is nothing up there but atmosphere and space. A god that knew this would have known what they set out to do was not possible. But this god didn’t know that or to state it more accurately the people telling this story didn’t know that. They got it wrong. What they claimed we now know wasn’t true. If they were really speaking at the behest of a deity (and why would a deity need anyone to speak for them?) then the message from that deity is untrue. So what is more likely? That god got men to lie on his behalf? Or ignorant men made up stories that aren’t true?


Why did he have to come down too see what they were doing if he is everywhere at all times?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

welderguy said:


> When referring to the first heaven in the Bible, then yes, it is same as saying sky.
> (I see you still don't quite grasp the concept of the three heavens)



Tell us more about these three heavens.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The Bible was written by men. It is the words of men. And it got the nature of the sky wrong. Turns out there is no firmament as the authors of the Bible believed. Ever read the story of the Tower of Babel? Notice how it says the lord “came down” to see what the people were doing? Down from where exactly? From the heavens they were attempting to reach? Also notice the response. It says they are of one language and “nothing will be impossible for them”. This indicates what they had set out to  do, to build a tower that would reach the heavens, was possible and it concerned god. Shouldn’t have. We now know there is nothing up there but atmosphere and space. A god that knew this would have known what they set out to do was not possible. But this god didn’t know that or to state it more accurately the people telling this story didn’t know that. They got it wrong. What they claimed we now know wasn’t true. If they were really speaking at the behest of a deity (and why would a deity need anyone to speak for them?) then the message from that deity is untrue. So what is more likely? That god got men to lie on his behalf? Or ignorant men made up stories that aren’t true?



The tower of Babel was a failure of man. But not a failure of God.  It's like the old preacher said one time, " God can hit a straight lick with a crooked stick".

Simply stated, man is nothing, God is everything.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

welderguy said:


> The tower of Babel was a failure of man. But not a failure of God.  It's like the old preacher said one time, " God can hit a straight lick with a crooked stick".
> 
> Simply stated, man is nothing, God is everything.



Of course. God is never responsible for anything. Not even the contents of the Bible that is claimed to be his message to man. The point remains that the authors got it wrong. Building a tower to heaven is impossible, yet the god of the Old Testament didn’t know that.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Why did he have to come down too see what they were doing if he is everywhere at all times?



He doeth whatsoever He desires, however He desires to do it. And He also chooses how to relate His actions to us. He can relate as physical or He can relate as spiritual. Or even do both simultaneously. He can make something from nothing, and does quite frequently.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Of course. God is never responsible for anything. Not even the contents of the Bible that is claimed to be his message to man. The point remains that the authors got it wrong. Building a tower to heaven is impossible, yet the god of the Old Testament didn’t know that.



There's a ladder to heaven. ?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2019)

welderguy said:


> He doeth whatsoever He desires, however He desires to do it. And He also chooses how to relate His actions to us. He can relate as physical or He can relate as spiritual. Or even do both simultaneously. He can make something from nothing, and does quite frequently.


He sees you when you're sleeping,  he knows when you're awake....
We know the song welder...

I love that your god can do everything but exist.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2019)

Is there a different way to consider the idea of "firmament"?  Is there a way to think of it philosophically or metaphorically?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

welderguy said:


> He doeth whatsoever He desires, however He desires to do it. And He also chooses how to relate His actions to us. He can relate as physical or He can relate as spiritual. Or even do both simultaneously. He can make something from nothing, and does quite frequently.



In other words that part was just theatrics to maintain the deception that heaven was up in the sky somewhere. Just like the ascensions to heaven. Gotta keep up appearances.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Is there a different way to consider the idea of "firmament"?  Is there a way to think of it philosophically or metaphorically?



Retreat into metaphor doesn’t change the original intent and understanding of the term. And if that original meaning had comported with reality as claimed no alterations would be necessary.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Retreat into metaphor doesn’t change the original intent and understanding of the term. And if that original meaning had comported with reality as claimed no alterations would be necessary.



I'm thinking more of how we used to understand atoms.  Even the Greeks thought that there were "elements" or "smaller building blocks" of all matter.  They didn't really know that but they guessed kinda right.  In grade school we were told that atoms were like balls and sticks.  That was kind of like reality.  The use of the word "firmament" could be thought of like the Greeks primitive use of "particle", or whatever they called it.  There was some utility in thinking about atoms as balls and sticks, too.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'm thinking more of how we used to understand atoms.  Even the Greeks thought that there were "elements" or "smaller building blocks" of all matter.  They didn't really know that but they guessed kinda right.  In grade school we were told that atoms were like balls and sticks.  That was kind of like reality.  The use of the word "firmament" could be thought of like the Greeks primitive use of "particle", or whatever they called it.  There was some utility in thinking about atoms as balls and sticks, too.



Why bother trying to transform the meaning to fit with what we now know? The firmament as originally understood doesn’t exist. If they had guessed right it still wouldn’t necessarily prove their assertion of its origin correct. But that they didn’t guess right proves the source of their claimed knowledge was not some inerrant revelation.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Why bother trying to transform the meaning to fit with what we now know? The firmament as originally understood doesn’t exist. If they had guessed right it still wouldn’t necessarily prove their assertion of its origin correct. But that they didn’t guess right proves the source of their claimed knowledge was not some inerrant revelation.



I can forgive the Greeks for not knowing what atoms are.  I admire them for coming up with a notion that's quite like the reality we understand now.  Intuitions or visions are still mysterious.  They called them what they thought they were, supernatural.  In a sense they are still supernatural.  Consciousness is still very much a mystery.  They might have actually been correct that their inspiration for the text came from "god".  They just might not have understood that concept as well as we do now.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I can forgive the Greeks for not knowing what atoms are.  I admire them for coming up with a notion that's quite like the reality we understand now.  Intuitions or visions are still mysterious.  They called them what they thought they were, supernatural.  In a sense they are still supernatural.  Consciousness is still very much a mystery.  They might have actually been correct that their inspiration for the text came from "god".  They just might not have understood that concept as well as we do now.



It seems logical that you could divide something down to a point where it was no longer divisible. It would also seem logical that the sky were a dome placed over a fixed earth with stars attached that could fall to the earth. Not a bad first attempt at explaining what we observe. The problem is when you attach claims of divinely inspired revelation to it. When you do that you surrender the ability to claim human fallibility. You destroy your own credibility when those claims are eventually put to the test and don’t hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2019)

Don’t tell me the Bible is the work of fallible men who sometimes got it wrong and then in the next breath tell me it’s the inerrant word of god.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It seems logical that you could divide something down to a point where it was no longer divisible. It would also seem logical that the sky were a dome placed over a fixed earth with stars attached that could fall to the earth. Not a bad first attempt at explaining what we observe. The problem is when you attach claims of divinely inspired revelation to it. When you do that you surrender the ability to claim human fallibility. You destroy your own credibility when those claims are eventually put to the test and don’t hold up to scrutiny.



I absolutely agree with you.  What if we looked at a phrase like "In the beginning. God created the Heavens and the Earth" and examine it like we do the Greek notion of "particles".  If we grant that they don't know much about the actual workings of the physical world, is there anything useful about that phrase?  If what Hughes said is true, that science isn't all there is, maybe some questions are better posed as metaphysical or philosophical problems.  I have to admit, when I listen to philosophers talk about consciousness, I get a sense that they're intellectually dog paddling like Greek 'Physicists".


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Don’t tell me the Bible is the work of fallible men who sometimes got it wrong and then in the next breath tell me it’s the inerrant word of god.



There may be a sublimity to the paradox of a claim like "Even the words of heretics are for His glory".  I'm attempting to squeeze everything that might possibly useful out of Biblical text.


----------



## Israel (Jul 26, 2019)

Squeeze away.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 26, 2019)

welderguy said:


> When referring to the first heaven in the Bible, then yes, it is same as saying sky.
> (I see you still don't quite grasp the concept of the three heavens)


You got me. 
I don't grasp the concept of three heavens. Of course, there is a lot about religion I don't grasp the concept of.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 28, 2019)

660griz said:


> You got me.
> I don't grasp the concept of three heavens. Of course, there is a lot about religion I don't grasp the concept of.



I appreciate your honesty in that.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jul 31, 2019)

Debunking the Myth That Science Disproves the Bible

Read the above link.  It was co-authored by a husband and wife.  The husband has a PhD in Physics from MIT.  The wife has a PhD in Physics from Harvard.  They are Bible-believing Christians.


----------



## Israel (Aug 1, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Debunking the Myth That Science Disproves the Bible
> 
> Read the above link.  It was co-authored by a husband and wife.  The husband has a PhD in Physics from MIT.  The wife has a PhD in Physics from Harvard.  They are Bible-believing Christians.


Gotta love a guy who hand loads in shirt and tie.


----------



## Israel (Aug 1, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Debunking the Myth That Science Disproves the Bible
> 
> Read the above link.  It was co-authored by a husband and wife.  The husband has a PhD in Physics from MIT.  The wife has a PhD in Physics from Harvard.  They are Bible-believing Christians.


From the link above:

"Occam’s razor (and similar appeals to simplicity, often called parsimony) is a philosophical preference, not an epistemological principle, and certainly not a scientific result. Strictly followed, Occam’s razor demands that we accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. So why should we be so sure that the simplest theories are the right ones?

We shouldn’t. Science has a preference for the simplest explanations that are consistent with the data, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data becomes available."


Well said MessianicMichael.

The arrival at the simplicity of truth is demonstrated through a quite complex, yet patiently demonstrated set of circumstances that ultimately disclose the self is the sole (soul?) trickster, and that indeed God is not.

By all _seeming evidence_ this man had every right in position of experience to say this:

And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? 
And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
*And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. *


But God said unto him, _Thou_ fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?



We may also learn to not be presumptuous in any assumption of this man's end.
In a moment of what he had never, and could never, by _his own experience_ account for...was speaking to him. To a waking up in truth, and in that with _a question._

Every man with "ear to ground" hears approaching hoof beats, and every man is self convinced that for all and every other it is the approach of the horses of death...but of himself yet looks for Zebras. Or unicorns. Who alone can wake such up?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Debunking the Myth That Science Disproves the Bible
> 
> Read the above link.  It was co-authored by a husband and wife.  The husband has a PhD in Physics from MIT.  The wife has a PhD in Physics from Harvard.  They are Bible-believing Christians.


I agree to a point. Science can and has debunked the parts of the bible that it is able to.
Science cannot debunk what has never been factual. Fiction exists in the mind of the individual. The individual is able to turn that fiction into a story. Other individuals can imagine any and all types of different meanings from such a story. They do it in manners that suit themselves. That is why no two believers have the same beliefs despite having the stories right in front of them.
It is as impossible to debunk imagination as it is to prove a negative.
Faith is the belief in something that you can never know is true. Science cannot debunk imagination.

I find it amazing that the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims,  the Hindus etc etc etc are all convinced they are all members of the one true and right religion. How can science debunk those thoughts? Facts are not part of equation.

Science cannot debunk what people believe, but what people believe is not necessarily or always factual and true.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 3, 2019)

There is no science apart from philosophy.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Aug 3, 2019)

Israel said:


> Gotta love a guy who hand loads in shirt and tie.



That's an old picture from when I served as Director of the Forensic Science Program at Western Carolina University.  Yes, I had a ballistics lab on campus.



Israel said:


> From the link above:
> 
> "Occam’s razor (and similar appeals to simplicity, often called parsimony) is a philosophical preference, not an epistemological principle, and certainly not a scientific result. Strictly followed, Occam’s razor demands that we accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. So why should we be so sure that the simplest theories are the right ones?
> 
> We shouldn’t. Science has a preference for the simplest explanations that are consistent with the data, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data becomes available."



Our related treatment of Occam's Razor in a peer-reviewed paper has been widely cited.  See:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4932.pdf 





bullethead said:


> I agree to a point. Science can and has debunked the parts of the bible that it is able to.



One inherent limitation of science is that it cannot test claims of supernatural events.  Science assumes that the laws of nature are constant; therefore, it cannot possibly test whether any purported "miracle" actually occurred without creating an invalid, circular argument.

Consequently, any claim that science has disproven some miracle described in the Bible is invalid.  This includes important miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus, the six day creation, and the flood during the time of Noah.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> That's an old picture from when I served as Director of the Forensic Science Program at Western Carolina University.  Yes, I had a ballistics lab on campus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No need to disprove supposed miracles when so much of the non miracle "word of god" has been disproven.
Miracles exist. They are unexplainable. Rightfully so. Resurrection is a story which contains a miracle which happened no where but in that story.

The flood event as told in the bible was a localized flood. No miracle.

6 day creation. Hardly
Other gods created in One day. Is that a better miracle? Or similar folklore?


----------



## Israel (Aug 4, 2019)

I am reminded of Hitchen's stance regarding the miraculous, and his apparent nod to "Occam's razor" in the following portion of a debate recorded some years ago.

I am not scandalized by his position in these _particular_ matters. Nor do I sense reason insulted at all by what could be inferred to be his derogation of the thing he describes as the "infinitely expanding tautology". I am more persuaded, especially in light of what Gem has written above



> There is no science apart from philosophy.



that Hitchen's merely argued from complete ignorance of his own _tautological persuasions _in the consciousness of his knowing.

The Cartesian influences are profound, yet not made so by Descarte's statement, but a recognition of the estate of man, which remains as erroneously applied, as has been for their eons. Of which Descarte merely recognized and formulated to discrete statement. "I think, therefore I am".

The erroneous inference which _every man_ makes (until he does not) which might have been better served as a helpful observation of truth by "I poop, therefore I am" or equally "I do not poop, therefore I am" is now declared. In short, being is not, and cannot be determined in any _exclusive activity_.

Why do I not expect the ready adoption of "I poop therefore I am" or "I do not poop, therefore I am"? Because it does not _lend itself_ to a vanity whereby wrong inference can be so universally applied and embraced, as is plainly done. Foolish men (of which I count myself _the honor_ in company) love the lending of "I think therefore I am" to the vanity of: "therefore, the _more_ I think I think, the greater is my establishment _in being_". And I appear here amongst the most foolish of all men (of which my manifest presence testifies to such greatness of _my own_ foolishness) of the "better thinkers", the _more intelligent. _Yet...each of us has _no more being _than a rock. But O! we surely love to imagine we do. One need only look_ at me_!

My appearance here among the _smart_ zinc, sodium, carbon, nitrogen, chlorines, amines, proteins, etc. is more as one rich in mercaptans, but, having no less nor more being than any other. I am simply in expulsion of digested matter among what "prepares a dish" in the conferring of being upon itself...and speaks it out by _its thinking._ Setting a _mean table_, yo. Make no mistake, bros, "I be pickin' up what 'y'all be layin' down, dig?" I can't help at all, nor would if I could (any longer) try to convince _smart organic compounds _of any folly, it is after all...just a tautology, plain. You just smell my digestions. Plain.

I would like to poot in no less brilliance than your own. Alas, I cannot.

But I do wish that someone would have said to Hitchens that he hewed as close to Jesus' words as any man I have ever heard in the matter of faith. Whew! But doesn't that "wish" surely stink! What an odor! For there is only One who can show how close any man is to Jesus, no matter how far he may try and distance himself...or even try...to _come closer. _Both are as impossible to smart organic compounds as the plainness of securing its own being remains by its own will_ to think._

Jesus heard a conversation and spoke it. Do you hear conversations? Do you "speak of them?"

Jesus heard a man in torment being spoken to by a man not in torment. He was now pleading for his bothers to not come to the place to which he had come. He wanted "the better" for them. Little could he know, his very torment was in an expression of _his own estate in thinking so wrongly. _It cannot be but so. He thought a seeing of the miraculous would "do it". He thought if one could just see "enough" of natural order suspended...or interrupted...this would provide..."proof!" This would provide relief from ignorance of, to "good" faith toward. But, Hitchens agrees with Abraham. The seeing of _cannot convert_ the inward of. There is something more necessary for the inward...which no man can ever make himself see, show to another, or cause another...to know. And because Hitchens himself declared this himself...that_ nothing he could grant _would ever be enough "for him", I understand why _my wish_ stinks so.
Someone is already...at work...apart _from all my wishes._

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that _would come_ from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

What lives in the "infinitely expanding tautology" knows it can never cross over from where it lives in "Because God" to where some proof is being demanded by smart organic compounds, mistakenly believing their sight will be sufficiently enlightened if another can demonstrate "God, because..."

We can all stop pretense.

Even smart organic compounds can be found forgiven...of their own thinking.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2019)

Someone walk me through the process by which one determines that the miracles described in the Bible actually happened?  If we can't use science to confirm them, what is the basis for believing them?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 6, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Someone walk me through the process by which one determines that the miracles described in the Bible actually happened?  If we can't use science to confirm them, what is the basis for believing them?



It is not a process, it is simply a gift.


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2019)

Why would any have a care as to the _trueness_ of any particular event or lack thereof apart from a conviction of the reality of God?

Do not misinterpret the above to be saying any consideration is "off limits" _until_...such and such; it is a question.

How can such a thing as truth even be brought to consideration of any matter by a thing that has (_if_ it is_ most_ persuaded by what is commonly called "science") rested upon its being no more than some randomly arranged elements to whatever proportions it _believes _it discerns. Let the one whose _all of owing_ in his consciousness is to time and chance abide there. If these are to him truly his paternity, let him worship the father who is running out. For he is undeniably running out of both time, and opportunity/chance. He has nothing except what is running out. (to him who has more shall be given, to him who_ has not _even that _which he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him)

Discerning...judging...having _conviction of _is ample to every man. And here the clever man wants to speak. "Even your own so called holy book says man is no more than dust of the earth, an arrangements of elements, compounds of dirt [discovered] and water so that man is no more than these". Yes. This has _been known_. This has been written. So if truth is known and written before "the science" proved it, will the science now dissuade away from all else written? Judge for yourself. If one is merely dust yet un-breathed upon and into knowing by another (that One whom many say _their science_ has found lacking), then abide as collection of dust. Be the very wisest of elements. Be that bag of dust (which I have heard sells for about 5$) and some measure of water. But then do not be amazed at how cheaply one is bought and sold.

But, if that man or any man, may look at that bag and there judge himself somehow different, distinct, of nature not all and only the equal of (_in his judgment, his perception, his consciousness and discerning) _he is now in _all ways _made responsible to his knowing. Does he _really believe _he is no more than that bag of dust...that _his science _"proves" he only is? Be true. That is, if such a bag of dust now wants to speak of matters of truth. What is. What_ is not_. A lovely brother once said "then keep to your niche".

That _I know_ a bag of dust _may discern _consciousness, and therein desire _it all_ to itself, no other bag of dust can dissuade from. This too, _is already written. _And also, no less,_ proved _in experimentation_. _What may find my experiments lacking...is allowed. What may find my experiments thoughtless is no less, allowed. What finds _my science_ deficient, is appointed _to me _for the proving. It is _that way_.

So, if some bag of organic compounds truly wants to know if there may be more "to it" than might be displayed on a chemist's shelf, then that knowing of where such desire originates, that tasting of a conscious will "to know"...I am_ in knowing _that every such step is as guided to a purposed end by the one who _is of all purpose_.

Why demand another show you a thing whose proof is in yourself? Unless one loves more of quarreling than truth. To seek a triumph over some other bag of chemicals.
I also have the results of those experiments. And the end of those bags...is already written, too.

Let each "keep to his niche"


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2019)

Israel said:


> Why would any have a care as to the _trueness_ of any particular event or lack thereof apart from a conviction of the reality of God?
> 
> Do not misinterpret the above to be saying any consideration is "off limits" _until_...such and such; it is a question.
> 
> ...


Because such things have been written in a book that is suspect, error filled, embellished  and full of down right untruths it leaves itself open to be questioned,scrutinized and seen for what it is and is not.


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Because such things have been written in a book that is suspect, error filled, embellished  and full of down right untruths it leaves itself open to be questioned,scrutinized and seen for what it is and is not.


How much more apparent would you like to be?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2019)

Israel said:


> How much more apparent would you like to be?


As much as the rest


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2019)

you are ample.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Someone walk me through the process by which one determines that the miracles described in the Bible actually happened?  If we can't use science to confirm them, what is the basis for believing them?



That determination is a potentiality for all; it is an actuality for some.

See our previous discussion about "Pulp Fiction".


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2019)

No process walkthrough even attempted.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2019)

welderguy said:


> It is not a process, it is simply a gift.



The act or giving and being bestowed a gift is a process.  Your answer should have been "The process is that God grants some with a gift and not others".


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> That determination is a potentiality for all; it is an actuality for some.
> 
> See our previous discussion about "Pulp Fiction".



I remember the Pulp Fiction discussion.  There would be a way to forensically show, with those fancy red dowels,  that the bullets didn't go though Vincent and Jules but around them. Similarly, I have asked people to offer theories as to how one might walk on water.  None were given.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I remember the Pulp Fiction discussion.  There would be a way to forensically show, with those fancy red dowels,  that the bullets didn't go though Vincent and Jules but around them. Similarly, I have asked people to offer theories as to how one might walk on water.  None were given.


"Don't you see, Vince.  "That s___ don't mater.  You're judging this s___ the wrong way ..."


----------



## welderguy (Aug 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> The act or giving and being bestowed a gift is a process.  Your answer should have been "The process is that God grants some with a gift and not others".



My point is that we are not active in it, but rather passive. But I think you knew that.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2019)

There


hummerpoo said:


> "Don't you see, Vince.  "That s___ don't mater.  You're judging this s___ the wrong way ..."


Does anyone else find it Ironic that a fictional movie with Fiction in it's title is used as some sort of example for Religion/God/Bible/Miracles?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 7, 2019)

Does Scientism somehow blind one to artistic expression?  Or is it something else?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Does Scientism somehow blind one to artistic expression?  Or is it something else?


Nothing compared to how Facts and Evidence elude Apologists.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2019)

welderguy said:


> My point is that we are not active in it, but rather passive. But I think you knew that.



Then you should have said "It's a supernatural process that defies description".


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> "Don't you see, Vince.  "That s___ don't mater.  You're judging this s___ the wrong way ..."



I didn't think Jules nor Vincent seemed all that bright.  If the red dowels showed that the kid just missed then Jules should be able to infer something from the evidence.  I think many people do what Jules does and interprets a phenomenon without critically analyzing it.  I have a friend who hears sounds in an old house and jumps straight to "haints" as an explanation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I didn't think Jules nor Vincent seemed all that bright.  If the red dowels showed that the kid just missed then Jules should be able to infer something from the evidence.  I think many people do what Jules does and interprets a phenomenon without critically analyzing it.  I have a friend who hears sounds in an old house and jumps straight to "haints" as an explanation.


If that were truly the way your mind works you would believe in the Big Bad Wolf. 
If you truly believed that the intellectual level of the characters was a factor the Gentle Giant would always be the bad guy.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> If that were truly the way your mind works you would believe in the Big Bad Wolf.
> If you truly believed that the intellectual level of the characters was a factor the Gentle Giant would always be the bad guy.



I'm sorry.  I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Aug 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Someone walk me through the process by which one determines that the miracles described in the Bible actually happened?  If we can't use science to confirm them, what is the basis for believing them?



According to Scripture, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

The resurrection of Jesus is itself the proof - "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”  Acts 17:31

Scripture is not the same as other written claims.  It has the power to impart the faith needed for belief, and the Holy Spirit adds his testimony to the truth of Scripture.  Scripture also describes people of noble character searching the Scriptures to see if the proclamation of Christ's resurrection is true.

Once Scripture does its work of imparting faith to the hearer, the hearer may receive additional confirmations by experiencing power over sin, deliverance, healing, miracles, fulfilled prophecies, etc.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> According to Scripture, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."
> 
> The resurrection of Jesus is itself the proof - "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”  Acts 17:31
> 
> ...



Thanks for that.  Really, thank you for taking the question seriously.

Do you see how that might seem incredibly subjective to someone who hasn't received what you seem to describe as a very personal experience?  There are places where subjectivity and objectivity intersect.  How should one who hasn't experienced revelation (that's the best word I can think of to call what you describe) consider the claim of revelation?  Should we just believe those claiming revelation?  It's quite a different thing to say "I believe you believe you saw a ghost" than to say "I believe you saw a ghost".  Don't you think that the level of analysis required to say "I saw a ghost" can be questioned and in turn might reflect on how that person analyses other things?


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Similarly, I have asked people to offer theories as to how one might walk on water.  None were given.


By controlling the resistance.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> According to Scripture, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."
> 
> The resurrection of Jesus is itself the proof - "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”  Acts 17:31
> 
> ...


So,  is it fair to say that from the religious texts Faith in other holy books is equally as strong and therefore on the same level of truth?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> By controlling the resistance.



Fair enough.  I think it would be useful to know the physics of it, for the good of humanity.  Do you?


----------



## Israel (Aug 8, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for that.  Really, thank you for taking the question seriously.
> 
> Do you see how that might seem incredibly subjective to someone who hasn't received what you seem to describe as a very personal experience?  There are places where subjectivity and objectivity intersect.  How should one who hasn't experienced revelation (that's the best word I can think of to call what you describe) consider the claim of revelation?  Should we just believe those claiming revelation?  It's quite a different thing to say "I believe you believe you saw a ghost" than to say "I believe you saw a ghost".  Don't you think that the level of analysis required to say "I saw a ghost" can be questioned and in turn might reflect on how that person analyses other things?



We may often speak plainly in analogy, metaphor, symbolically hoping perceptions of thoughts might be communicated to some accuracy. And we understand that these perceptions of consciousness in these matters must suffer their translating into a language when we attempt their communication.

The believer may (should?) especially know this. But, it's really not far from any man. Words are the representations. No matter how precisely one may think he has captured a thought, when in communication of that thought, understanding, even "revelation", (_if it is to be shared) _he will find himself now in this arena of words. Plainly simple. Too plain, for some. Too simple for some. (and this itself has already lost some in its simplicity) 

(But, the captain of my salvation is not ashamed to be Captain Obvious. Too plain. Too simple. Men may love the pretense of stumbling at (and all religious men have learned to make this _their habit_) what they may hope to express as his complexity, when it is really His simplicity that holds all depth. How that in and through Him what has strenuously labored to hide in complexity is made so very plain. And obvious. Man. But, this may be considered an aside.)

You well know, having used your words to seek to capture a state of being, a concept, a "thing seen" to be translated _into words_, how this is done. It's not lost on us. You do OK with it. I'll just paraphrase..."I feel like it's arguing which is faster the Millennium Falcon or..." or  something like "Arguing a light sabre can cut through Dimethylenetrihedralcarboxilatedneutronium." or "Can Jesus poop cotton candy?"
When the simplicity of it is _simply_ far too simple. 

Can _even_ a very clever man be loved? Can the consciousness I oppose in cleverness make place for me? What will remain? What will be shown useless?

Without faith it is impossible to please God, for to come to God one must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Do you think you have no faith? Do you think that if you are able to exhaust any man so claiming it as his salvation with what _appears_ the simplest request: "just show me... the how...or the why...or the what...that's all I ask..." For I am what presents itself to you as one different, one apart from you (in your absurdity) with only the simplest of questions of how a man apart from that faith...can see it...this thing you claim to have, to believe, to know..."

I am not at all convinced you are without faith. I've done the math, myself. It's one of my own ongoing experiments. "Can a clever man be loved?" What remains after cleverness is shown plainly for what it is...a device, merely? "Dare I...even, ever...consider the suffering of its loss...this thing that has served me so very well...or seems to have?" And that's where I see...your faith. For I do not see a man who would be described as "not missing a meal if God were proved to be real..." 

I see a man who _knows (even if it be in some fear) _that it would take nothing less than God Himself to move such a one (and in that I wholeheartedly concur)...but...that also in that is included the undeniable knowing...that to himself, all that I am and have considered myself to be is now up for loss...for the determining of another, to the determining of another...and that clever man (who has sought to preserve himself in cleverness) now has no where to stand. Except a standing...be supplied. Yeah...he might miss a meal...

No, God is not serving Himself up as "information". You're not the only one who is amazed at the cross...and its_ meaning. _Not the first to balk. Not the first to ask..."isn't there a work around?" 

It is far too starkly simple, efficient, perfect in purpose and demonstration of end. Man stripped, beaten, and hung up naked...to die. High enough...to be seen by all around. No room there for cleverness. To even begin to ask "why would...how could...who would...make this to be for entrance" is fearfully significant...all a man's tables of exchange are there overturned. All.

As for math, and its doing. And to those who love its precision, its perfect language leaving "no room" for equivocation, its cleanness, its sublime perfection of proof without any necessity to bear contradiction, its utter simplicity to yielding right answer...it is _only entered_ in the acceptance of its own premise...its axiom that the set of numbers is infinite. Infinite in size to both _largeness _and _smallness. Including all of negativity._


Jesus can write out every single one of them, in a moment, in the twinlking of an eye. But knowing what Jesus _can do _comes subsequent to knowing what He has done, the hearing of what He is saying only comes subsequent to what he has said, for the faith that provides entrance to any is commanded by his words "Repent and believe the gospel" We do not preach the God of information, but the God, who is God and only God, of salvation. And only Jesus convinces of need of His supply.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. 

We are not amazed at what resists commandment to right response, we are also doing the math.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> According to Scripture, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."
> 
> The resurrection of Jesus is itself the proof - "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”  Acts 17:31
> 
> ...





> Scripture is not the same as other written claims.  It has the power to impart the faith needed for belief


I would contend that Scripture doesn't have the "power" to do anything.
I would contend the power/influence is dependent on the person reading the scripture.
You quoted scripture in your post above...….. the nonbelievers who read it still don't believe.
Did the scripture not unleash its power on these particular readers of it?
Or are the readers not swayed by it for various reasons?
Lots of books, lots of writings, on lots of subjects that have inspired people or led them down a certain path. Others read those same books and writings and not a darn thing happens or changes.
That's pretty good evidence that its not the words that "do" anything, its the individual's receptiveness to the words that determine the results.
Words (including scripture) are just words. Its the individual reader's psyche that determines whether those words have the power to affect them ... or not.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I would contend that Scripture doesn't have the "power" to do anything.
> I would contend the power/influence is dependent on the person reading the scripture.
> You quoted scripture in your post above...….. the nonbelievers who read it still don't believe.
> Did the scripture not unleash its power on these particular readers of it?
> ...


Excellent post Walt.
To Claim that Scripture has some sort of power means it is no more or less influential or powerful than anything else written which has the same effect on people.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Excellent post Walt.
> To Claim that Scripture has some sort of power means it is no more or less influential or powerful than anything else written which has the same effect on people.


That's what makes claims like this nothing more than just another claim -


> Scripture is not the same as other written claims.


It doesn't take but a second to show how scripture is exactly the same as other written claims. In the absence of facts/proof, they ALL depend on the person reading them to believe them or not believe them.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 8, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That's what makes claims like this nothing more than just another claim -
> 
> It doesn't take but a second to show how scripture is exactly the same as other written claims. In the absence of facts/proof, they ALL depend on the person reading them to believe them or not believe them.


I just think saying that scripture, written word, says that faith comes by hearing..., is just hilarious. Does someone have to read it out loud?


----------



## Israel (Aug 9, 2019)

660griz said:


> I just think saying that scripture, written word, says that faith comes by hearing..., is just hilarious. Does someone have to read it out loud?


Hearing can come at any time, in reading, in laughing at the preacher, in the most stubborn resistance, or even in seeking to be found among the most piously obedient...but until heard, it isn't.

Pretense of hearing is no less common than the pretense of not.

But when one hears who is not of any pretense...something happens.

Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 9, 2019)

Israel said:


> Hearing can come at any time, in reading, in laughing at the preacher, in the most stubborn resistance, or even in seeking to be found among the most piously obedient...but until heard, it isn't.
> 
> Pretense of hearing is no less common than the pretense of not.
> 
> ...



Well, the dead can't hear so, there's that.


----------



## Israel (Aug 10, 2019)

660griz said:


> Well, the dead can't hear so, there's that.



Yes! That is it.

The hearing _must be_ supplied.

Seem useless to you? I know. The "what do I have to (what do I get to, what am I able to) do to make _a certain thing happen" _(that another says _is happening) i_s very confounding here.

There are a million natural examples...but even then, nothing will suffice. Like the keys you look for...that have been in plain sight...seemingly unseen...until you see them. All the things of "how did I miss that"? Or the "Why didn't I know that was not only able to happen, but probably would right after I said 'hold my beer and watch this'...and could you ring for the nurse please, I have to pee"

Because in all those things there eventually is a result that can be accounted for to some extent...something that even if not seen, that "when seen" makes sense. The keys weren't hiding or 'not there'...and alcohol in itself is not able to suspend the laws of physics.  But yes, this is different. It is a place of total dependence...that does not change. In fact...it is what produces in all things the conviction of dependence to a level which, apart from grace, is unsustainable in consciousness. Unbearable.

Brother, this is as hard for me as it is for you, but also, as easy for me, as it is for you...

I'm with you in the confounding. I'm with you in understanding why a thing like me...appears so useless and...confusing. I got nothing to give you except all that seems worthless, silly, absurd to you...and I know it. Who, like Hitchens...just doesn't bristle at the "infinitely increasing" and seemingly absurd tautology? "Because God"? Is that the answer? The best answer I or any of "us" has?

The complete satisfaction it supplies to me is the "easy"...( and believe it or not it is not the seeming rebuff by you that is the hard...) it is the working of a desire that I have been persuaded is not my own...and how that the thing described as "total dependence" is somehow entwined together with you...that my need to hear _more _can never be divorced from some consciousness of you.

Look the easiest answer is also the most useless. This question runs so deep in all of us...even after to some satisfaction of "Is there God?" in the believer...he is still left with what is no less a pressing..."then what is "He" like?" So, to say "there's no easy answer" because the question is so fundamentally profound and deep in all currents of being...well like I said...it seems as useless. But there is something I have had to learn...and continue in to whatever measure...that has all this hardness and easiness so abundantly clear in it. I am useless to try and "bend the truth", I am useless against it...for if it is subject to me...in any way (even if I may want so much to "make it perform" to any justification of my proposals) I cannot escape the knowing that "then it is not truth"...but my own conjurings.

I am your brother in dust. I am your brother in a skin lined bag of chemicals/compounds/elements completely subject to not only what goes on within that bag...but the everything that goes on without that bag. Everything. What happens in, and what can happen "to" I am made subject to. Seeing this...is not quite the same as understanding this. And I may _just be beginning_ to.

It's far more than "OK" that you are _happening to me._ It's a necessity. Even a provision...for me. Even if in all I must only appears _the "useless" _to you, that is even and especially a necessity (and provision) for me. Can I _get you_ to see this? Or even believe me? I can only laugh before I enter that frustration. Because...I know I didn't even "get me" to see this! A hearing had to be supplied...to even begin to teach me hearing always needs supply.



We might agree to certain things. I am oxygen dependent...are you? I am water dependent...are you? But here is where we may, but must we (?) part ways, "I am all dependent"...all _of dependence._
I cannot see my keys till I do. I cannot stop doing (or trying) stupid tricks, or think I can "get away with them"...till I do. I am totally reliant on a consciousness not my own. Even proved to me...when I may even think...I am not! Do you think I have not told _the everything_ of consciousness..."I got this...hold my beer and watch".


I thank God for you Griz...because you "get it"



> Well, the dead can't hear so, there's that.



Yes!

Even if, or that I appear totally useless (of no help at all) to you in these matters, I cannot discount your necessity to me. It's perfect. I am able to hear the truth from a consciousness not my own. Speaking through you.

Well, the dead can't hear so, there's that.

And even said in a humorous way so it wouldn't be "lost on me".

To the measure I do not receive my own total dependence being displayed...is the precise measure to which I will experience frustration. I don't like frustration, and the other is the truth. It's good to have choice removed from a thing that cannot bear its own.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> Yes! That is it.
> 
> The hearing _must be_ supplied.
> 
> ...


None of those things are unique to Christians. Believers in many religions claim to "hear".


----------



## Israel (Aug 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> None of those things are unique to Christians. Believers in many religions claim to "hear".




I wasn't at all speaking of what is unique to Christians, but what is common to all men. There is no making one's self hear anymore than anyone can make themselves, or another, see.  

Griz appears to understand "the dead can't hear".
So, there's that.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2019)

Israel said:


> I wasn't at all speaking of what is unique to Christians, but what is common to all men. There is no making one's self hear anymore than anyone can make themselves, or another, see.
> 
> Griz appears to understand "the dead can't hear".
> So, there's that.


What you say implies that to hear something else must be making noise.
I am pointing out that the religiously "alive", all claim to have something making noise, and hear equally as well. The noise is not exclusive to whatever brand of religious headphones the individuals think are the best.


----------



## Israel (Aug 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> What you say implies that to hear something else must be making noise.
> I am pointing out that the religiously "alive", all claim to have something making noise, and hear equally as well. The noise is not exclusive to whatever brand of religious headphones the individuals think are the best.


Yes, the religious hear things.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2019)

We know that.


Israel said:


> Yes, the religious hear things.


And why I constantly ask that if people in all religions hear things then who or what is making the noise?
For example The God of Abraham tells Christians and Muslims and Jews different things. Why if it actually is a god?
And people in other religions hear things from their gods, does that make their gods as legitimate?

Or is it possible that people think they hear what they want from things they believe in and all are either as true or as false?

Can a believer admit that there are possibly other gods or possibly no gods?


----------



## Israel (Aug 11, 2019)

http://forum.gon.com/threads/are-gluttons-real-christians.943545/page-24#post-11791541 

and here:

Israel
Post #934
Dec 24, 2018
Forum: Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics
and here:

Israel
Post #644
Sep 17, 2018
Forum: Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics
and here:


Israel
Post #224
Jun 24, 2018
Forum: Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics

I have never denied there are other entities which speak. Jesus quickly identified what was speaking through Peter as was tempting him in the wilderness.


For though there be that are called _gods_, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be _gods_ _many_, _and_ _lords_ _many_,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, _and_ we in him; _and_ one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, _and_ we by him.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2019)

Israel said:


> http://forum.gon.com/threads/are-gluttons-real-christians.943545/page-24#post-11791541
> 
> and here:
> 
> ...



I do appreciate your answer about the other gods and you providing proof to go along with it. Kudos.

To your last two paragraphs,
Yeah, all these different religious people as members of all these different religions and all worshipping different gods and they all BE thinkin they were magically born into the Be one Be right Be god and one Be right Be religion. 
Nothing unique,  nothing different.


----------



## Israel (Aug 12, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I do appreciate your answer about the other gods and you providing proof to go along with it. Kudos.
> 
> To your last two paragraphs,
> Yeah, all these different religious people as members of all these different religions and all worshipping different gods and they all BE thinkin they were magically born into the Be one Be right Be god and one Be right Be religion.
> Nothing unique,  nothing different.


Seems to me (if I read you right) you're persuaded every bit of sameness doesn't lessen your conviction "sumthin's gotta be different and unique" to be true.

How bout the God you are convinced is unknowable not only is making Himself known to you...but is doing it precisely because He wants to? Would that be "off the charts" enough to you...the very one who persuades you to not "settle" for what looks so much the same...is the very bone you got in yer mouth like a bulldog?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2019)

Israel said:


> Seems to me (if I read you right) you're persuaded every bit of sameness doesn't lessen your conviction "sumthin's gotta be different and unique" to be true.


Being different or unique does not immediately make something true. Being different or unique allows something to stand out from the rest. Those qualities draw attention to things which are not common. Those unique qualities can add to something being more legitimate.
For instance,  if it was factual that every Christian who has ever prayed to Jesus was cured of their life threatening disease, that would be unique and something that would be add a factual legitimacy to the Christian god being possible.

When you hear what you think is the one and only true god talking to you(although even you cannot tell us what it sounds like) you (and others) act as if that is something special.  While I do think that you think it is special, I just point out that yeah you and another couple other billion people hear the same things from the same and other gods.



Israel said:


> How bout the God you are convinced is unknowable not only is making Himself known to you...but is doing it precisely because He wants to? Would that be "off the charts" enough to you...the very one who persuades you to not "settle" for what looks so much the same...is the very bone you got in yer mouth like a bulldog?


Isreal,  How about "god" doing anything that does not require one of his followers to HAVE to assert the results are because of a god?
Why does your god need you to inform me that he is making himself known to me and the only (for the lack of a better term) "evidence" of him supposedly making himself known to me is YOU claiming it is happening?


----------



## Israel (Aug 12, 2019)

Great! Arguing for a God that doesn't need anything from man or what man might do. Especially one like me! (More relief for me!)

God wants the man...just because...he wants the man.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2019)

Israel said:


> Great! Arguing for a God that doesn't need anything from man or what man might do. Especially one like me! (More relief for me!)
> 
> God wants the man...just because...he wants the man.


No matter if I or you argue for or against a god or any gods, they are still No Shows.
I do realize that there is no way for you to honestly answer my questions and or provide anything to back it up. It is the corner that your belief paints you in.

God wants, gods thinks, god says, god makes....all the same things you do...


----------



## Israel (Aug 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No matter if I or you argue for or against a god or any gods, they are still No Shows.
> I do realize that there is no way for you to honestly answer my questions and or provide anything to back it up. It is the corner that your belief paints you in.
> 
> God wants, gods thinks, god says, god makes....all the same things you do...



This seems, more often than not, your go to position.  Your maintenance of being the honest broker "always" while others either do not, or cannot, move in that realm of virtue in which you do. This is such a common thing as to be found in all men. To themselves, each is the right, or righteous one...while at the very best all others may be viewed as suspect. This may be impossible to see of any man in himself, but once it is, it is far from difficult to perceive in its workings. "All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes". It is a fundamental state of being for man left "to himself".

In the extreme, or that place to which_ only truth _can suffer to be taken, that man is alone. At the very best his allowance to any fellowship will be in the exception of (and acceptation) of those liars he loves. He will make for himself of those "kindreds", drawing them to himself, not in truth, but in exception for their being. The man cannot imagine anyone or anything that can so put what he believes _his love of allowance for them, _to any place of examination where his deepest devotion is shown all born of lie. But God is of all things...not ignorant. God knows of what union is, and what it is not.

And so, without shame or fear of contradiction Jesus declared

If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

His own is key word(s). For this is all to which the man retreats in defense against the knowing of God. His own. His own sense of being right, his own relationships, his own...extensions. They have the appearance of buttress to him, of sufficiency. For Jesus knows the appearance of God to every man lost in such ignorance is as enemy. Luke 14:31

And man _must resort_ to all and anything at hand for preservation. But ignorant man does not know how he puts what is very closest and dearest "to him" then...on the front lines.  His boast of their strength to sustain, whether it be intelligence, cleverness, relationships, material stuff...the _all he never could believe_ is now "up for grabs"...is precisely that...unless he sees and sues for terms of peace.

How much I may be able to bear of being called liar, less than honest, "cornered" is always for the testing. The probing. How deep and sure , and of what is my resource, needs disclosing to me as much as to any man. I too am no less ignorant in these matters. How easily a thing may be said, proposed, made defense for with no more of source than last good meal. A full belly sometimes...a bit of meat, a piece of pie...may be all that is speaking. Take that away...and the man may come closer to speaking the truth of himself. I am dependent._ In all. _What speaks from necessity, of necessity...is _the all_ that is necessary.

Man must be saved. Not from what he may think is his lack of evidence, his lack (or anyone else's inability to provide) of surety, but from the innermost conviction that he _alone _is able to present right response in truth, to truth. Jesus Christ is _that, _and that One whom understood and understands such testing of all (His) word and being is victoriously accomplished only in and by _that_ true union. His total...dependence. Jesus is true...before His resurrection...but no less testified to it, by it. That _only is_, if he need be seen in _matter of time_ by allowance.

But He _is the resurrection,_ and the life. You are looking for events, perhaps thinking yourself already rich enough in relationship(s)...in knowledge and understanding...when it is a person to be sought...to keep you from the he11 of an ignorantly, but diligently sought, isolation. Have a care as to what you cling to. If it be your own "rightness" in whatever form it may be presented, some mastery of cleverness, some naive belief you are presenting yourself as honest (to a fault) broker...may such naivete be treated with kindness.

You may casually accuse one such as Paul of some craven motive to "start a new religion". You seem to have some confidence in the seeing of that, the knowing of that...by whatever persuasion you have such confidence to speak. And I would be a fool to believe Paul is endorsed by any defense of mine...of him. But as Jesus, and as Paul (and all the faithful who have gone on in Christ) a man may learn to not speak ill of those whose nature and character they bear no witness.

Me, I am a liar. Except another make me, otherwise.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2019)

Israel said:


> This seems, more often than not, your go to position.  Your maintenance of being the honest broker "always" while others either do not, or cannot, move in that realm of virtue in which you do. This is such a common thing as to be found in all men. To themselves, each is the right, or righteous one...while at the very best all others may be viewed as suspect. This may be impossible to see of any man in himself, but once it is, it is far from difficult to perceive in its workings. "All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes". It is a fundamental state of being for man left "to himself".
> 
> In the extreme, or that place to which_ only truth _can suffer to be taken, that man is alone. At the very best his allowance to any fellowship will be in the exception of (and acceptation) of those liars he loves. He will make for himself of those "kindreds", drawing them to himself, not in truth, but in exception for their being. The man cannot imagine anyone or anything that can so put what he believes _his love of allowance for them, _to any place of examination where his deepest devotion is shown all born of lie. But God is of all things...not ignorant. God knows of what union is, and what it is not.
> 
> ...


Evidence makes a person honest.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Evidence makes a person honest.


 LOL!


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 13, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> One inherent limitation of science is that it cannot test claims of supernatural events.  Science assumes that the laws of nature are constant; therefore, it cannot possibly test whether any purported "miracle" actually occurred without creating an invalid, circular argument.
> 
> Consequently, any claim that science has disproven some miracle described in the Bible is invalid.  This includes important miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus, the six day creation, and the flood during the time of Noah.




The problem with this analysis is the assumption on your part that science could not accommodate exceptions to the laws of nature being made. The problem for those who claim supernatural suspensions of the laws of nature is not that science cannot test such claims. The problem is that no such claim has ever met the bar of being verifiably true.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 13, 2019)

See folks still think you can take a working watch apart, put all the pieces in a bag, shake those parts around for a million years then open that bag and have a complete watch that is on time.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2019)

j_seph said:


> See folks still think you can take a working watch apart, put all the pieces in a bag, shake those parts around for a million years then open that bag and have a complete watch that is on time.


Like who?and with examples please.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2019)

j_seph said:


> See folks still think you can take a working watch apart, put all the pieces in a bag, shake those parts around for a million years then open that bag and have a complete watch that is on time.


What is said of people who take a working watch of unknown origin and inscribe a bogus manufacturer name on it?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Like who?and with examples please.









^Like this dude here.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 13, 2019)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2019)

j_seph said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


J, if that is your proof,  we cannot help you


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2019)

j_seph said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


I'm curious how in your mind that proves it was the Christian God that was responsible and disproves all the other creation stories about different gods?


----------



## Israel (Aug 14, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Evidence makes a person honest.


How can I not love you for that?

Lacking evidence in whatever measure then, leaves a man...what? What is the word for one who is not yet (or yet made) completely honest?

Listen...this fellow with whom you have some issue in regards to motive, (would you call it..._honesty?)_ of whom you have said merely went about in contradiction to the truth of Jesus Christ (as you see Him) to start his own or "new" religion, are you _able to hear_ what is being said here?

I care very little, however, if I am judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not vindicate me. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.




> My conscience is clear, but that does not vindicate me.



Having no evidence in conscience against ones self (at least as this man states that is the place _he occupies_) is not being assumed to vindication, or as said in another translation...to innocence. Just because a man may sense no evidence in conscience against himself...is not the "all".

If I were to say it matters little I think I would be greatly in error. A clear conscience is not up for easy dismissal. It could even be, if I have any understanding of this matter _at all, _that a clear conscience is most necessary to bring one to the very place of understanding that it precisely, though valuable, is not _the all. _

A naive or uninformed person may find this a subtle thing, just as one might mistakenly say "my brother was accused of murder, but the court found him _innocent_". No, it did not. It found him "not guilty". The one who persists in saying "huh? big deal, same thing" remains outside yet being able to consider that difference (which truly is _not subtle_). For the court never confuses nor renders ever...a judgment to innocence. It reckons only upon what evidence it has, and recognizes only to that limit as being (in hope?) able to determine whether enough is found to determine for guilt, or not. (I say "_in hope?", _because that is the best one can "hope for" that the _legal system_ might truly be dedicated to no other motive.)

If I say further it is the naive who simply assume this, as in "our system of justice is _always _impartial" I brush up against a cynicism that I would prefer (but, do I really?) not to encourage. Just believing such a thing as justice exists, as with innocence, as with (what might be described _as pure_) honesty, is never any indication to its _right _(!) exercise. I believe in justice! I believe in honesty! I believe man "should be" innocent (_not criminal!_). Right is also a very final word, for there is a word for something that is "almost right". Wrong. Ask the math teacher.

Yes, we do say "Jesus is right". Just as a man might say "I believe in justice". But the man who naively believes just saying he believes in justice is full expression of himself as being "all for it, always"...may be just that...naive (at best) or criminal (at worst) when other things come to light. Like how he does "his taxes". Like...how he forgives his brother.

But Paul is not saying, and in fact _is saying, _"I am not naive enough (or no longer naive enough) to believe that having a clear conscience testifies to me I am innocent". And likewise, not naive enough to believe a judgment of "not guilty" is the same as "innocent". But...(O! might this be seen!)..."not guilty" is great! I dare not despise it! In truth...this being "let off the hook" (if one has truly faced _that Judge, with those charges of such all consuming gravity!)_ is too marvelous! "I'll take "not guilty!".

Lots and lots of folks took their swing at Paul, still do. Some no doubt find this most odious of all, "He claims to know God as his only judge". He claims to "know God"...in whatever measure...that causes him to not submit to man's judgments of him. "Look, he says he is even free of "having to" judge himself!." It's so easily mistaken as mark of pride. (As if that man is unaware how much he himself is tempted to it) But...where once "not guilty" was so rightly celebrated (God forbid any man despise it!)...he now sees "innocence" as clearest prize made _in form_ to him apprehend able, discover able, see able...in Jesus Christ, alone. How to get from seeing to "having", knowing, in "right exercise" of, and with...aware now that just "saying" has provided entrance to a seeing of a thing so far beyond his own imaginations as to what "innocence" is, compels him to pursue it. Yes, being "let off the hook" is great...but HE, is all! Of such pure innocence as being able to move the needle of "all guilty" to not guilty. To have within the power to remove the stain of "not having all the evidence" that leaves a man "less than honest" (what is that word for such?)

"Forgive them Father they know not what they do"

They lack the evidence, the knowing, that I have in such sufficiency _of you _as to make this appeal with confidence. Do not hold "not knowing" against them.


You are right, the burden "of proof" remains with me if I make any declaration of either knowing God, or that He may be known. Is man guilty for not knowing...or forgiven? Forgiven implies a recognition of guilt for which something is supplied (by a someone to another) to relieve. But...in Christ it includes open invitation to now know "the innocent" One one whose behalf it has been supplied. 
You are right, I have not made Him clearly enough known.

I am guilty in all ways before you. The one claiming the "knowing" has only one source of appeal. To the One who forgives_ the claiming to know,_ for not knowing.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2019)

Israel said:


> Lacking evidence in whatever measure then, leaves a man...what? What is the word for one who is not yet (or yet made) completely honest?


Suspect


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2019)

Israel said:


> You are right, the burden "of proof" remains with me if I make any declaration of either knowing God, or that He may be known. Is man guilty for not knowing...or forgiven? Forgiven implies a recognition of guilt for which something is supplied (by a someone to another) to relieve.


Even though you admit that I am right you cannot help but skip any sort of any attempt to try to insert a shred of evidence to back up your next set up assertive statement. Which is...


Israel said:


> But...in Christ it includes open invitation to now know "the innocent" One one whose behalf it has been supplied.
> You are right, I have not made Him clearly enough known.


You, or anyone has yet to make him, let alone known. I find it telling that the son of a god is unknowable and hides waiting on his followers to try to legitimize him.
It all seems so....unbelievable...


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> See folks still think you can take a working watch apart, put all the pieces in a bag, shake those parts around for a million years then open that bag and have a complete watch that is on time.


If you think that is crazy, you should hear some of the stuff religious folks think. 
Ascend to heaven on a winged horse. Water into wine. World wide flood. Don't eat shrimp or pork. Genital mutilation. Chop up the dead and feed to vultures. Baby tossing. Poisonous snake handling. A talking donkey scolded a prophet. Brown skin is a punishment for disobeying God.  Sacred underwear protects believers from spiritual contamination and, according to some adherents, from fire and speeding bullets. When certain rites are performed beforehand, bread turns into human flesh after it is swallowed. And on and on.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 14, 2019)

For that watch to go through that kind of chaos, then to be put together and working and be on time would take someone to have put it back together. For this world, this planet, and everything on it someone (being God) would have had to of done it. Chaos cannot fix itself, Chaos will continue on into more Chaos until someone stops it by putting everything where it needs to be to work in a proper order.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> For that watch to go through that kind of chaos, then to be put together and working and be on time would take someone to have put it back together. For this world, this planet, and everything on it someone (being God) would have had to of done it. Chaos cannot fix itself, Chaos will continue on into more Chaos until someone stops it by putting everything where it needs to be to work in a proper order.


You don't see the gigantic flaw in your argument do you?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> For that watch to go through that kind of chaos, then to be put together and working and be on time would take someone to have put it back together. For this world, this planet, and everything on it someone (being God) would have had to of done it. Chaos cannot fix itself, Chaos will continue on into more Chaos until someone stops it by putting everything where it needs to be to work in a proper order.


You are relying on another Hallmark Card moment of an event that never happened from an entity that does not exist.

Put a pieced out watch in a ziploc, shake it up and pray to your god for it to be pieced together.
We will wait...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> For that watch to go through that kind of chaos, then to be put together and working and be on time would take someone to have put it back together. For this world, this planet, and everything on it someone (being God) would have had to of done it. Chaos cannot fix itself, Chaos will continue on into more Chaos until someone stops it by putting everything where it needs to be to work in a proper order.


You live in chaos by the minute. If you did not notice people are dying constantly by many different means. Events within the Earth causes major destruction.  Events in the atmosphere cause major destruction.  The Sun, "our" lifeblood is burning out. Asteroids will cease the existence of you and your "made for us" planet in the blink of an eye.
You are delusional on where you live and your surroundings.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> For that watch to go through that kind of chaos, then to be put together and working and be on time would take someone to have put it back together. For this world, this planet, and everything on it someone (being God) would have had to of done it. Chaos cannot fix itself, Chaos will continue on into more Chaos until someone stops it by putting everything where it needs to be to work in a proper order.


J_seph do you believe thats what God did?
Took something that already existed, like a watch, scrambled it up and made it a watch again?
If thats not what you believe then your example doesnt even fit what you believe never mind what anybody else believes.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 14, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> J_seph do you believe thats what God did?
> Took something that already existed, like a watch, scrambled it up and made it a watch again?
> If thats not what you believe then your example doesnt even fit what you believe never mind what anybody else believes.


No that is not what I believe, but seems several of y'all seem to think that it all took place without GOD, that this came to be because of that then that became to be because of this. That there was a big explosion and that is how things came to be. It just could not have Just came to be without the Lords hands doing so.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> No that is not what I believe, but seems several of y'all seem to think that it all took place without GOD, that this came to be because of that then that became to be because of this. That there was a big explosion and that is how things came to be. It just could not have Just came to be without the Lords hands doing so.


Yes, that is EXACTLY what we think. Nobody has ever proven that any sort of god exists let alone the god you worship created anything. You insert "god did it" to fill in what you do not know and cannot understand.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> No that is not what I believe, but seems several of y'all seem to think that it all took place without GOD, that this came to be because of that then that became to be because of this. That there was a big explosion and that is how things came to be. It just could not have Just came to be without the Lords hands doing so.


So the argument you used, which is taking something that already existed (a watch) and turning it back into exactly what it was, doesn't fit what you believe and it doesn't fit what we believe so basically..... that argument doesn't fit what any of us, including you, believe. So trash that argument. Its got nuthin to do with nuthin.
So you are back to doing nothing more than insisting -


> It just could not have Just came to be without the Lords hands doing so


To claim "it just could not have" means you have proven the Theory of Evolution wrong. It also means you have proven all the other creation stories about other gods wrong. It also means you have proven the Big Bang wrong.
The problem is you haven't proven anything wrong or right.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 14, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yes, that is EXACTLY what we think. Nobody has ever proven that any sort of god exists let alone the god you worship created anything. You insert "god did it" to fill in what you do not know and cannot understand.





WaltL1 said:


> So the argument you used, which is taking something that already existed (a watch) and turning it back into exactly what it was, doesn't fit what you believe and it doesn't fit what we believe so basically..... that argument doesn't fit what any of us, including you, believe. So trash that argument. Its got nuthin to do with nuthin.
> So you are back to doing nothing more than insisting -
> 
> To claim "it just could not have" means you have proven the Theory of Evolution wrong. It also means you have proven all the other creation stories about other gods wrong. It also means you have proven the Big Bang wrong.
> The problem is you haven't proven anything wrong or right.


So if God did not do it and there is still no guarantee by y'alls scientist then I guess that loops back to God is just as responsible for making this universe as all the theories the scientist have.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> So if God did not do it and there is still no guarantee by y'alls scientist then I guess that loops back to God is just as POSSIBLY responsible for making this universe as all the theories the scientist have.



This is what you should have said.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> So if God did not do it and there is still no guarantee by y'alls scientist then I guess that loops back to God is just as responsible for making this universe as all the theories the scientist have.


No.
NOBODY can guarantee who or what did it because nobody has proven who or what did it.
There is only evidence to follow.
And you keep ignoring all those other creation stories about other gods that I keep mentioning.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2019)

j_seph said:


> So if God did not do it and there is still no guarantee by y'alls scientist then I guess that loops back to God is just as responsible for making this universe as all the theories the scientist have.


It loops back to god, rah, turtles, spaghetti monster, energy, a computer simulation, the science experiment of a 9th grader in another dimension,  a dream, and at least 74 quadrillion other things...NONE of which have been any more proven than the one before it.
Until you prove a god exists , using god as a possibility is as accurate as literally ANYTHING else any person on the planet can imagine. You are asserting that there are two choices and as usual you are incorrect


----------



## Israel (Aug 15, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Even though you admit that I am right you cannot help but skip any sort of any attempt to try to insert a shred of evidence to back up your next set up assertive statement. Which is...



Israel wrote:


> You are right, the burden "of proof" remains with me if I make any declaration of either knowing God, or that He may be known.



I am bearing the burden of proof.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2019)

Israel said:


> Israel wrote:
> 
> 
> I am bearing the burden of proof.


It is quite an easy load to bear, assertions and claims weigh nothing.


----------



## Israel (Aug 15, 2019)

My yoke is easy, and my burden is light...but to give you this is not mine to give:

  It goes to the one prepared for by my Father.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2019)

Israel said:


> My yoke is easy, and my burden is light...but to give you this is not mine to give:
> 
> View attachment 979790  It goes to the one prepared for by my Father.


To give me what?


----------



## Big7 (Aug 15, 2019)

What is the SHORT version of scientism or whatever it is.

Thanks in Advance.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> This is what you should have said.


Can a Christian really allow themselves to think/admit that God and its particular creation story is only a possibility? 
Its easy for us to say the Big Bang "creation story" is a possibility and not a definitely.
We dont believe with all our brain/heart that the Big Bang is listening, watching, determining an after life, this life etc etc.
I know I dont have a single fear or concern about believing the Big Bang is just a best guess (based on evidence so far) and not a fact.
Christians, based on their beliefs, are in a different boat than we are in that aspect.


----------



## Israel (Aug 15, 2019)

The assertion that the assertion is unfounded or unsupported is only due to ignorance. The assertion itself supports nothing, but is supported by that very which supports all other assertions to the truth, if they be so. The diligent maintenance of a lawful order that lends itself to repeatable experiment in demonstration is supported by a conscious will to do so, and made known to others of consciousness.

It is unlawful to assume that what is secured by any consciousness as truth is arrived at by anything other than a maintenance of order in that consciousness.
In short, you're crazy to think otherwise.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2019)

Israel said:


> The assertion that the assertion is unfounded or unsupported is only due to ignorance. The assertion itself supports nothing, but is supported by that very which supports all other assertions to the truth, if they be so. The diligent maintenance of a lawful order that lends itself to repeatable experiment in demonstration is supported by a conscious will to do so, and made known to others of consciousness.
> 
> It is unlawful to assume that what is secured by any consciousness as truth is arrived at by anything other than a maintenance of order in that consciousness.
> In short, you're crazy to think otherwise.


Vague, non specific mumbo jumbo that is supported by nothing.


----------



## Israel (Aug 15, 2019)

LOL...
"support"


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2019)

Israel said:


> LOL...
> "support"


Exactly


----------



## Israel (Aug 15, 2019)

Truth is the support. No thing "proves the truth".
Truth is what proves, not the other way round.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2019)

Israel said:


> Truth is the support. No thing "proves the truth".
> Truth is what proves, not the other way round.


Truth is reinforced by facts and evidence.  No way to know Truth without them.
But you know that


----------



## Israel (Aug 15, 2019)

Reinforced...perhaps...dependent...never.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2019)

Israel said:


> Reinforced...perhaps...dependent...never.


No way to know Truth without them.


----------



## Israel (Aug 15, 2019)

Truth precedes any evidence of fact. And any knowing.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 15, 2019)

j_seph said:


> For that watch to go through that kind of chaos, then to be put together and working and be on time would take someone to have put it back together. For this world, this planet, and everything on it someone (being God) would have had to of done it. Chaos cannot fix itself, Chaos will continue on into more Chaos until someone stops it by putting everything where it needs to be to work in a proper order.



Brilliant. Write up your hypothesis and send it off to a peer reviewed physics journal. I'm sure they will be as impressed with the unassailable logic as the rest of us.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> You don't see the gigantic flaw in your argument do you?



I know where you are going with that and I'm sure he has a case of special pleading ready in response.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 15, 2019)

j_seph said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>




It took me to about the 55 second mark to realize this guy is either a fool or a knave. He assumes that because it takes a chicken to produce a chicken egg that at some point a fully formed chicken just magically popped into existence. Had he taken two minutes to do a simple google search he would know there is a scientific explanation that doesn't involve woo. Does he not know that? Is he ignorant? Or does he know it and deceive these kids with a lie by omission? Fool or knave?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg

If the question refers to _chicken_ eggs specifically, the answer is still the egg,[7] but the explanation is more complicated. The process by which the chicken arose through the interbreeding and domestication of multiple species of wild jungle fowl is poorly understood, and the point at which this evolving organism became a chicken is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Whatever criteria one chooses, an animal nearly identical to the modern chicken (i.e., a proto-chicken) laid a fertilized egg that had DNA identical to the modern chicken (due to mutations in the mother's ovum, the father's sperm, or the fertilised zygote).[8][4][9][10] Put more simply by Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The egg—laid by a bird that was not a chicken."[11]

It has been suggested that the actions of a protein found in modern chicken eggs may make the answer different. In the uterus, chickens produce ovocleidin-17 (OC-17), which causes the formation of the thickened calcium carbonate shell around their eggs. Because OC-17 is expressed by the hen and not the egg, the bird in which the protein first arose, though having hatched from a non-reinforced egg, would then have laid the first egg having such a reinforced shell: the chicken would have preceded this first 'modern' chicken egg.[9][10] However, the presence of OC-17 or a homolog in other species, such as turkeys,[12] and finches[13] suggests that such eggshell-reinforcing proteins are common to all birds,[14] and thus long predate the first chicken.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Can a Christian really allow themselves to think/admit that God and its particular creation story is only a possibility?
> Its easy for us to say the Big Bang "creation story" is a possibility and not a definitely.
> We dont believe with all our brain/heart that the Big Bang is listening, watching, determining an after life, this life etc etc.
> I know I dont have a single fear or concern about believing the Big Bang is just a best guess (based on evidence so far) and not a fact.
> Christians, based on their beliefs, are in a different boat than we are in that aspect.



I only know of one Christian that admits they might be totally wrong.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It took me to about the 55 second mark to realize this guy is either a fool or a knave. He assumes that because it takes a chicken to produce a chicken egg that at some point a fully formed chicken just magically popped into existence. Had he taken two minutes to do a simple google search he would know there is a scientific explanation that doesn't involve woo. Does he not know that? Is he ignorant? Or does he know it and deceive these kids with a lie by omission? Fool or knave?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This guy who you ask if he is a fool or just knave, was just as you are today. WAS but like you he searched and dug for information until he finally seen the TRUTH. Maybe you can go over to the WAY in Hoschton and talk to him personally.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2019)

j_seph said:


> This guy who you ask if he is a fool or just knave, was just as you are today. WAS but like you he searched and dug for information until he finally seen the TRUTH. Maybe you can go over to the WAY in Hoschton and talk to him personally.


Or you could invite him to participate here. If he wants to use science to make his case tell him we have some science based questions for him.
We would welcome that.
If I was a betting man, and I am, I would bet he drops the science argument within a question or two and revert right back to "you just gotta belieeeeeeve..."


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 15, 2019)

j_seph said:


> This guy who you ask if he is a fool or just knave, was just as you are today. WAS but like you he searched and dug for information until he finally seen the TRUTH. Maybe you can go over to the WAY in Hoschton and talk to him personally.



That works both ways. I was once where he is and my digging for information led me in a different direction. He's already demonstrated in that video that he's some combination of ignorant and dishonest. You may as well have posted a Ray Comfort video. Instead of getting your views on science from ignorant preachers who know nothing about that topic maybe you should find more credible sources.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 15, 2019)




----------



## atlashunter (Aug 15, 2019)

j_seph said:


>




Especially if it comes from a preacher who starts out the science lesson with "I used to be an atheist!".


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Especially if it comes from a preacher who starts out the science lesson with "I used to be an atheist!".


And as an ex-Atheist he knows for a fact that there is no science that gets to a god.
Yet now he's using it to make his case. Which answers this question -


> Or does he know it and deceive these kids with a lie by omission?


----------



## j_seph (Aug 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You live in chaos by the minute. If you did not notice people are dying constantly by many different means. Events within the Earth causes major destruction.  Events in the atmosphere cause major destruction.  The Sun, "our" lifeblood is burning out. Asteroids will cease the existence of you and your "made for us" planet in the blink of an eye.
> You are delusional on where you live and your surroundings.


Funny you mentioned the sun burning out, and asteroids. How in the world did folks know about such stuff so many years ago?

"And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come."
Joel 2:30-31

"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."
Revelation 6:12-14

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise."
Revelation 8:10-12

"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."
Mark 13:24-26

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
Matthew 24:29-30


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Funny you mentioned the sun burning out, and asteroids. How in the world did folks know about such stuff so many years ago?


Folks didn't know about such stuff. Apocalyptic cultures, religions and people talk about those types of things.


j_seph said:


> "And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come."
> Joel 2:30-31


Moon turned into Blood?
Who's blood? Where is all this blood coming from?



j_seph said:


> "And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."
> Revelation 6:12-14


That is written as if it has happened.
Where did all the stars fit as they fell onto Earth? I guess your knowledge God didnt realize that Stars are not little glitter specks in the sky but Suns that are hundreds of times larger than the Earth.



j_seph said:


> "And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise."
> Revelation 8:10-12


Where are the rivers located that this Wormwood fell to?
Which rivers are large enough to hold a star?



j_seph said:


> "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."
> Mark 13:24-26


How does the moon give light?
Where are the stars falling to?
And these are your examples of smart people??



j_seph said:


> Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
> Matthew 24:29-30


Again, they think the moon is a source of light? Your god fed those writers bad info. And you worship such a thing?
And ye cosmic janitor took thy pusheth broom and swepeth up the fallen stars and putteth them in a Zipith Loceth  because the ancients wisdom which J_seph relies on would haveth us believeth that stars are small specks and the moon giveth light.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that you actually have stones to post this stuff, literally spell it out, and still stand behind it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

Readeth Upeth J_Sepeth, Learneth, be wiseth...
https://www.ancient-origins.net/his...msday-prophecies-and-end-world-beliefs-002571


----------



## j_seph (Aug 16, 2019)

You have got to stand for something or you will fall for anything, I prefer not to fall for somethings as some have. 
If you will notice in Revelation 8:10-12         
it did not fall into "A" river but a 1/3 of the rivers


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> You have got to stand for something or you will fall for anything, I prefer not to fall for somethings as some have.
> If you will notice in Revelation 8:10-12
> it did not fall into "A" river but a 1/3 of the rivers


So, in ten seconds you can search and get information that shows you just how big the smallest Stars are and yet your religious indoctrination overrides the information and you are still making a point that 1/3 of the Stars (of which there are more stars in the Universe than grains of sand on all of beaches throughout the Earth) fell into 1/3 of the Earths rivers....even though ONE star could be represented in size by the globe at Epcot and the earth's size would be a marble???

Honestly, just say it out loud that you actually believe 1/3 of the Stars in the sky will fall out of the sky and land and fit in 1/3 of the rivers on Earth.
Tell us that you actually believe that.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Funny you mentioned the sun burning out, and asteroids. How in the world did folks know about such stuff so many years ago?
> 
> "And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come."
> Joel 2:30-31
> ...




Please tell me you're joking.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So, in ten seconds you can search and get information that shows you just how big the smallest Stars are and yet your religious indoctrination overrides the information and you are still making a point that 1/3 of the Stars (of which there are more stars in the Universe than grains of sand on all of beaches throughout the Earth) fell into 1/3 of the Earths rivers....even though ONE star could be represented in size by the globe at Epcot and the earth's size would be a marble???
> 
> Honestly, just say it out loud that you actually believe 1/3 of the Stars in the sky will fall out of the sky and land and fit in 1/3 of the rivers on Earth.
> Tell us that you actually believe that.


I never said a 1/3 of the stars, neither does the bible say a 1/3 of the stars it states "there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers "


----------



## j_seph (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> I never said a 1/3 of the stars, neither does the bible say a 1/3 of the stars it states "there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers "


How you reckon they figured out that a single star could cover a 1/3 of the rivers. Reckon they knew just how big those stars are?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> How you reckon they figured out that a single star could cover a 1/3 of the rivers. Reckon they knew just how big those stars are?



How do you reckon a single star can cover 1/3 of the rivers? Explain that verse to us please.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> How you reckon they figured out that a single star could cover a 1/3 of the rivers. Reckon they knew just how big those stars are?


J_seph for the love of your god, ONE single Star is HUNDREDS of times the size of the Earth.
I reckon they, like you, have no clue. One Star would cover hundreds of Earths.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> J_seph for the love of your god, ONE single Star is HUNDREDS of times the size of the Earth.
> I reckon they, like you, have no clue. One Star would cover hundreds of Earths.



It's like saying a sperm whale fell to a mouse and affected a third of it.


----------



## j_seph (Aug 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> J_seph for the love of your god, ONE single Star is HUNDREDS of times the size of the Earth.
> I reckon they, like you, have no clue. One Star would cover hundreds of Earths.


You do realize back in ancient times that pretty much anything glowing in the sky at night other than a moon was considered a star? That even a comet going through the sky would be called a star. 


> If we assume just a small comet, as small as only 500 metres (0.5 km) in diameter drops into one of the rivers (fountain of all waters), what will be the scenario like? To answer that, let us return to geography once again. It has been documented that Earth has 263 international river basin and major rivers, covering 45.3 % or 231.059,898 km2 of the land surface area (not the ocean area).
> There is an estimated 2115 cubic km of fresh river waters in all the rivers of the world (Groombridge & Jenkins, 1998). There are 3 major rivers with the highest volume of water discharge a year. These are:  the Amazon (6.92 cubic km of water per year), Ganges (1.38 km3 /year), and the Congo (1.30 km3 /year). Other rivers are merely very long, like the Yangtze, Nile, and Mississippi, but they do not mean they have the highest volume of water discharge.  The total volume of all the rivers is 2.115 X 1012 cubic metres or 2.115 X 1015 litres. A third of the total volume would be 7.05 X 1014 litres.
> Since neither the Amazon or  the Mighty Yangtze River can  accommodate a 5 km wide comet if it should  falls into them,  a 0.5 km will easily fit into any of the 3  major  rivers. A 500 metres diameter comet with an average density of 3,000 kg / m3  weighs about
> 1.965 X 1011 kg. At 10 % content, a small comet will contain 1.965 X 1010 kg or 1.965 X 1016 mg of cyanide. In other words, if this was to fall into a third of the ‘fountains of waters’ the cyanide levels in the fresh drinkable waters of the rivers will be in the order of  *27.9 mg / dl (litres). This is immediately a fatal dose*, and many men will die drinking that water because it was made bitter.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It's like saying a sperm whale fell to a mouse and affected a third of it.


Actually only affected 1/3 of the mouse's veins!!!!!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 16, 2019)

You ever notice how sometimes theists claim the bible proves people knew more than they could have known because of divine revelation and other times the bible was written according to the ignorant views of the time?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> You do realize back in ancient times that pretty much anything glowing in the sky at night other than a moon was considered a star? That even a comet going through the sky would be called a star.




So you're saying their understanding of the cosmos wasn't so good after all?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> You do realize back in ancient times that pretty much anything glowing in the sky at night other than a moon was considered a star? That even a comet going through the sky would be called a star.


So, your god who oversees the writings of the bible would not inform them properly?.
And in one sentence you are trying to pass off to us the ancients great wisdom, and now to save face you are telling us that they were not intelligent enough to know the difference between what was in the sky?
So we should believe some things? All things?
How about none of the things?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

And, and, and Fireflys!!!! Dont forget about the Firefly Stars!


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> You do realize back in ancient times that pretty much anything glowing in the sky at night other than a moon was considered a star? That even a comet going through the sky would be called a star.




There are so many problems with that blog post I don't even know where to begin.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> There are so many problems with that blog post I don't even know where to begin.


I am so glad that he posts these things so he and others can actually read it in another venue.
It gives insight into the mindset and the ways people have to twist their own words in order to try to pass it off as some sort of "truth". As if to say "well, if I can find one little iota of something, ANYTHING that would make sense in any remote sense or throw out even a distant possibility,  an Excuse of any sort, it verifies the rest to me". Meanwhile in order to do all that they must overlook the overwhelming majority of facts that totally refute the claim they try to make.
Izzy was trying to explain Truth earlier,  I wonder how well J_Seph's claims and explanations fit.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> You have got to stand for something or you will fall for anything, I prefer not to fall for somethings as some have.
> If you will notice in Revelation 8:10-12
> it did not fall into "A" river but a 1/3 of the rivers


Nothing at all wrong with that!
As long as you realize that the same thing you choose to stand for can be the same thing someone else doesn't want to fall for.
Prove your god and the stories that go with him are in fact true and you'll have lots of A/As become Christians and stand with you.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am so glad that he posts these things so he and others can actually read it in another venue.
> It gives insight into the mindset and the ways people have to twist their own words in order to try to pass it off as some sort of "truth". As if to say "well, if I can find one little iota of something, ANYTHING that would make sense in any remote sense or throw out even a distant possibility,  an Excuse of any sort, it verifies the rest to me". Meanwhile in order to do all that they must overlook the overwhelming majority of facts that totally refute the claim they try to make.
> Izzy was trying to explain Truth earlier,  I wonder how well J_Seph's claims and explanations fit.




No problem throwing some blog by "Lim Ju Boo" out there that purports to be scientific but they won't bother to do the least bit of fact checking.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/02nov_epoxi2/



> A'Hearn stresses that readers shouldn't worry about a "poisonous comet." For one thing, Comet Hartley 2 is more than 11 million miles from Earth. There's no direct contact between our planet and the comet's gaseous shroud. Furthermore, the cyanide gas is very diffuse. If it did touch Earth, it would not be able to penetrate our planet's dense atmosphere.



And that's just one of the issues with Mr Boo's explanation.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 16, 2019)

Let's look at the other scriptures in this passage.

Chapter 8

7 The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.

8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

12 The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night.

13 As I watched, I heard an eagle that was flying in midair call out in a loud voice: “Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels!”


Chapter 9

The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. 2 When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. 3 And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes. 6 During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10 They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. 11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

12 The first woe is past; two other woes are yet to come.

13 The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the four horns of the golden altar that is before God. 14 It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.”15 And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. 16 The number of the mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand. I heard their number.

17 The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur. 18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths. 19 The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.



Please tell us more about falling for anything.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Let's look at the other scriptures in this passage.
> 
> Chapter 8
> 
> ...


J_seph is like many others. When the realization hits that what they are saying just does not make the sense it seemed to make, they just go silent instead of admitting what they are truly feeling. Then will jump back later on another topic when they think their previous posts are forgotten about.

Like I said earlier, I am impressed that someone would hang in there and post that much and keep expounding on it. But I didn't see another believer jump in to help back it up either.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> But I didn't see another believer jump in to help back it up either.


What required backing up?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> What required backing up?


Nothing,  it has been refuted and debunked.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 17, 2019)

Of the Limits Which Must Be Put to the Necessity of Replying to an Adversary.

If the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long      discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture.  But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that even after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove it to man, they hold for the very      truth their own unreasonable fancies, either on account of their great blindness, which prevents them from seeing what is plainly set before them, or on account of their opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see.  There therefore frequently arises a necessity of speaking more fully on those points which are already clear, that we may, as it were, present them not to the eye, but even to the touch, so that they may be felt even by those who close their eyes against them.  And yet to what end shall we ever bring our discussions, or      what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us?  For those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so hardened by the habit of contradiction, that though they understand they cannot yield to them, reply to us, and, as it is written, “speak hard things,” and are incorrigibly vain.  Now, if we were to propose to confute their objections as often as they with brazen face chose to disregard our arguments, and so often as they could by any means contradict our statements, you see how endless, and fruitless, and painful a task we should be undertaking.  And therefore I do not wish my writings to be judged even by you, my son Marcellinus, nor by any of those others at whose service this work of mine is freely and in all Christian charity put, if at least you intend always to require a reply to every exception which you hear taken to what you read in it; for so you would become like those silly women of whom the apostle says that they are “always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Augustine/Dods; The City of God; Bk2, Ch1


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Nothing,  it has been refuted and debunked.


Great! I am glad to have been much help in the matter(whatever that matter is)... by not jumping in.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> Great! I am glad to have been much help in the matter(whatever that matter is)... by not jumping in.


J-seph did not need your help in backing up his claims, he needed back up countering what was posted against his claims.
Nobody , including J-seph,  refuted anything the opposition posted.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Of the Limits Which Must Be Put to the Necessity of Replying to an Adversary.
> 
> If the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long      discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture.  But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that even after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove it to man, they hold for the very      truth their own unreasonable fancies, either on account of their great blindness, which prevents them from seeing what is plainly set before them, or on account of their opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see.  There therefore frequently arises a necessity of speaking more fully on those points which are already clear, that we may, as it were, present them not to the eye, but even to the touch, so that they may be felt even by those who close their eyes against them.  And yet to what end shall we ever bring our discussions, or      what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us?  For those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so hardened by the habit of contradiction, that though they understand they cannot yield to them, reply to us, and, as it is written, “speak hard things,” and are incorrigibly vain.  Now, if we were to propose to confute their objections as often as they with brazen face chose to disregard our arguments, and so often as they could by any means contradict our statements, you see how endless, and fruitless, and painful a task we should be undertaking.  And therefore I do not wish my writings to be judged even by you, my son Marcellinus, nor by any of those others at whose service this work of mine is freely and in all Christian charity put, if at least you intend always to require a reply to every exception which you hear taken to what you read in it; for so you would become like those silly women of whom the apostle says that they are “always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
> 
> Augustine/Dods; The City of God; Bk2, Ch1


Laymens terms:
We can't help it if others think our beliefs are nonsense. If they could just suspend reality and not question us they would be like us.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Nobody , including J-seph,  refuted anything the opposition posted.


That may only indicate that what the opposition posted was self-refuting. This often shows the believers that they don't have anything to work with... in the opposition.

It remains settled on both ends.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Laymens terms:
> We can't help it if others think our beliefs are nonsense. If they could just suspend reality and not question us they would be like us.



Not even close.  He said that one should say what they have to say the very best they can say it, and shut up.

BTW, he did.  He followed this statement with approx. 400,000 words on the subject at hand (that's well over 1000 small print, closely spaced, narrow margined pages in modern book format).


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> That may only indicate that what the opposition posted was self-refuting. This often shows the believers that they don't have anything to work with... in the opposition.
> 
> It remains settled on both ends.


May at times, but was not in this case.
Definitely settled.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Not even close.  He said that one should say what they have to say the very best they can say it, and shut up.
> 
> BTW, he did.  He followed this statement with approx. 400,000 words on the subject at hand (that's well over 1000 small print, closely spaced, narrow margined pages in modern book format).


Is that all he wrote?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Is that all he wrote?


No, that's less than 10% of what we have today, according to the estimates I've seen.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> No, that's less than 10% of what we have today, according to the estimates I've seen.


He didn't take his own advice.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> He didn't take his own advice.


It was a narrow subject, and one of the last he covered extensively.  He died 3-4 yrs. later (I think).

Come to think of it your right, in a way.  One of the things he worked on during those last years, after he finished this one, was, what is called his "Re-considerations" which does, at least partially, address the misuse of his earlier writings by others.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 17, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Fair enough.  I think it would be useful to know the physics of it, for the good of humanity.  Do you?


I think it would be less than... knowing the One who controls it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> It was a narrow subject, and one of the last he covered extensively.  He died 3-4 yrs. later (I think).
> 
> Come to think of it your right, in a way.  One of the things he worked on during those last years, after he finished this one, was, what is called his "Re-considerations" which does, at least partially, address the misuse of his earlier writings by others.


Many times I ask what sounds like a question but it is not because I don't already know the answer.


----------



## Israel (Aug 18, 2019)

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.


Jesus understood, saw, _knew _the methods employed by the prince of this world to move a man to speak in, and by, his provocation. The trap...

For their feet run to evil, and they are swift to shed blood. How futile to spread the net where any bird can see it. But they lie in wait for their own blood; they ambush their own lives.

He well knew a man's own words can be to his own undoing:

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

And

“Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, _you_ wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’

Jesus, in being no form of hypocrisy, never taught of one thing and did another. His consistency is pure.

And he consistently taught of increase, of profitability. How, in reduction of anything to the smallest of its nature, capacity and ability are not diminished. So, faith as a grain of mustard seed is not to be despised. It is, by nature, holding all it needs to hold in increase.

Likewise of increase to an appearance of grandeur (a sort of negative profitability) but increase, nonetheless, comes in tiniest of motive, if given over to its own expansion:

"What will it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

The gain of the whole world _seems_ grand, a thing of almost irresistible pursuit. All of it. What _may appear_ of the everything. But something must be neglected there, something either considered of no consequence, or at worst unseen and denied, the man's soul.

This deepness of debt (that_ negative profitability_) a man can incur to himself in pursuit can never be made known to him until his own soul is revealed to him. He believes wholeheartedly he is gaining, when in fact he is being set up to have all the losing clearly demonstrated. He is allowed his pursuit. He is allowed to plant where he will, and have yield (_will have yield)_ according to his own planting.

He is the man "lying to himself"...with consequence.

And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, _and_ be merry.” ’
But God said unto him, _Thou_ fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?



“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by _its_ fruit.

The above word is as unbreakable as "Let there be light". It can no more be resisted or withstood, than darkness had power to prevent the coming of light.

Be...according to your being.

The man with the one mina was caught in both declaring the Lord a hard man, but no less in denial of the law of profitability...or expansion...growth. For the master declares "if you knew I was hard (as though these laws of yield existed separate from myself and I was "taking advantage of them" in unrighteousness,  "picking up where I laid not down") why not then at the very least, invest with the bankers for a guaranteed yield? No, there is a spiteful denial, even _in recognition_ of laws of expansion. Of profit, of growth.

The very laws of such seeming consistency...by which a man navigates for consistency "no man has yet returned from the dead...dead is ...dead" Does not know (may it be only _yet_) how much stock he invests, is investing...in death. The very _supreme-est_ of settler of all accounts. There can be no accounting..._to life._

But we who believe_ know this:_

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

A man cannot know until it is made known to him, his _own life_ is a superstition. _The_ superstition.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2019)

Israel said:


> Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
> 
> 
> Jesus understood, saw, _knew _the methods employed by the prince of this world to speak in, and by, his provocation. The trap...
> ...


You hang your beliefs on this Jesus because you being a human you need to somehow relate your urge to worship that you get from the One real god to something that is familiar to you. The Flying Spaghetti Monster knows your pain. The FSM is aware of your dilemma. You are not equipped to understand HIS ways.
The very laws of understanding forbid your limited mind to grasp why you substitute a man for the One True FSM.
The above word is UnbrEAkAblE. And we knOw this because it has been foretold long before it has been tOld(or not).

Now you may ask, say, think ,speak out loud in silence yourself why am I not able to know, understand, grasp, allow, play checkers with,the Mighty FSM?
That is a good question and I knew that you would eventually ask it.

Oh mighty FSM that be the pasta in our hearts has your answers Israel for he has sent his twins The Meatball Boys to grace your sauce that is in low simmer of false worship. Fear not for He shall not punish you but THEY through HIM shall grace your sauce with pArmEsAn, OrEgAnO, gArlIc, and...wait what please do not interrupt me with your questions but the FSM grants you permission to allow you to continue for he loves you as you are hIs creation, original recipe,  county fair award winning recipe,  so, you asked what about the cracked black pepper..

Ahh ye of little apron, hE did not forget about the cracked black pepper !! As you were stirring the sauce it was hE who had sprinkled the CRP in!!!

Are you lying to yourself when you add cAnnEd tomato paste(ie Jesus, Josh, Yeshua) to his recipe?
No the FSM knOws that you need to use whatever lesser ingredients that are available to you as not everyone can understand the recipe.

hE commands you to dunk what would be called italian bread into his sauce. Your tastebuds please hIm.

Savor the ArOmA. Marvel at the how hIs sauce clings to your flour and yeast. You may ask yourself, wait no, I will pretend that you are asking yourself in order for me to address things that nobody is talking about, " what is to become of the leftovers?"

We who are sUrE and not settle for just believing knOw this:

You can refrigerate it, cAn it, jAr it, frEEzE it, make it in advance and eat it later, you can give it to friends. BE NOT AFRAID to use other pAstA for hE is A compassionate noodle.

A man cannot know iT until it is made known to him. For only then as the FLY_NG SP_GH_TT_ M_NST_R, the meatball boys and holy Canoli can do is to allow you to go on as you are able to understand.

Don't go eating any of that wanna be wheat pasta either..


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You hang your beliefs on this Jesus because you being a human you need to somehow relate your urge to worship that you get from the One real god to something that is familiar to you. The Flying Spaghetti Monster knows your pain. The FSM is aware of your dilemma. You are not equipped to understand HIS ways.
> The very laws of understanding forbid your limited mind to grasp why you substitute a man for the One True FSM.
> The above word is UnbrEAkAblE. And we knOw this because it has been foretold long before it has been tOld(or not).
> 
> ...



Personally I think you and Israel should collaborate on a project together!
Im thinking y'all have the potential to be the biggest thing since Martin & Lewis 

And wheat pasta has got to be a sin of some sort......


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Personally I think you and Israel should collaborate on a project together!
> Im thinking y'all have the potential to be the biggest thing since Martin & Lewis
> 
> And wheat pasta has got to be a sin of some sort......


He be ye thee inspiration to me, see perhaps?

Wheat pasta...a sin?

Decide for yourself,

1."Thou Shalt Have no Other Pasta Before me"
1a. "Especially boxed"

You tell me Walt!!


----------



## Israel (Aug 19, 2019)

How would I even begin to know I am (if I am) human?
What informs me (or any) of anything?

Your saying I am human holds no more influence in my being than Koko the gorilla(?) signing to another gorilla "you are a gorilla".

I don't say this as a _right assumption_ of resistance to you or to any other that I must hold position of all as being suspect (or liar), but that my only and truest experience in being, and of my being is a continual testimony of need...of total dependence.

Of course I cannot cause any other, or you in particular (in this case) understand that. We may use examples, trying to teach each other, reach each other, touch each other to some shared knowing, some communion of consciousness that keeps a dread terror at bay...isolation. If you know nothing of this, how can I fault you? You don't know.

I can't even "urge you" to touch this, it would be like a man who has lost an arm trying to equalize or _reconcile_ the world to himself by recommending all others then cut of their arms. On one level it may have appearance of expediency to himself (all will then understand me and my experience of being me)...but who wants to understand the man who recommends all cut off their arms "for him"? What there is worth any understanding? Especially to the loss, and cost, of an arm? What will a man discover? A man is thing that wants understanding...at any cost to others?

Dread terror is potent. But these words may mean nothing to you beyond mere words. I easily understand why no man would (or could) will himself to it, nor have any right to recommend it to, or for, any other. I cannot speak of having touched it in all, nor of having anymore than the merest brushing by of it...because I simply do not know how "much of it" I know. But enough to testify that for myself it is not an "unreal thing"...and far more in attention grabbing and strength than anything else I have ever known. My experience of deepest affection (if it can be called love, at all)...is extinguished, shown as nothing, there.

To you I may easily be regarded as the rich Beverly Hills wife who breaks a nail lifting a shopping bag full of 5,000$ shoes...and crying to the heavens that the very worst thing in the whole of creation has now happened to her. I have no control over my appearance...nor can claim by _any experience _a right to being seen as more than that. I must to myself admit, I may be considerably less. Yes...even if I must appear as one jumping at every shadow. To myself I cannot deny this is often so. I am therefore not surprised much how unattractive a state of being this appears. I am not surprised it must be "up for" derision. Who could possibly_ want it? _To know...or be made aware in any way of how inescapably dependent, subject to all insult and loss one's own being is? To _know a thing_ one understands above all...this _is all_ I do not want to know. I may speak as no other, say things true_ only to me_...or not.

But Jesus has said something to me I cannot deny hearing. Even if all His saying came when in total ignorance I heard. Thinking of it in one way, that was to myself sufficient _at that time. _Thinking I understood what that man is saying.

But _I will show you_ whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into he11; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

The showing of someone within the power of Jesus to show. Someone unable to be conned, hidden from, manipulated by shame or praise, unflatter-able, un-increased by affections rendered toward, and un-decreased by dismissals or derision. A totally needy thing, dependent thing (that _in all has always_ made its appeal to maintaining its being by such) will come face to face with this "Him" in Jesus Christ. This dependent being will not even begin to know what dependence is, what need of maintenance its own being is reliant upon, what can be shown it, and will be...apart from Jesus Christ. The being...is in Christ. That being, is in Christ. All being...is found _in Christ_. And He is God the Father of all. I am never _not amazed _that this holder of _all dread terror _that can_ be in being _instructs me to call him Father...Daddy, even. There is only no choice. Thanks be to God.

A far better writer summed it up.

*“Are you not thirsty?" said the Lion.*
*"I am dying of thirst," said Jill.*
*"Then drink," said the Lion.*
*"May I — could I — would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.*
*The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl. And as Jill gazed at its motionless bulk, she realized that she might as well have asked the whole mountain to move aside for her convenience.*
*The delicious rippling noise of the stream was driving her nearly frantic.*
*"Will you promise not to — do anything to me, if I do come?" said Jill.*
*"I make no promise," said the Lion.*
*Jill was so thirsty now that, without noticing it, she had come a step nearer.*
*"Do you eat girls?" she said.*
*"I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms," said the Lion. It didn't say this as if it were boasting, nor as if it were sorry, nor as if it were angry. It just said it.*
*"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.*
*"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.*
*"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."*
*"There is no other stream," said the Lion.”*

*



*


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2019)

Israel said:


> How would I even begin to know I am (if I am) human?
> What informs me (or any) of anything?


 The Flying(if he flies) Spaghetti (if he is pasta) Monster(boo!) Commands it.



Israel said:


> Your saying I am human holds no more influence in my being than Koko the gorilla(?) signing to another gorilla "you are a gorilla".


 I have no say in it. It was foretold before time begat, began, begun. Don't sweat it. Just sit back and enjoy your banana.



Israel said:


> I don't say this as a _right assumption_ of resistance to you or to any other that I must hold position of all as being suspect (or liar), but that my only and truest experience in being, and of my being is a continual testimony of need...of total dependence.


 Koko types well



Israel said:


> Of course I cannot cause any other, or you in particular (in this case) understand that. We may use examples, trying to teach each other, reach each other, touch each other to some shared knowing, some communion of consciousness that keeps a dread terror at bay...isolation. If you know nothing of this, how can I fault you? You don't know.


If you may not be human or even exist the rest is moot, why continue?



Israel said:


> I can't even "urge you" to touch this, it would be like a man who has lost an arm trying to equalize or _reconcile_ the world to himself by recommending all others then cut of their arms. On one level it may have appearance of expediency to himself (all will then understand me and my experience of being me)...but who wants to understand the man who recommends all cut off their arms "for him"? What there is worth any understanding? Especially to the loss, and cost, of an arm? What will a man discover? A man is thing that wants understanding...at any cost to others?


 It is like listening to that one armed man clapping(for those who can hear such things will )



Israel said:


> Dread terror is potent. But these words may mean nothing to you beyond mere words. I easily understand why no man would (or could) will himself to it, nor have any right to recommend it to, or for, any other. I cannot speak of having touched it in all, nor of having anymore than the merest brushing by of it...because I simply do not know how "much of it" I know. But enough to testify that for myself it is not an "unreal thing"...and far more in attention grabbing and strength than anything else I have ever known. My experience of deepest affection (if it can be called love, at all)...is extinguished, shown as nothing, there.


 I know that you know that I know that we know that neither of us know what you know. Ya Know?



Israel said:


> To you I may easily be regarded as the rich Beverly Hills wife who breaks a nail lifting a shopping bag full of 5,000$ shoes...and crying to the heavens that the very worst thing in the whole of creation has now happened to her. I have no control over my appearance...nor can claim by _any experience _a right to being seen as more than that. I must to myself admit, I may be considerably less.


Nope, you have forever sealed yourself in mind as a Koko wanna be, now with fancy fingernails. 



Israel said:


> Yes...even if I must appear as one jumping at every shadow. To myself I cannot deny this is often so. I am therefore not surprised much how unattractive a state of being this appears. I am not surprised it must be "up for" derision. Who could possibly_ want it? _To know...or be made aware in any way of how inescapably dependent, subject to all insult and loss one's own being is? To _know a thing_ one understands above all...this _is all_ I do not want to know. I may speak as no other, say things true_ only to me_...or not.


CLIFF NOTES:
It may be this or it may not.



Israel said:


> But Jesus has said something to me I cannot deny hearing. Even if all His saying came when in total ignorance I heard. Thinking of it in one way, that was to myself sufficient _at that time. _Thinking I understood what that man is saying.


That was not Jesus. I established a few posts ago that it bE the works of the FSM. It has been foretold. It is unquestionable. It is unalterable. 



Israel said:


> But _I will show you_ whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into he11; yes, I say to you, fear Him!


You forgot your signature "Or Not"



Israel said:


> The showing of someone within the power of Jesus to show. Someone unable to be conned, hidden from, manipulated by shame or praise, unflatter-able, un-increased by affections rendered toward, and un-decreased by dismissals or derision. A totally needy thing, dependent thing (that _in all has always_ made its appeal to maintaining its being by such) will come face to face with this "Him" in Jesus Christ. This being will not even begin to know what dependence is, what need of maintenance its own being is reliant upon, what can be shown it, and will be...apart from Jesus Christ. The being...is in Christ. That being, is in Christ. All being...is found _in Christ_. And He is God the Father of all. I am never _not amazed _that this holder of _all dread terror _that can_ be in being _instructs me to call him Father...Daddy, even. There is only no choice. Thanks be to God.


Your cries of praise to the FSM(remember we established your praise of another really is the way you understand the FSM)does not fall on deaf parsley sprigs. Oh great cosmic pasta Hear oH IsrAEl's praise for thee and rejoice at his loyalty. 
It pleases hIm that you publicly praise.



Israel said:


> A far better writer summed it up.
> 
> *“Are you not thirsty?" said the Lion.*
> *"I am dying of thirst," said Jill.*
> ...


Koko could sign, but WOW a talking Lion! That is impressive (or not)


----------



## Israel (Aug 19, 2019)

I understand this is painfully difficult for you.  A man with (what I sense) a straight face saying, "As always I speak honestly" but who may think: 

"Mating unicorns with Tibetan monks produces profitable livestock" 

is the more ridiculous of the two statements is always going to encounter so much of a painful phase shift when surveying himself in the "all in all" as to be all at odds in the truth. And, painfully so. This is axiomatic.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2019)

Israel said:


> I understand this is painfully difficult for you.


And yet knowing my pain you continue posting it..



Israel said:


> A man with (what I sense) a straight face saying, "As always I speak honestly" but who may think:
> "Mating unicorns with Tibetan monks produces profitable livestock"


When you introduce things as if to make it seem like things were actually said is extremely dishonest. Much like asking your own questions In order to steer a conversation the way you need it to go. And so is adding (or not) to cover and negate a point just made.




Israel said:


> is the more ridiculous of the two statements is always going to encounter so much of a painful phase shift when surveying himself in the "all in all" as to be all at odds in the truth. And, painfully so. This is axiomatic.


Well when you must introduce a false conversation in order to pretend to steer the made up outcome....you cannot really lecture anyone about truth.

Soeth it bE foretoldeth in the great kettle, soeth doth the pot call hIm black.


----------



## Israel (Aug 20, 2019)

bullethead said:


> As always, I speak honestly.
> 
> Your top answer may not be as honest. It doesn't add up as written.






bullethead said:


> And yet knowing my pain you continue posting it..
> 
> 
> When you introduce things as if to make it seem like things were actually said is extremely dishonest. Much like asking your own questions In order to steer a conversation the way you need it to go. And so is adding (or not) to cover and negate a point just made.
> ...



What part of "who may think" is implying anything as to what was actually being said? When matters of what are actually said speak quite clearly for themselves.



> As always, I speak honestly



It's fun to talk that way though, isn't it? It's like slipping on daddy's shoes and lowering your voice a few registers. Slinging a tie around your neck and saying "I'm the man of the house". "I'm the one who is..."

Clip clop, clip clop. Be careful on the stairs in those shoes...


You regale us almost daily with what you find absurd, laughable, subject to all ridicule and your findings of what is permissible to being. And not exclusive of judging the character and motives of many speakers.

I do not recall a single instance of any believer (except maybe myself, cause I understand the attraction of liking to pretend to be the "dad" and could never claim I haven't spoken in such pretense)  making claim of their _always_ being honest. In fact I trust you'd find most, if not all, ready to admit they have seen a duplicity in themselves, a thing called sin; a fault they could never of themselves reconcile. This produced in them a matter of necessity, a certain repulsion to _their own being _in which their own being is shown insufficient to resolve.

Believing in honesty as a true virtue, they have found themselves lying. Believing in true devotion, they have found themselves considering the legs of a 23 year old not their wife. Believing in love, they have been even harsh and unkind at times to their own children. God alone knows how such grace works in such help to a man to move him into that untenable place of knowing the true exists...and is...yet even as he acknowledges it with the equal conviction; it is not himself. He is not the "always" honest, the always pure, the always loyal, courageous or...insert whatever virtue.

How grace prevents utter despair, while even showing the man's condition, is all a marvel. For the man learns the source of this knowing, made by this grace to see himself now in clearer light is from the person who alone is set to the resolution, the reconciling. He needn't (and grace forbids) the abandon of conviction of true love, loyalty, courage, honesty, truth, devotion, purity of motive...for the simplest thing in all truth that may come from him is also given by conviction inescapable...but the merest admission...confession..."this is not me". I ain't it. 

Then someone may be received who is indeed...every bit of it. This is to whom we testify, Jesus Christ, and He alone true heir, true scion, the full representation of every virtue we may have formerly espoused as true...and even perhaps "in ourselves", but now disabused of such foolishness. And even such utter poverty in their conception as to think we could possess, or did possess in right perception.

It's the easiest thing in the world for a man to imagine he is correct to himself, right, seeing as clearly as things can be seen, and in that even believe he is in all, an honest broker. Others always seem more obviously suspect to such a man. There's simply no space in such _rightness to himself _for any consideration of such a thing as repentance.

Derision and cleverness are the hallmark. This is not, as they say "rocket science".

We speak of a grace that holds all of what is necessity to man for the knowledge of God. Some may think that God might be known apart from this grace, this gift that is of, and from Himself, as though God's being can be determined as another bit of information to be added to some sum of data, a "thing" to acquire in knowing, a piece of puzzle he might fit into his own reason, and then go merrily on_ his own_ way.

But deep calls to deep, and even the yet most hardened heart can hold some form of knowing that any form of knowing Him must have the most profound effect beyond his own control. Yes, it's a _spiritual thing.  _An essential thing.

Everything cannot but be _up for grabs_ of former knowings. Former views. Former affections. The Lord knows Peters when he meets them as he does Nathanaels and every other...from sons of thunder to Judas's. None of us are hidden from His sight and knowing.

Of course their is a sorrow, a taste of despair...a suffering when the man learns he is not "the it". A sense of...loss. The man is no longer free to think of himself "as he will". And others, also.

And this is going on, will go on, will not cease its going on right up to the moment of the calling of the very last disciple is heard...the last lost child is summoned home, and all of the world...and all of its seeming grandeur, accomplishments, wonders, knowings...is _all merely allowed to continue in all its resistance, its self fortifying, its derisions..._all and only for the sake of the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his own.


Even so, come Lord.

And I too am being admonished to have a care on the stairs.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2019)

Israel said:


> What part of "who may think" is implying anything as to what was actually being said? When matters of what are actually said speak quite clearly for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will address this one by one when I am done work for the day.

Until then, your incessant obsession of my "as always" statement is all you got???
I can have fun Izzy. I can make satirical posts.
Here is a new quote for you, "As Always, I will call out the typical assertive statements, dishonest writing styles, factless claims and deal with them accordingly"
When I take the time to reply in here I do it honestly according to what I am replying to. Nonsense gets an honest even if nonsensical reply.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I will address this one by one when I am done work for the day.
> 
> Until then, your incessant obsession of my "as always" statement is all you got???
> I can have fun Izzy. I can make satirical posts.
> ...



There is none so unrighteous as the self righteous.


----------



## Israel (Aug 20, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I will address this one by one when I am done work for the day.
> 
> Until then, your incessant obsession of my "as always" statement is all you got???
> I can have fun Izzy. I can make satirical posts.
> Here is a new quite for you, As Always, I will call out the typical assertive claims and deal with them accordingly"



Oh.  I was mistaken?
If that was you being satirical, funny, kind of poking fun at yourself...wow, was I mistaken and in need of your forgiveness. Mistaking it as a self assertion as to your own integrity must surely show you how desperately I am subject to delusion and in need of a clearer seeing.

I must suppose I do not see you correctly, at all.


I ask you then to forgive me.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2019)

Israel said:


> Oh.  I was mistaken?
> If that was you being satirical, funny, kind of poking fun at yourself...wow, was I mistaken and in need of your forgiveness. Mistaking it as a self assertion as to your own integrity must surely show you how desperately I am subject to delusion and in need of a clearer seeing.
> 
> I must suppose I do not see you correctly, at all.
> ...



Don't worry. He never, ever, ever, ever, ever...pokes fun at himself.......ever.


----------



## Israel (Aug 20, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Don't worry. He never, ever, ever, ever, ever...pokes fun at himself.......ever.


 

But, unless I misunderstand, he is saying that was said sort of facetiously...having some fun. I can grant him that. God forbid I don't.

God knows I have said some things I would like taken in a "better light".


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 20, 2019)

welderguy said:


> There is none so unrighteous as the self righteous.


Be careful Welder. 
Your rejection of all other gods to the exclusion of your own is a prime example of "self righteousness".
We are ALL self righteous in one way or another. Its a human trait.


----------



## Israel (Aug 20, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Be careful Welder.
> Your rejection of all other gods to the exclusion of your own is a prime example of "self righteousness".
> We are ALL self righteous in one way or another. Its a human trait.



You should be rejoicing then, with us! Ain't it got a stink like no other? There is no other God who promises to smear the faces of even those who "name his name" with the filth of their own so called sacrifices! Ain't it great! A great equalizer! None escapes the examination for where they stand, no word or boast goes untested! Who doesn't want this? Who doesn't want their own boasting cut away in full assurance their very motive_ to it (that is the boast of others that provokes them and vainly provides excuse) _will be dealt with most surely?
There are "no points" awarded for believing this God exists...no thing a man might point to and say "see, _I have done the right thing_ by believing this God is!" Even the devils know...and tremble.

I can't _not believe_ in this God, no choice, no option, no other...not because I would like to...but only because the reality of my own stink is made to be so unbearable, and undeniably true. It helps me not at all to say "all men do it"...as if their stink can give relief from my own...it only adds to...and worsens it in that frame of mind.

There's only one place I can go to smell the Rose of Sharon, and it ain't myself. What man is dam* fool enough to think he can take credit for seeking a rising from the miasma to take a breath? Do you slap the man on the back who swims to the surface of the sea of sin..."Good thing you are that good kind of person who prefers to not drown in feces!"? And what man is fool enough to think that of himself? "Good thing I am the better kind of person who wanted to live!"


Yeah, this guy again. He's all in the "no choice about it". "I can't help wanting you this way". I'm even past wanting to present my desire that you exist as something suitable...it's all of useless.









"I don't care if you exist" Caught absolutely between knowing man will invent anything to himself, and for himself, from desire...except the one thing he knows he cannot!

You can't believe in mercy apart from believing there is an absolutely unyielding judgement readied. And you cannot preach mercy in any exemption of consideration of when upon you, and how, this may fall.

You're a veteran. You don't need the concept of friendly fire explained to you. Give your own coordinates, cause there's an enemy in bed with you...and call down that artillery! A man might even be saved...but he'll only know by a precision and accuracy so perfect that he will never again confuse it for his own ability.

Jesus aimed at the cross from that_ all before _any of us...even knew ourselves in being.

You think this is some provocation to be brave? Courageous? "Self" sacrificing in some noble vein? Ha ha ha ha ha. It's just the opportunity to _not speak a lie _one time, by grace, to every man. All my brothers are those who easily confess "I didn't lie _only one time." None will ever say_  "I have told all of the truth all of the time"

But each knows that at least one time..."I was given to utter what is not lie." Given...to utter.

Jesus is Lord.

Yet God counts it....enough. Cause he recognizes Himself there. The Father is not ashamed to call His own son Lord.

So any who may yet be...ashamed, only show one thing...they're venal and petty usurpers. Posers. Pretenders...to the throne. Duped by the one who has coveted it.

Better...than God.










But even envy works. God has made all things practical for man, through Jesus Christ.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Don't worry. He never, ever, ever, ever, ever...pokes fun at himself.......ever.


I am very glad that all you know of me is in here.

"never, ever,ever ever......ever"
That is one difinitve claim based on Zero actual knowledge,  even less proof.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2019)

Israel said:


> But, unless I misunderstand, he is saying that was said sort of facetiously...having some fun. I can grant him that. God forbid I don't.
> 
> God knows I have said some things I would like taken in a "better light".


I said it was said Satirically , not sort of anything else.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 20, 2019)

The utility one finds in a belief has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of it.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Be careful Welder.
> Your rejection of all other gods to the exclusion of your own is a prime example of "self righteousness".
> We are ALL self righteous in one way or another. Its a human trait.



You say this as if I haven't rejected every one of them. It just happens that one had mercy on my unrighteous rejection. He gave me righteousness. I didn't earn it in any way.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am very glad that all you know of me is in here.
> 
> "never, ever,ever ever......ever"
> That is one difinitve claim based on Zero actual knowledge,  even less proof.



So you're telling us the guy we know as "bullethead" is not who you really are? That you're just play acting in here, but in "real life" you're different? I'm not buying that.
Out of the heart, the mouth speaks.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 20, 2019)

welderguy said:


> You say this as if I haven't rejected every one of them. It just happens that one had mercy on my unrighteous rejection. He gave me righteousness. I didn't earn it in any way.


Never mind


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2019)

welderguy said:


> So you're telling us the guy we know as "bullethead" is not who you really are? That you're just play acting in here, but in "real life" you're different? I'm not buying that.
> Out of the heart, the mouth speaks.


The very small part of me that you experience is based on what I am given to respond to. If it seems one sided and consistent to you then you are equally one sided and consistent.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The very small part of me that you experience is based on what I am given to respond to. If it seems one sided and consistent to you then you are equally one sided and consistent.



Nothing wrong with being one sided and consistent, if that's who you really are, that is.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Never mind



Blah blah


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 20, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Is there a different way to consider the idea of "firmament"?  Is there a way to think of it philosophically or metaphorically?


Yes. I’m convinced that 1000 years from now, what I refer to as shaky ground, someone will be certain I was thinking of an earth quake.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 21, 2019)

welderguy said:


> You say this as if I haven't rejected every one of them. It just happens that one had mercy on my unrighteous rejection. He gave me righteousness. I didn't earn it in any way.



You’re not the first to make such claims about their chosen deity. The god of the people you were born to just happens to be the real one? Not likely especially considering there is no bar which your god can meet that other gods can’t. In light of that, any righteousness you may demonstrate is due to the man in the mirror. Take credit for that if such a label is genuinely warranted. Likewise for every other aspect of who you are. In any case you most certainly have earned it.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 21, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yes. I’m convinced that 1000 years from now, what I refer to as shaky ground, someone will be certain I was thinking of an earth quake.



The one comports with the other. The ancient conception of up there with what we now know? Not so much. It’s not as if the discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus were met by the faithful with joy that what they thought they knew was finally confirmed.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yes. I’m convinced that 1000 years from now, what I refer to as shaky ground, someone will be certain I was thinking of an earth quake.


Quite possible for the people who do not study history, are unfamiliar with language and culture and or refuse to inform themselves about whatever it is they are discussing.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Nothing wrong with being one sided and consistent, if that's who you really are, that is.


As conditions(conversations) allow.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 21, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You’re not the first to make such claims about their chosen deity. The god of the people you were born to just happens to be the real one? Not likely especially considering there is no bar which your god can meet that other gods can’t. In light of that, any righteousness you may demonstrate is due to the man in the mirror. Take credit for that if such a label is genuinely warranted. Likewise for every other aspect of who you are. In any case you most certainly have earned it.



What you describe is self-righteousness.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 21, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Blah blah
> 
> What you describe is self-righteousness.



What I describe is you. Stop pretending you’re any different from others who give credit to other deities they were taught to believe in.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 21, 2019)

The problem is not self righteousness. If you are truly an agent with free will then any righteousness you demonstrate can come only from you. All the righteous then are self righteous just as the unrighteousness are self unrighteous. What we really mean when using the term self righteous as a negative connotation is those who make false pretenses of being righteous.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 23, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> What I describe is you. Stop pretending you’re any different from others who give credit to other deities they were taught to believe in.



In that regard, we would be no different.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 23, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The problem is not self righteousness. If you are truly an agent with free will then any righteousness you demonstrate can come only from you. All the righteous then are self righteous just as the unrighteousness are self unrighteous. What we really mean when using the term self righteous as a negative connotation is those who make false pretenses of being righteous.



Anyone, who thinks he is an agent with free will and has righteousness which was not freely given to him, is self-righteous. Simple as that.


----------

