# Bullet, Ambush and others....



## jmharris23 (May 4, 2018)

I’d be curious what you thought about this if you get the time to listen to it. 

https://omny.fm/shows/north-point-community-church/aftermath-part-1-stand-alone-andy-stanley


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

I'll listen to it and get back to you.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

I am excited about this...... To realize that someone is teaching this. That I might not be all alone on this. I have been saying this for a long time here at GON. Glad to see someone do such a good job with it. I enjoyed it. Thanks for the link. I am anxious to listen to his other material. It does not have the power to convert atheist.... however it can remove the argument over the bible and shift it to faith.... do you believe there is a possible life after death.... and if so, who was the first. And how do I get to do the same?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2018)

Just a quick thought right off the bat, If what is written in the bible is not true, there cannot be a Jesus to have faith in.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Just a quick thought right off the bat, If what is written in the bible is not true, there cannot be a Jesus to have faith in.



Although we come from a different angle that’s kind of my thought....either it’s true or not. If we get to decide what is and isn’t....How do we decide?


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> Although we come from a different angle that’s kind of my thought....either it’s true or not. If we get to decide what is and isn’t....How do we decide?




Haven't watched it yet but I promise I will.  But I can answer this anyway.  I like this definition:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/07/how_do_we_know_what_is_true.html

_"How do we know if something is true?

It seems like a simple enough question. We know something is true if it is in accordance with measurable reality. But just five hundred years ago, this seemingly self-evident premise was not common thinking."
_

I like any of this as well:

https://www.google.com/search?q=true&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab

_true
troÍžo/
adjective
adjective: true; comparative adjective: truer; superlative adjective: truest

    1.
    in accordance with fact or reality.
    "a true story"
    synonyms:	correct, accurate, right, verifiable, in accordance with the facts, what actually/really happened, well documented, the case, so; More
    literal, factual, unelaborated, unvarnished
    "you'll see that what I say is true"
    antonyms:	untrue, false, fallacious
        rightly or strictly so called; genuine.
        "people are still willing to pay for true craftsmanship"
        synonyms:	genuine, authentic, real, actual, bona fide, proper; More
        honest-to-goodness, kosher, legit, the real McCoy
        "people are still willing to pay for true craftsmanship"
        rightful, legitimate, legal, lawful, authorized, bona fide, de jure
        "the true owner of the goods"
        sincere, genuine, real, unfeigned, heartfelt, hearty, from the heart
        "the necessity for true repentance"
        antonyms:	bogus, phony, de facto, insincere, feigned
        real or actual.
        "he has guessed my true intentions"
        said when conceding a point in argument or discussion.
        "true, it faced north, but you got used to that"
    2.
    accurate or exact.
    "it was a true depiction"
    synonyms:	accurate, true to life, faithful, telling it like it is, fact-based, realistic, close, lifelike
    "a true reflection of life in the 50s"
    antonyms:	inaccurate
        (of a note) exactly in tune.
        (of a compass bearing) measured relative to true north.
        "steer 085 degrees true"
        correctly positioned, balanced, or aligned; upright or level.
    3.
    loyal or faithful.
    "he was a true friend"
    synonyms:	loyal, faithful, constant, devoted, staunch, steadfast, true-blue, unswerving, unwavering; More
    trustworthy, trusty, reliable, dependable
    "a true friend"
    antonyms:	disloyal, faithless
        accurately conforming to (a standard or expectation); faithful to.
        "this entirely new production remains true to the essence of Lorca's play"
    4.
    archaic
    honest.
    "we appeal to all good men and true to rally to us"

adverb
adverb: true

    1.
    literary
    truly.
    "Hobson spoke truer than he knew"
    2.
    accurately or without variation.

verb
verb: true; 3rd person present: trues; past tense: trued; past participle: trued; gerund or present participle: truing; gerund or present participle: trueing

    1.
    bring (an object, wheel, or other construction) into the exact shape, alignment, or position required.

Origin
Old English trÄ“owe, trÈ³we ‘steadfast, loyal’; related to Dutch getrouw, German treu, also to truce.
Translate true to
Use over time for: true_


----------



## jmharris23 (May 4, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> Although we come from a different angle that’s kind of my thought....either it’s true or not. If we get to decide what is and isn’t....How do we decide?



To be fair to him Andy says he believes the OT is true in the second sermon of this series


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> Although we come from a different angle that’s kind of my thought....either it’s true or not. If we get to decide what is and isn’t....How do we decide?


It does not have to be all or nothing. It can be that the simple version was that Jesus existed, either was the messiah or was not? That he was killed by the Romans for fear of an insurrection. That he was raised from the dead or rumored to be raised from the dead. Later stories about these events and the man would naturally become embellished and influenced by the current issues of the time they were written.  If someone misquoted details about Babe Ruth's life, embellished him into some sort of super hero, it does not mean that Babe Ruth did not exist, or play baseball, or be known for his home runs.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> It does not have to be all or nothing. It can be that the simple version was that Jesus existed, either was the messiah or was not? That he was killed by the Romans for fear of an insurrection. That he was raised from the dead or rumored to be raised from the dead. Later stories about these events and the man would naturally become embellished and influenced by the current issues of the time they were written.  If someone misquoted details about Babe Ruth's life, embellished him into some sort of super hero, it does not mean that Babe Ruth did not exist, or play baseball, or be known for his home runs.



I can imagine the telephone game.  

"So this guy said he was Jesus, but he didn't look like him.  But he was walking around with this air...."

"I just heard that some guy saw resurrected Jesus and that he flew up into the air!!!"


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

I'm gonna comment as I go along listening so as not to forget anything.

Around 5 or 6 minutes he talks about the New Atheists dismantling Christianity after 9/11.  They dismantle _all_ faith based beliefs and religions; Wicca, Pantheism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism...all of them.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

15 min.

A miracle....

they can miraculously understand each other.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

Around 15:30:

He talks about Peter.  "You know for you guys who have screwed up in the passed, this should be encouraging to you."  Then he talks about how unqualified Peter is and yet Jesus puts him in charge.  

Good preacher.

He's setting up the narrative.   I feel a pitch and some snake oil coming.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

17:00.

I'm agonizing listening to him talk about how Jesus rose from the dead like it's true.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

Mankind has forever pondered the afterlife. Not just the Christians. Many people have found lots of comfort in the thought of seeing again a loved one. If we can eliminate all the religious thoughts and everything that goes along with religion, then and only then can we ponder life after death. Could it be real? Do I believe it's possible? And then we can work from there. Either a quick no.... or a slim possibility, or I would like to think so, or yes, I do believe in the afterlife???? Everybody will be different. This is the first question to deal with. Then it moves on from there. If so, or maybe so, do we believe this rumor that a man named Jesus was raised from the dead? The early Christians did. Did they have good reason??? We don't know other than these writing in the book, the bible. Some will determine they don't believe there is a God, and some might determine they don't believe that if God does exist.... that he raises the dead, and some might say it's all possible but not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. Some will. The book/bible has confused things so bad that the original hope of life after death, has been replaced with believing that God became a man. Christianity was never about believing that God became a man.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

23:43.

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="z49rnsK">Puppy yawn</blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

What are we getting at, Mark?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 17:00.
> 
> I'm agonizing listening to him talk about how Jesus rose from the dead like it's true.


I think the point of the video is not it's truth but more about acknowledging the errors and contradictions. Basing one's faith on the simple story within rather than all the details that have become distorted. The point I made in a recent post, which came first, the chicken or the egg? In most cases, people have put their faith in a book, not in the basic story. He has given credit to atheist as to being able to refute the bible. Most Christians would rather drink poison than admit this, so we see a man capable of rational thinking. There is a long period in the speech that is about the stories, that you may get bogged down in. But the beginning point and ending point is to ponder what the early christians believed, it's simple form, without having the bible, and make a conscience effort to let this be the foundation of faith.... not the book. Considering this, if Christians gave up the inerrancy of scripture, it would eliminate over half the debate with Atheist. Not that it would change anything, but that it would simplify the debates


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Mankind has forever pondered the afterlife. Not just the Christians. Many people have found lots of comfort in the thought of seeing again a loved one. If we can eliminate all the religious thoughts and everything that goes along with religion, then and only then can we ponder life after death. Could it be real? Do I believe it's possible? And then we can work from there. Either a quick no.... or a slim possibility, or I would like to think so, or yes, I do believe in the afterlife???? Everybody will be different. This is the first question to deal with. Then it moves on from there. If so, or maybe so, do we believe this rumor that a man named Jesus was raised from the dead? The early Christians did. Did they have good reason??? We don't know other than these writing in the book, the bible. Some will determine they don't believe there is a God, and some might determine they don't believe that if God does exist.... that he raises the dead, and some might say it's all possible but not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. Some will. The book/bible has confused things so bad that the original hope of life after death, has been replaced with believing that God became a man. Christianity was never about believing that God became a man.



OK.  Let's talk about an afterlife.  Let's talk about what would REALLY be like.  Most Christians here will say "I don't really know what it will be like but it will be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!"

Errrrrrrrnt.   Wrong answer.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think the point of the video is not it's truth but more about acknowledging the errors and contradictions. Basing one's faith on the simple story within rather than all the details that have become distorted. The point I made in a recent post, which came first, the chicken or the egg? In most cases, people have put their faith in a book, not in the basic story. He has given credit to atheist as to being able to refute the bible. Most Christians would rather drink poison than admit this, so we see a man capable of rational thinking. There is a long period in the speech that is about the stories, that you may get bogged down in. But the beginning point and ending point is to ponder what the early christians believed, it's simple form, without having the bible, and make a conscience effort to let this be the foundation of faith.... not the book. Considering this, if Christians gave up the inerrancy of scripture, it would eliminate over half the debate with Atheist. Not that it would change anything, but that it would simplify the debates



OK.  I'm bogged down.  This is the part of the sermon that I usually walk out on and take a potty break, play on my phone, pick my nails, draw on the program.....I'll get through it.

Mark, I would love to help pastors streamline their presentations if only to save the parishioners from needless suffering.  They still follow the same structure that they learned in seminary, even this "new fangled" preacher.  Ain't nobody got time for all that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> OK.  Let's talk about an afterlife.  Let's talk about what would REALLY be like.  Most Christians here will say "I don't really know what it will be like but it will be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!"
> 
> Errrrrrrrnt.   Wrong answer.


I'm not sure we have any true indication to what an afterlife would be like. The only information that one might find, that I know of, would be pondering what the bible says about it. Yet, then we have contradictions again here. John giving us details yet another saying "no eye has seen what the father has prepared"  So, the one voids the other. Since we have no real knowledge of it, we would simply be left to our own speculation.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

To clarify the speech. The premise is that the church bases it's faith on the book. That before the book, they had underlying foundation that we should look to as the bases of our faith. The book is just a book.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

Pondering on this...... The thought of seeing my loved ones again is comforting but equally discomforting is the thought that all my loved one's may not be here. On one hand, I can see a potential resistance to a God whom grants heaven to one and death [no he11] to another, over what he believes or don't believe.  I put a lot of stock in Mark, however if my wife is not my wife in heaven then I prefer to stay right here.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> It does not have to be all or nothing. It can be that the simple version was that Jesus existed, either was the messiah or was not? That he was killed by the Romans for fear of an insurrection. That he was raised from the dead or rumored to be raised from the dead. Later stories about these events and the man would naturally become embellished and influenced by the current issues of the time they were written.  If someone misquoted details about Babe Ruth's life, embellished him into some sort of super hero, it does not mean that Babe Ruth did not exist, or play baseball, or be known for his home runs.


True regarding Babe Ruth until they say he died, arose and flew up into the sky.
The mortal stuff is believable.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

That's it?!?  Peter's argument to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is that he saw it with his own eyes?  They would believe it, too if they saw it with their own eyes.  I would as well.  I feel a little dumber.  What a rip off.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> True regarding Babe Ruth until they say he died, arose and flew up into the sky.
> The mortal stuff is believable.



I might even believe it if someone said he hit a ball 600ft.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Pondering on this...... The thought of seeing my loved ones again is comforting but equally discomforting is the thought that all my loved one's may not be here. On one hand, I can see a potential resistance to a God whom grants heaven to one and death [no he11] to another, over what he believes or don't believe.  I put a lot of stock in Mark, however if my wife is not my wife in heaven then I prefer to stay right here.



I want my wife when we were 25.  Awwwwww yeahhhhh.


But not forever.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I want my wife when we were 25.  Awwwwww yeahhhhh.
> 
> 
> But not forever.


LOL, she might be better than when she was 25. It's heaven, dream big


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, she might be better than when she was 25. It's heaven, dream big



Great point.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> True regarding Babe Ruth until they say he died, arose and flew up into the sky.
> The mortal stuff is believable.


 I don't know that I believe they saw him fly up into the sky. That assumes heaven is up? Why does it have to be up? My belief is that it don't matter whether he walked on the earth after death. As the firstborn among many brothers, I don't know why his resurrection should be different than mine. And mine would be that my dead body stays in the grave, but that I am raised to afterlife. The bible is a collection of contradictions. So, I don't feel the need to believe all of it. I wish we had nothing more than the story of him going to the grave and his body in the grave. It would not mean that he was not raised. The idea of his body not being there and him then revealing himself in different unrecognized forms makes no sense. If his body went with him then why not reveal himself in that body rather than some  story of another form. Christians believe that when they die, they leave their body behind and go to heaven. Why then would Jesus's death be different. Point I mean to make is there is only one real miracle that matters. Was he raised from the dead. And we honestly have not enough information that we can trust in written form. I believe that we a chosen to believe or not. As I have always said, it feels as though I have no choice in the matter, as if I am preprogrammed to believe it so


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2018)

These are my thoughts on a few of the things being discussed.
Regarding the Bible, I think it is an all or nothing deal. If a GOD has ANYTHING to do with it at all it certainly would be infallible and the ultimate truth and unable to be picked apart. If it is man made(which it seems to be) it is easily verifiable or falsifiable which has been done. 

What is left are the miracles. They occur no where else but inside the pages of the OT and NT. Within those stories they mention witnesses. The witnesses had to be a mix of believers and non believers. Except for Paul and a few anonymous writers NOBODY else even jotted down a single thing about any of those miracles and especially nobody mentioned anything about witnessing a man ascending into the sky.
I have to put myself into the shoes of a non believer in Jesus while hearing about him preaching all over town. I'd have heard that he was a preacher and a trouble maker. I would have heard the rumors if not witnessed the early miracles.  By the time he was arrested I sure there was quite a crowd that gathered both for and against him along with many others who have no dog in the fight but just show up for public executions because it was something to do. I (as someone who was there)would have watched him die on the cross. I would have heard the rumblings in the crowd as the ordeal took place. I would have been very interested in the talk that he shall rise again.
I am sure that word would have spread quickly about the tomb being empty and the guy that was dead is not in there. I would have heard about sightings of him. I may have even been one of the 500 that watched him ascend skyward.
What Would Bullethead Do?
I would have told everybody what I just witnessed even if I was in my current state of CensoredCensored-O-Meter spinning at max rpm.
I would have made sure to record it or go to someone else that could. I would have sought out ither that I knew who were in the crowd that also witnessed that either then or today would be the single most awesome thing that anyone would have seen.

But...NOBODY did that. No believer or non believer recorded it. No scholar or educated person that could write wrote down anything about it.

I then think along the lines....was these sort of events so common that nobody batted an eye and hust eent on about their lives every time someone turned water to wine, walked across water, cane back from the dead and shot into the sky?
OR
Is it TOTAL superstitious nonsense that darn near every culture of the time used to wow potential believers into following along? I wonder why these interactions between all these Gods and people just stopped all of a sudden.

And then I think about Babe Ruth.
We have more witnesses for his deeds than The Son of God and God himself.
The Great Bambino doesnt have a few anonymous sports writers that wrote things down that claim 500 people saw The Babe do what he did on the field. He had thousands of fans and foes that watched him do his deeds. We have autographs.  We have a historical trail that can be followed. If someone along the way said that after The Babe smacked a grand slam to win the World Series and then just after he touched home plate he ascended above the crowd and into the clouds....well we could check that against the other 20,000 people who would have seen that. We would compare it with all the other people who said the same thing. OR we can compare that with the 20,000 people who never ever even bothered to say a thing about it in any way shape or form.

The silence is deafening.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I don't know that I believe they saw him fly up into the sky. That assumes heaven is up? Why does it have to be up? My belief is that it don't matter whether he walked on the earth after death. As the firstborn among many brothers, I don't know why his resurrection should be different than mine. And mine would be that my dead body stays in the grave, but that I am raised to afterlife. The bible is a collection of contradictions. So, I don't feel the need to believe all of it. I wish we had nothing more than the story of him going to the grave and his body in the grave. It would not mean that he was not raised. The idea of his body not being there and him then revealing himself in different unrecognized forms makes no sense. If his body went with him then why not reveal himself in that body rather than some  story of another form. Christians believe that when they die, they leave their body behind and go to heaven. Why then would Jesus's death be different. Point I mean to make is there is only one real miracle that matters. Was he raised from the dead. And we honestly have not enough information that we can trust in written form. I believe that we a chosen to believe or not. As I have always said, it feels as though I have no choice in the matter, as if I am preprogrammed to believe it so



I believe that any of us could vastly improve the Bible in 5 minutes.  We could make it more moral and less divisive with ease.  

So it sounds like you might be leaning towards predestination but it's based on a feeling and not the logical arguments some have made here.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I don't know that I believe they saw him fly up into the sky. That assumes heaven is up? Why does it have to be up? My belief is that it don't matter whether he walked on the earth after death. As the firstborn among many brothers, I don't know why his resurrection should be different than mine. And mine would be that my dead body stays in the grave, but that I am raised to afterlife. The bible is a collection of contradictions. So, I don't feel the need to believe all of it. I wish we had nothing more than the story of him going to the grave and his body in the grave. It would not mean that he was not raised. The idea of his body not being there and him then revealing himself in different unrecognized forms makes no sense. If his body went with him then why not reveal himself in that body rather than some  story of another form. Christians believe that when they die, they leave their body behind and go to heaven. Why then would Jesus's death be different. Point I mean to make is there is only one real miracle that matters. Was he raised from the dead. And we honestly have not enough information that we can trust in written form. I believe that we a chosen to believe or not. As I have always said, it feels as though I have no choice in the matter, as if I am preprogrammed to believe it so



Then what is the purpose of having the Bible if there is no way to know who or what is real or no way to know what happened or did not?
I cannot justify taking the things that I like from it and putting an ounce of faith into them.

I do take it for what it is,and why I went away from it, its organized followers and it's main Character.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> These are my thoughts on a few of the things being discussed.
> Regarding the Bible, I think it is an all or nothing deal. If a GOD has ANYTHING to do with it at all it certainly would be infallible and the ultimate truth and unable to be picked apart. If it is man made(which it seems to be) it is easily verifiable or falsifiable which has been done.
> 
> What is left are the miracles. They occur no where else but inside the pages of the OT and NT. Within those stories they mention witnesses. The witnesses had to be a mix of believers and non believers. Except for Paul and a few anonymous writers NOBODY else even jotted down a single thing about any of those miracles and especially nobody mentioned anything about witnessing a man ascending into the sky.
> ...



There's all that kind of evidence and then there's the claim that "I felt Him and  I can't tell you anymore about it than that but I know what I felt".  

To me that's absolutely the most compelling piece of non-evidence that there is. I mean, seriously.  What am I supposed to make of that?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Then what is the purpose of having the Bible if there is no way to know who or what is real or no way to know what happened or did not?
> I cannot justify taking the things that I like from it and putting an ounce of faith into them.
> 
> I do take it for what it is,and why I went away from it, its organized followers and it's main Character.


I can't say if there is a purpose for having the bible. Yea, I agree, slippery slope picking and choosing. What I have done is eliminate everything except the one miracle of him being raised from the dead. Simplified it to the bare core.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I can't say if there is a purpose for having the bible. Yea, I agree, slippery slope picking and choosing. What I have done is eliminate everything except the one miracle of him being raised from the dead. Simplified it to the bare core.



I discussed how that seems to be the last straw that believers hold onto in the Jordan Peterson thread; even for Peterson.  My point there was if you believe one of the supernatural claims in a book full of them then why wouldn't you believe any of the others or hypothesize the possibility of other ones?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2018)

I'm only a couple of minutes in but my initial thought -
His/their goal seems akin to me of saying "We want to make hot sauce more appealing to people who don't like hot sauce because its too hot so we are going to make hot sauce not hot anymore".


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> There's all that kind of evidence and then there's the claim that "I felt Him and  I can't tell you anymore about it than that but I know what I felt".
> 
> To me that's absolutely the most compelling piece of non-evidence that there is. I mean, seriously.  What am I supposed to make of that?



If it was unique to just one diety....there might be something to it. But feelings....?


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I can't say if there is a purpose for having the bible. Yea, I agree, slippery slope picking and choosing. What I have done is eliminate everything except the one miracle of him being raised from the dead. Simplified it to the bare core.



Agree and yes, that ONE miracle....I would be inclined to think that something of that magnitude would have been talked about and recorded by believers and nonbelievers alike. 
To me, that one becomes none.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm only a couple of minutes in but my initial thought -
> His/their goal seems akin to me of saying "We want to make hot sauce more appealing to people who don't like hot sauce because its too hot so we are going to make hot sauce not hot anymore".



Yes!
If you don't like all of what you are reading, just read the parts you like.
And I think that is done quite regularly.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 4, 2018)

So here’s my point in asking you this. I just wanted ya’lls opinion of and responses to a preacher who has sort of hedges his bets on the Bible trying to make it more appealing to those who don’t believe. Thanks for listening and replying!


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> So here’s my point in asking you this. I just wanted ya’lls opinion of and responses to a preacher who has sort of hedged his bet on the Bible trying to make it more appealing to those who don’t believe. Thanks for listening and replying!



I have no problem helping you out. Glad you asked the question.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 4, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> So here’s my point in asking you this. I just wanted ya’lls opinion of and responses to a preacher who has sort of hedges his bets on the Bible trying to make it more appealing to those who don’t believe. Thanks for listening and replying!


In my opinion -
The Bible says what it says.
Leave it alone.
It will appeal to some, it will not appeal to others.
Isnt that kind of the point or one of the points to begin with?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> So here’s my point in asking you this. I just wanted ya’lls opinion of and responses to a preacher who has sort of hedges his bets on the Bible trying to make it more appealing to those who don’t believe. Thanks for listening and replying!


I don't believe he is trying to make the bible or gospel more appealing.


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 4, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I might even believe it if someone said he hit a ball 600ft.



Jesus hit a ball 600 feet? 
Not quite as impressive as Sampson killing 1,000 men with the jawbone of a donkey (granted "the spirit of the lord" came upon him which is like steroids on steroids or so I'm told) but considering he only weighed about a buck fifty soaking wet just clearing the center field fence would be pretty awesome IMO.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 4, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> So here’s my point in asking you this. I just wanted ya’lls opinion of and responses to a preacher who has sort of hedges his bets on the Bible trying to make it more appealing to those who don’t believe. Thanks for listening and replying!



Just tuned in and haven't watched the video. To the point of his ministry though, he has quite a following. Suppose he white washes a bit and it leads many souls to Christ? They then gain true knowledge on their own quest as lead by the Holy Spirit. 

What's wrong with making Christianity appealing? Isn't that the point of the Gospel?

That being said I'd probably like your preaching better than that of a mega Church preacher. Something about the concept just doesn't fit. The father was a preacher and then the son. 
I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with having to go to college to learn to speak but what about being called and lead by God? Paul didn't go to college. He didn't even have a desire to spread the Gospel until his purpose was revealed.

I know that aspect was off topic but I can see something in his sermon as well. The sermon to follow is that Jesus died for our sins more than the book about Jesus dying for our sins.

Getting into the Book more than the actual meaning of the Book can lead to legalism.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Just tuned in and haven't watched the video. To the point of his ministry though, he has quite a following. Suppose he white washes a bit and it leads many souls to Christ? They then gain true knowledge on their own quest as lead by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> What's wrong with making Christianity appealing? Isn't that the point of the Gospel?
> 
> ...


Without the book nobody would know of Jesus. If the contents of the book are false,and Jesus is within the contents,  it negates anything told about Jesus.


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> So here’s my point in asking you this. I just wanted ya’lls opinion of and responses to a preacher who has sort of hedges his bets on the Bible trying to make it more appealing to those who don’t believe. Thanks for listening and replying!





Artfuldodger said:


> Just tuned in and haven't watched the video. To the point of his ministry though, he has quite a following. Suppose he white washes a bit and it leads many souls to Christ? They then gain true knowledge on their own quest as lead by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> What's wrong with making Christianity appealing? Isn't that the point of the Gospel?
> 
> ...





bullethead said:


> Without the book nobody would know of Jesus. If the contents of the book are false,and Jesus is within the contents,  it negates anything told about Jesus.



Stanley is moving away from literalism and fundamentalism, except for his belief in the resurrection.  That's progress. That's the type of reformation that will improve the religion.  All religions should move in that direction.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Without the book nobody would know of Jesus. If the contents of the book are false,and Jesus is within the contents,  it negates anything told about Jesus.


Possibly true, other than a higher power making another way, that without the bible, we might not have what we know as Christianity. Oral traditions could lead to wild differences.  On one hand I agree that if there are known untruths, then it negates the validity of all of it, because we are in no position to decide which, if any of it is true. On the other hand, I can easily see how one miracle story could lead to major mystical embellishments. And the lack of facts or eye witness, whom could not write to record anything, opens the door to unbridled embellishments going unchecked, taking it's tole on the original miracle/story. [ "could not write to record anything"..... This has not be verified. Erhman says not many in that day were literate ]


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Possibly true, other than a higher power making another way, that without the bible, we might not have what we know as Christianity. Oral traditions could lead to wild differences.  On one hand I agree that if there are known untruths, then it negates the validity of all of it, because we are in no position to decide which, if any of it is true. On the other hand, I can easily see how one miracle story could lead to major mystical embellishments. And the lack of facts or eye witness, whom could not write to record anything, opens the door to unbridled embellishments going unchecked, taking it's tole on the original miracle/story. [ "could not write to record anything"..... This has not be verified. Erhman says not many in that day were literate ]



How would you find out which version of God is real?  What happens when one approaches the question like an alien who just landed on Earth and had never heard of our gods? If one examines all of the beliefs about God, what are the characteristics that are common between all of them?  What seem to be the forces that made each god different? 

If some form of religion has to remain because it's the only way we know how to get the benefits, I vote for Universalism.  For now.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Without the book nobody would know of Jesus. If the contents of the book are false,and Jesus is within the contents,  it negates anything told about Jesus.



I feel the various translations of the "book" make it even more confusing than even if we didn't have the book. Is the book we have today the scripture Paul had? 
Then all of Paul's letters were added as scripture by a panel of Men.

Maybe the point Stanley is trying to make is to rely more on Jesus than what has been translated about Jesus 20 different ways. 

Saul was not seeking Jesus. He was not relying on scripture to receive his calling. The Holy Spirit reveals. 

Now after one is called, as Stanley notes, how you were raised, how you were indoctrinated, etc., that part could make you question things. Maybe at that point in your quest, one should maybe step back a bit. 

Perhaps not get into religion as deep and start getting into Jesus as lead by the Spirit. Only if you feel the revelations by science and time are muddling your faith in God with your feelings on what the present day Bible is.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Without the book nobody would know of Jesus. If the contents of the book are false,and Jesus is within the contents,  it negates anything told about Jesus.



Even if one knows "about" Jesus, he can't be lead by reading the Logos except from God.
One can also be lead to Jesus by God without the written Logos. The Holy Spirit can reveal the Logos to him.

On another thread we learn about getting power from God. Fruit of the Spirit if you will. Does receiving that power do away with our own spirit's power? 
Is one lead or driven by the other? If so could the writers be lead or driven to write by the Spirit? 

Sometimes explained as four different people seeing an accident and explaining it to the cop the same but differently. We or the cop have to piece the four writers story into one.
Maybe one saw an Escort and the other saw a Tracer. One a Prizm another a Corolla.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 5, 2018)

How much of our actions are the literal fruit of the Holy Spirit vs. the actions of our spirit?
In the same way how much of the writings are the literal fruit of God vs. their writings?

I think that is why I like Paul. He wrestles with his spirit's thoughts with those of God. His revelations were spiritual yet maybe when he wrote to Timothy, they were his own words.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Even if one knows "about" Jesus, he can't be lead by reading the Logos except from God.
> One can also be lead to Jesus by God without the written Logos. The Holy Spirit can reveal the Logos to him.
> 
> On another thread we learn about getting power from God. Fruit of the Spirit if you will. Does receiving that power do away with our own spirit's power?
> ...


Nobody knows of God without the book.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> How much of our actions are the literal fruit of the Holy Spirit vs. the actions of our spirit?
> In the same way how much of the writings are the literal fruit of God vs. their writings?
> 
> I think that is why I like Paul. He wrestles with his spirit's thoughts with those of God. His revelations were spiritual yet maybe when he wrote to Timothy, they were his own words.



Paul was just another guy that self appointed his relationship with whatever version his God was. He was so moved by his own ideas that he decided to expound upon it and take the religion in the direction he wanted it. No better way to do it than to write that the son of the god that was most popular in the region was involved.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How would you find out which version of God is real?  What happens when one approaches the question like an alien who just landed on Earth and had never heard of our gods? If one examines all of the beliefs about God, what are the characteristics that are common between all of them?  What seem to be the forces that made each god different?
> 
> If some form of religion has to remain because it's the only way we know how to get the benefits, I vote for Universalism.  For now.


This is exactly the way it was way back when God chose a group of slaves to reveal himself to. There were many so called Gods at the time. Per scripture, God chose them, not the other way around. I believe it to be the same way today.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is exactly the way it was way back when God chose a group of slaves to reveal himself to. There were many so called Gods at the time. Per scripture, God chose them, not the other way around. I believe it to be the same way today.



I agree. God can reveal himself to those who are not seeking.


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I feel the various translations of the "book" make it even more confusing than even if we didn't have the book. Is the book we have today the scripture Paul had?
> Then all of Paul's letters were added as scripture by a panel of Men.
> 
> Maybe the point Stanley is trying to make is to rely more on Jesus than what has been translated about Jesus 20 different ways.
> ...



A better strategy would be to invert that to "Perhaps not get into Jesus as deep and start by getting into religion as led by the holy spirit".  Try to recognize the "tingle" that every religious person gets and examine _THAT_ thing very carefully.  Look at the many sources that talk about _THAT_ thing as are available


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is exactly the way it was way back when God chose a group of slaves to reveal himself to. There were many so called Gods at the time. Per scripture, God chose them, not the other way around. I believe it to be the same way today.





Artfuldodger said:


> I agree. God can reveal himself to those who are not seeking.



Yup.  And it's so very important to recognize that which god "speaks" to people is LARGELY dependent on where they're born.  That to me is a clue that I should look very carefully at what the gods have in common.  That may be the true "Holy Spirit".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 5, 2018)

I am sure I am wrong, ignorant, whatever..... but I wonder if all modern day socalled God's are a version of the God of the Jews? Is the God of the Jews the common source of the God's of today? Only they all being the same God, diverged over details about him?


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I am sure I am wrong, ignorant, whatever..... but I wonder if all modern day so called God's are a version of the God of the Jews? Is the God of the Jews the common source of the God's of today? Only they all being the same God, diverged over details about him?



I doubt it.  But, good question.  I think you should look into it.  Maybe look into where the Jews got their god.


----------



## bullethead (May 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I am sure I am wrong, ignorant, whatever..... but I wonder if all modern day socalled God's are a version of the God of the Jews? Is the God of the Jews the common source of the God's of today? Only they all being the same God, diverged over details about him?


I would say that is possible only because there seems to be evidence that the god of the Jews was a modern version of the ones that were thought up previously.

Look at the pagan influences that make up a lot of Christianity.


----------



## Day trip (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Yup.  And it's so very important to recognize that which god "speaks" to people is LARGELY dependent on where they're born.  That to me is a clue that I should look very carefully at what the gods have in common.  That man be the true "Holy Spirit".



You are on fire!  In another thread your talking about hearing God in a circular saw or the spots on a trout and now this?  You’re speaking my language!  In all seriousness, if we suppose a “God”, don’t we have to first see him through his creation all around us?  Then if Johnny over there,  describes him differently, If I care, I need to really try to see what he means instead of argueing pointless details.  

I read something today that bothered me a lot.  Basically it said that religeon that is largely in the head (real smart guy thinking stuff) is just an illusion.  Real religeon is in participation.   Well dang it I’m pretty good at the theoretical ideas behind God, sitting alone and thinking,   but I suck at being present with other people in the moment.  It is so hard for me to be present.  Yet I know it is true.  One of my favorite lines is “Jesus often went off alone to pray”.  I like to go off alone, I like “God’s voice” in a circular saw or in the spots of a trout.  And we do need time to be alone but being there, being fully present in the moment with your wife, with your co-worker, with your grocery bagger, that is where life is really lived.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

Day trip said:


> You are on fire!  In another thread your talking about hearing God in a circular saw or the spots on a trout and now this?  You’re speaking my language!  In all seriousness, if we suppose a “God”, don’t we have to first see him through his creation all around us?  Then if Johnny over there,  describes him differently, If I care, I need to really try to see what he means instead of argueing pointless details.
> 
> I read something today that bothered me a lot.  Basically it said that religeon that is largely in the head (real smart guy thinking stuff) is just an illusion.  Real religeon is in participation.   Well dang it I’m pretty good at the theoretical ideas behind God, sitting alone and thinking,   but I suck at being present with other people in the moment.  It is so hard for me to be present.  Yet I know it is true.  One of my favorite lines is “Jesus often went off alone to pray”.  I like to go off alone, I like “God’s voice” in a circular saw or in the spots of a trout.  And we do need time to be alone but being there, being fully present in the moment with your wife, with your co-worker, with your grocery bagger, that is where life is really lived.



I just have to say that the magic mushroom version of that experience is the best.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I just have to say that the magic mushroom version of that experience is the best.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


>




It's as real as real can be.  Works every time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 7, 2018)

I wonder why there is a Peyote Church but not a Magic Mushroom Church?


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder why there is a Peyote Church but not a Magic Mushroom Church?




They use mushrooms religiously very heavily in Mexico.  DMT sounds interesting.  It's been called The God Drug and it occurs naturally in your brain.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2018)

Day trip said:


> You are on fire!  In another thread your talking about hearing God in a circular saw or the spots on a trout and now this?  You’re speaking my language!  In all seriousness, if we suppose a “God”, don’t we have to first see him through his creation all around us?  Then if Johnny over there,  describes him differently, If I care, I need to really try to see what he means instead of argueing pointless details.
> 
> I read something today that bothered me a lot.  Basically it said that religeon that is largely in the head (real smart guy thinking stuff) is just an illusion.  Real religeon is in participation.   Well dang it I’m pretty good at the theoretical ideas behind God, sitting alone and thinking,   but I suck at being present with other people in the moment.  It is so hard for me to be present.  Yet I know it is true.  One of my favorite lines is “Jesus often went off alone to pray”.  I like to go off alone, I like “God’s voice” in a circular saw or in the spots of a trout.  And we do need time to be alone but being there, being fully present in the moment with your wife, with your co-worker, with your grocery bagger, that is where life is really lived.



And to the person who hears the screams of satan in the whine of a circular saw and the eyes of demons in spots on a brown trout?.....Do they not "get it"?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 8, 2018)

Day trip said:


> You are on fire!  In another thread your talking about hearing God in a circular saw or the spots on a trout and now this?  You’re speaking my language!  In all seriousness, if we suppose a “God”, don’t we have to first see him through his creation all around us?  Then if Johnny over there,  describes him differently, If I care, I need to really try to see what he means instead of argueing pointless details.
> 
> I read something today that bothered me a lot.  Basically it said that religeon that is largely in the head (real smart guy thinking stuff) is just an illusion.  Real religeon is in participation.   Well dang it I’m pretty good at the theoretical ideas behind God, sitting alone and thinking,   but I suck at being present with other people in the moment.  It is so hard for me to be present.  Yet I know it is true.  One of my favorite lines is “Jesus often went off alone to pray”.  I like to go off alone, I like “God’s voice” in a circular saw or in the spots of a trout.  And we do need time to be alone but being there, being fully present in the moment with your wife, with your co-worker, with your grocery bagger, that is where life is really lived.





> In all seriousness, if we suppose a “God”, don’t we have to first see him through his creation all around us?


Why?
There are "Gods" that are not credited with creating everything "all around us".
What if we were supposing one of them?


----------



## Israel (May 8, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I discussed how that seems to be the last straw that believers hold onto in the Jordan Peterson thread; even for Peterson.  My point there was if you believe one of the supernatural claims in a book full of them then why wouldn't you believe any of the others or hypothesize the possibility of other ones?


 

Of course.


----------



## Day trip (May 8, 2018)

bullethead said:


> And to the person who hears the screams of satan in the whine of a circular saw and the eyes of demons in spots on a brown trout?.....Do they not "get it"?



If those things are perceived as some source of separation then you could create Satan or demons out of them.


----------



## Day trip (May 8, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Why?
> There are "Gods" that are not credited with creating everything "all around us".
> What if we were supposing one of them?



You have no idea what we mean by God.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 8, 2018)

Day trip said:


> You have no idea what we mean by God.



Are you privy to some sort of information about a "God" that I'm not aware of?
Keep in mind I was a believer far longer than not.


----------



## Israel (May 8, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Why?
> There are "Gods" that are not credited with creating everything "all around us".
> What if we were supposing one of them?







> Originally Posted by bullethead View Post
> And to the person who hears the screams of satan in the whine of a circular saw and the eyes of demons in spots on a brown trout?.....Do they not "get it"?






Might well be considered together?


----------



## ambush80 (May 8, 2018)

bullethead said:


> And to the person who hears the screams of satan in the whine of a circular saw and the eyes of demons in spots on a brown trout?.....Do they not "get it"?



Excellent point.  But if we approach the notion of God/spirituality/religion from an evolutionary standpoint, the behaviors that would cause discord, the kinds of hallucinations that you're talking about, would be seen as maladaptive (if acted out upon) and the hallucinations that lead to "grace" and positive thoughts might be seen as desirable.  If the Satan Saw could be used as a tool to control people towards positive behavior then it might be net good.  



Day trip said:


> If those things are perceived as some source of separation then you could create Satan or demons out of them.



Please elaborate on "separation".  It seems that you're alluding to some mechanism that differentiates Satanic hallucinations from Godly ones.



Israel said:


> Might well be considered together?



Indeed.  Now that we're open to the notion of God (if we think we have some ability to perceive Him in ordinary experiences), then we should be open to the notion of God_(s)_, including malevolent ones.


----------



## Israel (May 8, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Excellent point.  But if we approach the notion of God/spirituality/religion from an evolutionary standpoint, the behaviors that would cause discord, the kinds of hallucinations that you're talking about, would be seen as maladaptive (if acted out upon) and the hallucinations that lead to "grace" and positive thoughts might be seen as desirable.  If the Satan Saw could be used as a tool to control people towards positive behavior then it might be net good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. There is one. He has many names. God of this world being one.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 8, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes. There is one. He has many names. God of this world being one.


Didn't God himself acknowledge there are other gods?


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 8, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Didn't God himself acknowledge there are other gods?



Yep! When Adam & Eve ate the fruit he said "they have become like us, knowing right from wrong." 
Also he says "I am a jealous god, though shalt not worship other gods."


----------



## ambush80 (May 8, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes. There is one. He has many names. God of this world being one.



Hades or Cronos?


----------



## ky55 (May 8, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Didn't God himself acknowledge there are other gods?



Yes.
Commandment #1 covers it too. 

"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" 

*


----------



## ky55 (May 8, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> Yep! When Adam & Eve ate the fruit he said "they have become like us, knowing right from wrong."
> Also he says "I am a jealous god, though shalt not worship other gods."




Bart Ehrman on “Henotheism”.

https://ehrmanblog.org/why-not-believe-in-a-different-kind-of-god/



“I would argue that even the religion that became Judaism started out with a multiplicity of deities.  The constant injunctions in the Hebrew Bible not to worship other gods almost certainly arose precisely because so many Israelites *were* worshiping other gods.  Even though the authors of the Bible insisted on the worship of Yahweh, there is little reason to think that that is what was actually happening on the ground.

Moreover, for most of the Hebrew Bible the kind of conception of the divine is henotheistic rather than monotheistic.   In the way I’m defining the terms (various scholars define them variously, but this is the normal way), “henotheism” refers to a religious belief that only one God is to be worshiped, while acknowledging that other gods exist.   This seems to be the view of most of the authors of the Old Testament.“


----------



## WaltL1 (May 8, 2018)

> Originally Posted by Day trip
> You have no idea what we mean by God.





WaltL1 said:


> Are you privy to some sort of information about a "God" that I'm not aware of?
> Keep in mind I was a believer far longer than not.


Trip you made a pretty... I'll call it bold.... statement about what I know/don't know.
Any chance you are going to back it up or is this just a garden variety hit and run?


----------



## hummerpoo (May 8, 2018)

Walt, this is a "hit & run".

I've seen nothing in nine years to indicate that Trip is wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (May 8, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Walt, this is a "hit & run".
> 
> I've seen nothing in nine years to indicate that Trip is wrong.



Just to clarify, do you think that Walt has no idea of what is meant by the term God?  Do you?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 8, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Walt, this is a "hit & run".
> 
> I've seen nothing in nine years to indicate that Trip is wrong.


Maybe you should pay closer attention.
And thanks for your opinion.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 8, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Just to clarify, do you think that Walt has no idea of what is meant by the term God?


No.


WaltL1 said:


> Maybe you should pay closer attention.


————————————



ambush80 said:


> Do you?


Yes. 



hummerpoo said:


> "hit & run".


This is me doing the run part

Bye Bye.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 9, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> Yep! When Adam & Eve ate the fruit he said "they have become like us, knowing right from wrong."
> Also he says "I am a jealous god, though shalt not worship other gods."


I have to wonder what the heck an Omni-everything god would be jealous about?
Seems to me its like a multimillionaire being jealous that someone found a $5 bill on the ground.
It paints a picture of God just being petty


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I have to wonder what the heck an Omni-everything god would be jealous about?
> Seems to me its like a multimillionaire being jealous that someone found a $5 bill on the ground.
> It paints a picture of God just being petty


Eve, in the garden, the forbidden fruit, It's the key to the whole bible. It's not that she wanted to look like God, or be able to create stuff, etc. It's that she wanted the glory that goes with being God. Basically rival God rather than worship God. So then, the bible implies that we inherited this trait from her. Man left unchecked will make themselves as a god if given a chance. For example, all those called by God to serve/ shepherd his people did the opposite. They had the people serve themselves, essentially making themselves god on earth. Solomon was the extreme version of it because he lived in a time of peace, his narcissism left unchecked, he acquired more than anyone could imagine. Yet the arrogance extended to the point that he wrote about himself, as if among 1000's of women, that he knew what love was.... or that among 1000's of children he fathered, that he was the picture of what a father should be.  Then the next key and foundation of the true unadulterated, simple, distorted gospel...... Jesus, who was , as we are, created in the image of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be had, as Eve did, but humbled himself taking the very nature of a servant, unlike those before him. Being made as a human, he realized man was made to serve, not rival God. He humbled himself, and as the ultimate servant, became obedient to the call of the firstborn in scripture, the cross, Therefore God highly exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and confess that Jesus is Lord/master Philippians 2 6-11.

This is the key to the entire bible that everything builds off of. Everything, without this, nothing is understood. Christians have not a clue, using the NT as a stand alone book. It does not help that even Erhman misinterprets Phillipians 2 . Thinking it's a claim to be divine. Whether you believe it as truth, can you see it, how they misinterpreted it? I hope you will look it over. It is the Key to the scriptures. Of course, no one else in the world will agree with me on this..... But maybe a free thinking Atheist might see it because they can read it without bias.


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2018)

Day trip said:


> If those things are perceived as some source of separation then you could create Satan or demons out of them.



They(and a thousand others) are often claimed to be what people want them to be instead of what they really are.


----------



## Day trip (May 9, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Trip you made a pretty... I'll call it bold.... statement about what I know/don't know.
> Any chance you are going to back it up or is this just a garden variety hit and run?



Hi  Walt, I’m here. Just busy. I read but havent had  time to talk.   You don’t have to worry about me insulting you and leaving.  I’m ok with mashing it out.  I feel like you and my other “pals” in here have enough respect to push each other quite a bit without being offended.  

So after all the discussions about God in our conversations it seems that in no time we go back to “which God is that again?” 

With your background in Catholicism and the many statements I have made, I would hope that you would start understanding that when I discuss God, I mean THE CREATOR, OUR FATHER, LOVE ITSELF.  Even if this is vague (and rightly so) then If you are truely interested then you should ask specific questions or let our conversations paint the picture over time so that even if you don’t agree or see what I see, you can understand the ground I’m speaking from.  

Through our conversations you should know that I don’t claim only “the god of the Bible”, “the god of Catholics” or any other limitations we may put on him.  I would hope  that if I were making references to God, you would be capable of adding the information from the current conversation to the information provided from previous conversations so that we don’t have to keep starting over. 

That’s the purpose in my claim.  It wasn’t so much s declaration as a challenge to be patient and I will continue to paint.  

We can’t think our way into an understanding of God, we must live our way to an understanding of God and if one decides the Bible is not a good source of inspiration then it means that that one needs to do all the ground work himself.  As we live and experience pain, suffering, joy and love we should start making sense of these occurrences through holding ourselves responsible.  This will lead us to living into an understanding of what is meant by God. A meaning that is universal across all human experiences and religeons with a mature mind. 

If we hear someone else’s interpretation of the Bible or God  that does not match our own experiences then we must be strong enough to hold the tension of unknown, withholding judgement until we see their perspective and then we can either reject or accept it. 

To paraphrase, I have said God is found in participation not explanation,  God is found wherever two or three are gathered honestly searching for truth.  God is the energy between matter, he is relationship.  Why do you think I started the introduction thread?  It is so we have a relationship to build on. 

So when you ask which God, It feels like you are reacting defensively with a posture that will not see what is being painted. It’s a color by numbers.  I’m just painting what is there.  I’m not making it up.  The difference is that I haven’t rejected God because nobody could explain him in a way that I could think him into existence.  I see my life’s experiences and as I read so many others, I see my same experiences through others - the Bible, the Tripitaka, essays, etc.  

Between my experiences and the writings of so many others, I believe in Our Heavenly Father.  That is the God I’m talking about.


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2018)

Day trip said:


> You have no idea what we mean by God.



Anyone can claim or assert anything, you'll be onto something if you can back it up.


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2018)

Day trip said:


> Hi  Walt, I’m here. Just busy. I read but havent had  time to talk.   You don’t have to worry about me insulting you and leaving.  I’m ok with mashing it out.  I feel like you and my other “pals” in here have enough respect to push each other quite a bit without being offended.
> 
> So after all the discussions about God in our conversations it seems that in no time we go back to “which God is that again?”
> 
> ...



We can go on and on pretending to go along with assertions for the sake of a conversation but at some point will anyone step up and back up what they claim and assert with any fact?

We know what is written in thr bible.
We know what god you worship.
We would like something outside of the bible to back it up.

We can have a serious conversation with in depth thought put into who is stronger...Superman oe Mighty Mouse....?
We can assert and claim to make our points.
The whole time we know who we are talking about but until someone wants to step up and take the conversation from hypothetical to real, they will have to use some tangible facts that first prove that either character exists and THEN  we can discuss thr nitty gritty.

Believers seem to want to skip the first step and go right to us just taking their word for it.


----------



## Israel (May 9, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Hades or Cronos?



Wow.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 9, 2018)

Day trip said:


> Hi  Walt, I’m here. Just busy. I read but havent had  time to talk.   You don’t have to worry about me insulting you and leaving.  I’m ok with mashing it out.  I feel like you and my other “pals” in here have enough respect to push each other quite a bit without being offended.
> 
> So after all the discussions about God in our conversations it seems that in no time we go back to “which God is that again?”
> 
> ...


I think this is actually a pretty simple misunderstanding.


> In all seriousness, if we suppose a “God”, don’t we have to first see him through his creation all around us?


When you used a "God" I took it in the generic way due to the a in front of God in parentheses  not specifically the Christian God.
You can see that in my response because my point was that not all gods are credited with creation -



> Why?
> There are "Gods" that are not credited with creating everything "all around us".
> What if we were supposing one of them?


----------



## NCHillbilly (May 9, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Eve, in the garden, the forbidden fruit, It's the key to the whole bible. It's not that she wanted to look like God, or be able to create stuff, etc. It's that she wanted the glory that goes with being God. Basically rival God rather than worship God. So then, the bible implies that we inherited this trait from her. Man left unchecked will make themselves as a god if given a chance. For example, all those called by God to serve/ shepherd his people did the opposite. They had the people serve themselves, essentially making themselves god on earth. Solomon was the extreme version of it because he lived in a time of peace, his narcissism left unchecked, he acquired more than anyone could imagine. Yet the arrogance extended to the point that he wrote about himself, as if among 1000's of women, that he knew what love was.... or that among 1000's of children he fathered, that he was the picture of what a father should be.  Then the next key and foundation of the true unadulterated, simple, distorted gospel...... Jesus, who was , as we are, created in the image of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be had, as Eve did, but humbled himself taking the very nature of a servant, unlike those before him. Being made as a human, he realized man was made to serve, not rival God. He humbled himself, and as the ultimate servant, became obedient to the call of the firstborn in scripture, the cross, Therefore God highly exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and confess that Jesus is Lord/master Philippians 2 6-11.
> 
> This is the key to the entire bible that everything builds off of. Everything, without this, nothing is understood. Christians have not a clue, using the NT as a stand alone book. It does not help that even Erhman misinterprets Phillipians 2 . Thinking it's a claim to be divine. Whether you believe it as truth, can you see it, how they misinterpreted it? I hope you will look it over. It is the Key to the scriptures. Of course, no one else in the world will agree with me on this..... But maybe a free thinking Atheist might see it because they can read it without bias.



The flaw in that reasoning is that according to the Bible, God created Eve the way she was, gave her the personality and desires that she had; and then he plopped the forbidden fruit tree down in the garden for her to do exactly what he designed her to do with it. 

God set her up, and then blames the whole human race for it forever. Not to mention the trouble that verse in Genesis has caused for poor old innocent snakes over the years. A very just and loving and merciful God he is.......


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 9, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes. There is one. He has many names. God of this world being one.



"god of this world" being Satan, correct?


----------



## Israel (May 9, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> "god of this world" being Satan, correct?



yes.


----------



## Day trip (May 9, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Anyone can claim or assert anything, you'll be onto something if you can back it up.



Back it up to who?  You?  Why?  You know there is no God.


----------



## Day trip (May 9, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I think this is actually a pretty simple misunderstanding.
> 
> When you used a "God" I took it in the generic way due to the a in front of God in parentheses  not specifically the Christian God.
> You can see that in my response because my point was that not all gods are credited with creation -




Oh, I see.   When you look at the universe, is anything out of place?  Does anything not belong?  It fits perfectly. Everything.  Even Bullet!   This is why a believer such as myself looks as God as one.  One mind, one plan.  Now if we want to dig deeper than that we can do no better than speculate on whether God is a being, a force, or a group of super gerbils who agreed to the arrangement of the universe.  It is unnecessary to go farther back than  accepting the One Mind, I consider God as The One regardless of his true form.  

Any religeon that professes belief in the order and plan in the universe is worshiping this God.  Some call him by different names, some have different ideas based on cultures, traditions and scriptures but if we are going to have a serious conversation then we have to look at  how believers think alike and look at the  common ground  before looking at differences.  


So, do you think the universe is orderly and neat or random and chaotic?


----------



## Day trip (May 9, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> Yep! When Adam & Eve ate the fruit he said "they have become like us, knowing right from wrong."
> Also he says "I am a jealous god, though shalt not worship other gods."



To me it sounds like God is either schizophrenic OR, maybe the person telling the story meant something else, maybe the idea of the Trinity fits here?  

As far as a jealous God, does that match your experiences? Does that make sense with the general picture being portrayed OR is it that the early writers, with limited experience and without the knowledge that is readily available today may have misunderstood their failing to obey truth as jealousy?  

If I say a bridge over a deep chasm is there but I cannot see it then fall in, was God jealous or did I try to pass a lie off as truth for my own convienence?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 9, 2018)

Day trip said:


> Oh, I see.   When you look at the universe, is anything out of place?  Does anything not belong?  It fits perfectly. Everything.  Even Bullet!   This is why a believer such as myself looks as God as one.  One mind, one plan.  Now if we want to dig deeper than that we can do no better than speculate on whether God is a being, a force, or a group of super gerbils who agreed to the arrangement of the universe.  It is unnecessary to go farther back than  accepting the One Mind, I consider God as The One regardless of his true form.
> 
> Any religeon that professes belief in the order and plan in the universe is worshiping this God.  Some call him by different names, some have different ideas based on cultures, traditions and scriptures but if we are going to have a serious conversation then we have to look at  how believers think alike and look at the  common ground  before looking at differences.
> 
> ...


So Ive given this a bit of thought and without trying to be a smart butt I find the universe to be "orderly chaotic". Particularly when I consider man's place in it.
Not sure how deep into this you want me to get but if you are looking for a quick answer... that's it. 
If you want me to explain I will.


----------



## Day trip (May 9, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So Ive given this a bit of thought and without trying to be a smart butt I find the universe to be "orderly chaotic". Particularly when I consider man's place in it.
> Not sure how deep into this you want me to get but if you are looking for a quick answer... that's it.
> If you want me to explain I will.



No, I really like that.  I can’t imagine it said any better.  So my interpretation/imagination says, orderly = there is organization / a plan, chaotic = I cannot understsnd all of the plan 

I assume you’ve explored St Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways or Five Proofs from Summa Theologiciae.  So I’m addressing the Teleological Arguement in case you’re wondering where I’m coming from.

Here is a real nice summary if needed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)


----------



## WaltL1 (May 9, 2018)

Day trip said:


> No, I really like that.  I can’t imagine it said any better.  So my interpretation/imagination says, orderly = there is organization / a plan, chaotic = I cannot understsnd all of the plan
> 
> I assume you’ve explored St Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways or Five Proofs from Summa Theologiciae.  So I’m addressing the Teleological Arguement in case you’re wondering where I’m coming from.


Hmmmm....
My thoughts are more along the lines of... and I'm not great at putting my thoughts into words so you may have to read between the lines a bit......
Take the universe or at least what we know to be "out there". Things smashing into each other, burning up, dying, barren... one might consider that "chaotic".
However that's a human description. If things are SUPPOSED to crash into each other etc based on the environment well then its "orderly" or couldn't happen any other way.
So enter man into the equation. You used the description of "everything fitting perfectly".
A bug the size of a pin head can kill us.
The earth is 70% water and we cant breathe underwater.
Eat the wrong mushroom. Dead.
Get bit by a rattler. Dead.
..... Dead
..... Dead
Not sure this place is "perfect for us". We owe our existence for getting around all the things that kill us.
Your sitting in your house. You put the heat on or you put the air on or you wear heavy clothes or light clothes or.... because we aren't comfortable with the temperature.
I don't see "everything (especially us) fitting perfectly".
We divert rivers, rape the land, pollute the air, use all the resources....
Not sure we are "perfect for the earth".
Now remove man from the equation and imagine this earth.... now I see "everything fitting perfectly".
We are the chaos. 
As far as a "plan".
No I don't see a "plan".
Planning is something that man does.
I dont see a plan behind a meteor smashing into the earth. It happened because it was flung there by its environment.
There is no "plan" (that we know about) for me not to understand.
That's how I come up with "orderly chaotic"


----------



## Israel (May 10, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Hmmmm....
> My thoughts are more along the lines of... and I'm not great at putting my thoughts into words so you may have to read between the lines a bit......
> Take the universe or at least what we know to be "out there". Things smashing into each other, burning up, dying, barren... one might consider that "chaotic".
> However that's a human description. If things are SUPPOSED to crash into each other etc based on the environment well then its "orderly" or couldn't happen any other way.
> ...



One man posts this and sees or says "everything wrong!"

And by this is satisfied with his indictment.
But...what is he not posting...indeed cannot begin to apprehend or contain in posting that indicates to him "this appears wrong"?


----------



## Israel (May 10, 2018)

And if perhaps he is given to see, discover, begin to learn, be taught...what seems so wrong is absolutely perfect...even in this...a door is opened to all possibility, beyond mere appearance. A man needn't find condemnation only...in what appears to him, so wrong.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 10, 2018)

Israel said:


> One man posts this and sees or says "everything wrong!"
> 
> And by this is satisfied with his indictment.
> But...what is he not posting...indeed cannot begin to apprehend or contain in posting that indicates to him "this appears wrong"?


If you remove man's judgement of what is "right" or "wrong" then the way it is is just the way it is and couldn't be any other way. 
Perfect "orderliness'? Including what we deem "chaos"?
Orderly chaotic.


----------



## 660griz (May 10, 2018)

Israel said:


> And if perhaps he is given to see, discover, begin to learn, be taught...what seems so wrong is absolutely perfect...even in this...a door is opened to all possibility, beyond mere appearance. A man needn't find condemnation only...in what appears to him, so wrong.



Except the child didn't have a choice.


----------



## Day trip (May 10, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Hmmmm....
> My thoughts are more along the lines of... and I'm not great at putting my thoughts into words so you may have to read between the lines a bit......
> Take the universe or at least what we know to be "out there". Things smashing into each other, burning up, dying, barren... one might consider that "chaotic".
> However that's a human description. If things are SUPPOSED to crash into each other etc based on the environment well then its "orderly" or couldn't happen any other way.
> ...




It seems everything is orderly and neat right up to the point of man.  Even the animals act instinctively through genetic programming and remain orderly.  This is how the myth described Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  Sinless our language says.  Of course early man and animals and rocks and atoms are sinless, they did what they were programmed to do, what their physical and chemical structures allowed them to do.  Every piece of matter and energy acted, responded to and was acted upon exactly as it was created to do from the beginning. 

Did something change?  Did the structure of the universe somehow become different?  Is mankind just a “virus” in the program?  The plan, the universe did not change, Man did change.  He developed and progressed above all of the other creatures and matter in the universe.  You can see the divisions through evolution that created other primates that are close to man but still below the level of development of mankind.  Who is to say that we are the final product?  We may be nothing more than a link to the next stage.  But we can make choices and we can act on those choices so what we do with our lives is up to us.  

The plan was there all along.  Our creation myth speaks of the metaphor of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  The common interpretation of this myth is that God was tricked by his own creation, that the serpent outsmarted God.  This is garbage.  

Anyone who believes in God, in an all knowing, all powerful, all loving being who just made this one misjudgement is being foolish.  It was God’s plan from the beginning to create man in his own likeness and image, in other words, the ability to choose.  To excuse ourselves because we feel guilty about not always choosing wisely by blaming God, blaming the serpent, this is foolishness.  Quite frankly it undermines God’s free love. 

So why all the “chaos” now?  Now that man has entered the picture, is the universe less than perfect?  No, this is why we say God chose man.  Creation wasn’t just a matter of having a nice rock garden with bugs and people crawling around.  Creation occurred to grow love, to grow God and in order to do so, mankind has to be able to choose between “good and evil”.  God willingly chose to suffer with mankind as mankind grew up.  As a Father, he created man in order to offer himself, his very being which is love.  Love cannot be stored up or preserved.  Love that is not freely given away dies.  

But I’m getting way ahead of myself.  So once man enters the scene there has been a common theme: the desire to worship.  Early man wished to worship something outside of himself, Baal, Zeus, idols, golden Statues, etc.  

Do you think that the common archeological findings of religious artifacts and temples and idols suggest that mankind was genetically programmed to worship a god (small g here)?  is it our nature to worship?  Why? Or why not?


----------



## 660griz (May 10, 2018)

Day trip said:


> It seems everything is orderly and neat right up to the point of man.  Even the animals act instinctively through genetic programming and remain orderly.  This is how the myth described Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  Sinless our language says.  Of course early man and animals and rocks and atoms are sinless, they did what they were programmed to do, what their physical and chemical structures allowed them to do.  Every piece of matter and energy acted, responded to and was acted upon exactly as it was created to do from the beginning.
> 
> Did something change?  Did the structure of the universe somehow become different?  Is mankind just a “virus” in the program?  The plan, the universe did not change, Man did change.  He developed and progressed above all of the other creatures and matter in the universe.  You can see the divisions through evolution that created other primates that are close to man but still below the level of development of mankind.  Who is to say that we are the final product?  We may be nothing more than a link to the next stage.  But we can make choices and we can act on those choices so what we do with our lives is up to us.
> 
> ...



There have been numerous studies. 
Some say it is an evolutionary benefit to assure survival and work in groups. Since it is hardwired, the smart folks learned how to control large groups and get free food, and later, free money.

"Another experiment involved asking subjects to cut up a treasured photograph. When his team then measured their sweat production - which is what lie-detector tests monitor - there was a jump in the reading. This did not occur when destroying an object of less sentimental significance. 

'This shows how superstition is hardwired into our brains,' he added."


----------



## Israel (May 10, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If you remove man's judgement of what is "right" or "wrong" then the way it is is just the way it is and couldn't be any other way.
> Perfect "orderliness'? Including what we deem "chaos"?
> Orderly chaotic.



I know we get into the area of "a wash"...even if you don't receive it, see it, or agree with it.

For every photo with child and vulture, one could post child and birthday cake, surrounded by friends and family. And even if one were to do some calculation and discover "more children celebrate happy birthdays...than don't"...or vice versa, and the result were shown to be completely contrary, it still remains "a wash". 
I see order/I see none.

I am more interested in whatever "in man" allows a sensitivity to, even the most rudimentary sense of and response to "order"...and/or for want of a better word, chaos.
I am completely disabused of any notion that chaos is perceptible...of chaos. I am far more persuaded it takes a great deal of order to:
1. Begin to even perceive order.
2. Even enter into imagining a thing that might appear...chaos.

And I am wholly convinced "order" is never _an optional consequence_ (for want of a better phrase) to chaos.
One can argue against this I understand, and _do not_, have not, within my ability _or desire _to squelch response.

(And Bullet...here I'll slap myself for going where I go...cause I know it's hard to reach through this screen..._more than we know_, even)

Done. 

"one could say" might say, etc...[slap administered]

"in the infinitude of chaos...order could come, as one of an infinite number of consequences." (Doesn't that _infinitude_ sound kinda pretentious...what should I better say?)

But I think Walt, you get my meaning. Of all the possibilities of an infinite number of simultaneous and unending crashes (so to speak)..."maybe" some order could result. Would it be for "how long"? Would it be long enough for order to perceive itself...in the midst of all "other" chaos?

I am not strictly speaking here of matter/space/ etc...but "chaos" (if I could) of itself. Could time...come out of chaos? Material? Space? be generated to its own laws and restrictions...and not only so...but to a point of a thing...anything...within it or without it...to perceive it?

Even this becomes "a wash" one could say "sure"...to one like me who finds chaos _locked up only _to self unknowing.

Sure again...(another slap) "one could say"

"Nothing _is known_!"

But I am persuaded the one who might say this...has not gone very far on the trail laid in those words.


----------



## Day trip (May 10, 2018)

660griz said:


> There have been numerous studies.
> Some say it is an evolutionary benefit to assure survival and work in groups. Since it is hardwired, the smart folks learned how to control large groups and get free food, and later, free money.
> 
> "Another experiment involved asking subjects to cut up a treasured photograph. When his team then measured their sweat production - which is what lie-detector tests monitor - there was a jump in the reading. This did not occur when destroying an object of less sentimental significance.
> ...



Well we certainly know that worship is a learned trait, for the good and bad of that.  I think it is interesting that there could be a genetic urge to worship.  Here I go with my religion stuff, “an innate calling from God!” 

As far as the second study, I’m not sure superstition is the right cocnclusion.  I was going through old photos the other day and I just could not throw away any photos of my mom or dad.  (I’m talkkng about the many bad photos and second prints) They have both passed 10 and 12 years ago.  It wasn’t superstition, it was maybe attachment, maybe respect, maybe love but I still have the photos. 

Superstition seems more learned to me but I could see how a fear response/defense response is possible - for example - I went over to that cedar tree and was stung by a wasp.  Now cedar trees always make me nervous.   Learned or genetic?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 10, 2018)

Day trip said:


> It seems everything is orderly and neat right up to the point of man.  Even the animals act instinctively through genetic programming and remain orderly.  This is how the myth described Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  Sinless our language says.  Of course early man and animals and rocks and atoms are sinless, they did what they were programmed to do, what their physical and chemical structures allowed them to do.  Every piece of matter and energy acted, responded to and was acted upon exactly as it was created to do from the beginning.
> 
> Did something change?  Did the structure of the universe somehow become different?  Is mankind just a “virus” in the program?  The plan, the universe did not change, Man did change.  He developed and progressed above all of the other creatures and matter in the universe.  You can see the divisions through evolution that created other primates that are close to man but still below the level of development of mankind.  Who is to say that we are the final product?  We may be nothing more than a link to the next stage.  But we can make choices and we can act on those choices so what we do with our lives is up to us.
> 
> ...





> It seems everything is orderly and neat right up to the point of man.


Again, orderly and neat are human concepts. They describe how we think things should be or how we view things or judge things to be.
The universe is neither orderly nor disorderly until WE judge it to be or not to be. The universe is just the way it is.


> Is mankind just a “virus” in the program?


The earth might describe us as that.
But as you said we just evolved to be what we are. That doesn't mean our evolution was a positive thing for anything other than us.


> The plan was there all along.


A human plans.
We give our gods human qualities so we can relate to them.
If you believe your particular god is responsible for creation you therefore believe this was his plan.


> So why all the “chaos” now?  Now that man has entered the picture, is the universe less than perfect?


There is no "perfect". It is what it is.
However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.


> So once man enters the scene there has been a common theme: the desire to worship.  Early man wished to worship something outside of himself, Baal, Zeus, idols, golden Statues, etc.


That's a fact and an interesting one.
Man's quest to answer the classic question of how "did I get here"?
Maybe. Probably. Could be. Might not be.


> Do you think that the common archeological findings of religious artifacts and temples and idols suggest that mankind was genetically programmed to worship a god (small g here)?  is it our nature to worship?  Why? Or why not?


See my response above. Does seem to be in our nature to worship. From gods to baseball players to movie stars to Charlie Manson to .......


----------



## Israel (May 10, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Again, orderly and neat are human concepts. They describe how we think things should be or how we view things or judge things to be.
> The universe is neither orderly nor disorderly until WE judge it to be or not to be. The universe is just the way it is.
> 
> The earth might describe us as that.
> ...






> However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.




A little more than a mouthful said.
And more than interesting.


----------



## 660griz (May 10, 2018)

Day trip said:


> Well we certainly know that worship is a learned trait, for the good and bad of that.  I think it is interesting that there could be a genetic urge to worship.  Here I go with my religion stuff, â€œan innate calling from God!â€�
> 
> As far as the second study, Iâ€™m not sure superstition is the right cocnclusion.  I was going through old photos the other day and I just could not throw away any photos of my mom or dad.  (Iâ€™m talkkng about the many bad photos and second prints) They have both passed 10 and 12 years ago.  It wasnâ€™t superstition, it was maybe attachment, maybe respect, maybe love but I still have the photos.
> 
> Superstition seems more learned to me but I could see how a fear response/defense response is possible - for example - I went over to that cedar tree and was stung by a wasp.  Now cedar trees always make me nervous.   Learned or genetic?



Superstition, belief in gods, same thing.

su·per·sti·tion

noun: superstition

excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.

Here is another study that may be a little more to the point.

"For reasons we don't entirely understand, some people seem very predisposed to either being very religious or not at all and in fact, the research tells us that's highly genetic," she said. 

That's not to say your genetics decide whether you're Catholic or Muslim but how deeply you embrace whichever faith or spiritual philosophy you identify with. 

Ms Sharman said researchers have used twin studies to exclude environmental effects, such as one's upbringing, social networks or external tragedies. 

"Identical twins share 100% of their DNA and non-identical twins share 50%," she said. 

"By analysing twins, they've found quite conclusively religiosity is a genetic trait. 

"Even in identical twins separated at birth with quite different belief systems end up with the same level of religiosity whether on one end of the world or the other." 

This genetic link was discovered by accident, according to Ms Sharman. 

She said researchers in the United States of America were analysing links between genetics and alcoholism, and found the revealing data amongst groups which didn't drink due to their religion. 

"Someone finally decided to analyse that data and it's now been replicated all over the world," she said. 

In some studies, this genetic phenomenon has been linked to the individual's "existential uncertainty", meaning one's level of religiosity would naturally depend on how unsure or anxious a person is about their existence.


----------



## Israel (May 10, 2018)

660griz said:


> Superstition, belief in gods, same thing.
> 
> su·per·sti·tion
> 
> ...







> In some studies, this genetic phenomenon has been linked to the individual's "existential uncertainty", meaning one's level of religiosity would naturally depend on how unsure or anxious a person is about their existence.




Good stuff right there.


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2018)

Day trip said:


> Back it up to who?  You?  Why?  You know there is no God.



I do not know anything for sure.
I have set out to find a god but cannot.
When I ask the people who claim that they know there is a god and have a relationship with a god and tell me all about what god thinks, how he acts and claims to be able to interpret god's words...I ask them to show me.

They can't and you can't. So why would I even consider your god to exist?


----------



## Day trip (May 10, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I do not know anything for sure.
> I have set out to find a god but cannot.
> When I ask the people who claim that they know there is a god and have a relationship with a god and tell me all about what god thinks, how he acts and claims to be able to interpret god's words...I ask them to show me.
> 
> They can't and you can't. So why would I even consider your god to exist?




I understand.  I was poking at you just for fun.  I hope I didn’t upset you.  As you know, God is not provable by scientific facts, that’s why I was poking.  

God is mystical and trying to find him through brain power alone is pointless.  It requires a vulnerability.  Too often people seem to be too vulnerable and therefore believe anything.  It’s a tough balance between being vulnerable and being gullible.  The question comes down to, can you hold that tension of unknowing until you are enlightened?  It’s not like, “oh, NOW I get it”.  It’s building a foundation of intuitions, reading between the lines.   Sometimes we have to tear it all back down and start over but even that is progress.  

It’s so difficult because if you are not walking that line of ‘vulnerable but not gullible’ then you can fail either way.  You know baptism.  What is it?  Getting dipped in water so you don’t have any sins?  No, No and No!  But that’s all you see if you are too gullible.  If not vulnerable enough then it’s pointless nonsense.  Baptism means immersion and is not a one time thing but a long ongoing process.  Dipping in water is just the symbolic version. 

True knowledge of God depends upon immersion in the Holy Spirit, in scriptures and in life.  Only then does that knowledge function as an entire form of life. We live by the wisdom gained from a wealth of knowledge.  We don’t think our way to an understanding of God so much as we live our way to it. 

That’s why I can’t prove to you anything.  You have to seek for yourself.  

If someone where sincerely curious and seeking, I would recommend Matthew Chapters 5-7,  feed on it over and over until you’re strong enough for the next meal.  Hold the tension until it makes so much sense that you can no longer deny it than you could deny your very existence.  If it just doesn’t make sense, let it go.  That’s one building block in the foundation.


----------



## ambush80 (May 10, 2018)

Day trip said:


> No, I really like that.  I canâ€™t imagine it said any better.  So my interpretation/imagination says, orderly = there is organization / a plan, chaotic = I cannot understsnd all of the plan
> 
> I assume youâ€™ve explored St Thomas Aquinasâ€™ Five Ways or Five Proofs from Summa Theologiciae.  So Iâ€™m addressing the Teleological Arguement in case youâ€™re wondering where Iâ€™m coming from.
> 
> ...



Those arguments are really just God of the Gaps arguments.  

_The Quinque viæ (Latin "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa theologiciae. They are:

   1. the argument from "motion";
   2. the argument from causation;
   3. the argument from contingency;
   4. the argument from degree;
   5. the argument from final cause or ends ("teleological argument").

Aquinas expands the first of these â€“ God as the "unmoved mover" â€“ in his Summa Contra Gentiles.[1]_

1.  "Everything has a cause"--Except the un-caused cause.  Self defeating from the get go.  There have been many religious traditions that asked "Where did it all come from?" and they were content with the answer "It was always there".  Picking aoine answer over the other is a preference, like for ice cream.  

2. This is the un-caused cause argument again.  Some people have put forth the idea that stuff is here because it's more likely that there would be stuff than not.  Picking one argument over the other is just a preference.  Neither can be proven.  I may not understand it completely but it seems to me that the argument goes: we know stuff is here.  It could just as not be here, but it is.  Given those two potentials, it's just as likely that stuff will be here as not, but there is stuff.  People argue "Nothing can come from nothing" but do they REALLY know what the nature of nothing is any more than they know what the nature of infinity is?  It's out of all of our paygrades yet people insist that they know it can't be any other way than the one they prefer.

3. Un-caused cause.

4. "There are heirarchies that prove there's a design".  

_"The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that."_

These are judgements made by humans.  "Of course God judges things the way we do because we are made in his image".  OR--"The God of Squares has four sides".  Meaning, we make God in our image and he likes and dislikes the kinds of thing we do.  This bears out with the simple observation that the God(s) of one culture like the aspects of that culture.  

4. "Intelligent Design".  Everyone should know the arguments against this.  If you don't then it's because you're lazy.


----------



## ambush80 (May 10, 2018)

About the un-caused cause; think about why you think you know what this un-caused cause is like.  Where did your concept of this "being" come from and why is it necessarily a being?  Look for the bias.


----------



## ambush80 (May 10, 2018)

Day trip said:


> I understand.  I was poking at you just for fun.  I hope I didn’t upset you.  As you know, God is not provable by scientific facts, that’s why I was poking.
> 
> God is mystical and trying to find him through brain power alone is pointless.  It requires a vulnerability.  Too often people seem to be too vulnerable and therefore believe anything.  It’s a tough balance between being vulnerable and being gullible.  The question comes down to, can you hold that tension of unknowing until you are enlightened?  It’s not like, “oh, NOW I get it”.  It’s building a foundation of intuitions, reading between the lines.   Sometimes we have to tear it all back down and start over but even that is progress.
> 
> ...



What do you think of this?:


----------



## Day trip (May 10, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Those arguments are really just God of the Gaps arguments.
> 
> _The Quinque viæ (Latin "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa theologiciae. They are:
> 
> ...



The whole point in that discussion with Walt is to point out order and the chaos is only our not knowing all of that order.  
Now I’ve heard arguments against Intelligent Design are about as satisfactory to me as religion is to you.


----------



## Day trip (May 10, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What do you think of this?:



Life is unbearable if we cannot create order from chaos?  No, being a control freak must create order from chaos.  It’s desperation. 
Life is only bearable when we do our part but also know that this drama of life is not about us, it is not the ego-drama, it is a Theo-drama or an existance in which we allow ourselves to accept uncertainties and still move forward with the principles of truth.  Knowing that moving forward no matter how hard, things will always work out for our good and the good of all.


----------



## ambush80 (May 10, 2018)

Day trip said:


> Life is unbearable if we cannot create order from chaos?  No, being a control freak must create order from chaos.  It’s desperation.
> Life is only bearable when we do our part but also know that this drama of life is not about us, it is not the ego-drama, it is a Theo-drama or an existance in which we allow ourselves to accept uncertainties and still move forward with the principles of truth.  Knowing that moving forward no matter how hard, things will always work out for our good and the good of all.



How about this?:


----------



## WaltL1 (May 10, 2018)

Day trip said:


> Life is unbearable if we cannot create order from chaos?  No, being a control freak must create order from chaos.  It’s desperation.
> Life is only bearable when we do our part but also know that this drama of life is not about us, it is not the ego-drama, it is a Theo-drama or an existance in which we allow ourselves to accept uncertainties and still move forward with the principles of truth.  Knowing that moving forward no matter how hard, things will always work out for our good and the good of all.


I was completely on board with you until you got to 
here -


> things will always work out for our good and the good of all.


I think that can be strongly debated. Particularly the "good of all" part.


----------



## Day trip (May 10, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How about this?:



I my opinion, (which should go without saying since I’m posting), this guy is sorta, kinda hitting on something but not in a very helpful or motivating way.  It like more desperation, the message I got was “well everything sucks so we should bear it and be nice so maybe it won’t suck as bad”

I believe what he wants to say is that suffering is a way of telling you that you’re not doing it right.  So bear the suffering, learn from it and then learn to avoid the suffering by acting and living nobly, or in my lingo: obey God. 

Not all suffering is created equal.  When we suffer from failing to live the truth we cause the suffering and need to learn from it.  
For example, let’s say I want to get that log on the fireplace to sit back a little more so smoke doesn’t come out in the house.  I reach in quickly just to give it a little push and burn my hand.  Well I really want to just move it a little, I can make this work so I try again and burn my hand.  Now at some point I have to accept responsibility for my suffering, learn from it and learn how to avoid it.  So I go get the fire poker and shove the log in, problem solved, praise the Lord.  
But that’s what we are like, we keep sticking our hand in the fire and getting mad at the fire or mad at the log for getting burnt.  We want control and we want things our way so we force issues that cannot work, shoving a round peg in a square hole.  Think of a scenario where you e found yourself sticking your hand in the fire over and over then getting mad because it won’t work. 

In some suffering we are innocent.  Let’s say we were sitting at a red light and a car nails you and now you’re paralyzed.  Let’s ssy your child gets cancer.  Why God? This is our being pushed to grow.  We can whine and fuss and complain and it does no good.  Or we can accept our condition, work with it and learn to grow with it.  

Every scenario has variables that make us say to these ideas, “yeah, but....”.  No buts.  See what is real, deal with what is real and grow to understand how it was necessary that you go through this experience.  It may take years or it may take your whole life but in all scenarios, we must look at it with these attitudes.  Anything less is quitting, failing.  

I will adamantly state that suffering is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind.  Bearing our suffering and dealing with it head on in truth with no preferences is participating in that Theo-drama that I mentioned earlier.  

When we come to see that when we act justly, live by the principles of common love instead of self love things work out.  Always!  In ways that defy logic or reason.  That is what I’ve learned from life and that is the main reason I believe in God, because he is always  drawing us to him.


----------



## Day trip (May 10, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I was completely on board with you until you got to
> here -
> 
> I think that can be strongly debated. Particularly the "good of all" part.



I can certainly see why.  I would like to explain a bit more later. 
  I’m going fishing, be out of town for a day trip down to the coast so you guys be good and I’ll catch up with you all later


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2018)

.im





Day trip said:


> I understand.  I was poking at you just for fun.  I hope I didn’t upset you.  As you know, God is not provable by scientific facts, that’s why I was poking.
> 
> God is mystical and trying to find him through brain power alone is pointless.  It requires a vulnerability.  Too often people seem to be too vulnerable and therefore believe anything.  It’s a tough balance between being vulnerable and being gullible.  The question comes down to, can you hold that tension of unknowing until you are enlightened?  It’s not like, “oh, NOW I get it”.  It’s building a foundation of intuitions, reading between the lines.   Sometimes we have to tear it all back down and start over but even that is progress.
> 
> ...



Been there and Done that. It didn't work.
"God is _______" that's what I have a problem with.
"Maybe a God is _______" I can live with.


----------



## Day trip (May 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> .im
> 
> Been there and Done that. It didn't work.
> "God is _______" that's what I have a problem with.
> "Maybe a God is _______" I can live with.



At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean a dang thing about what you or I believe.  It’s how we act, how we treat others that matters.  Treat everyone like your brother or your mother and it all takes care of itself anyway.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 11, 2018)

Day trip said:


> At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean a dang thing about what you or I believe.  It’s how we act, how we treat others that matters.  Treat everyone like your brother or your mother and it all takes care of itself anyway.


Great words to live by.
Christianity tells us some of those people who do exactly that deserve to be eternally punished unless they believe in their particular god.
Wacky stuff.


----------



## Israel (May 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Those arguments are really just God of the Gaps arguments.
> 
> _The Quinque viæ (Latin "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa theologiciae. They are:
> 
> ...




It's funny, you know, all the volumes one can find written...even...all _my volumes
_ of explanations (so I surely can't fault Aquinas) were entered through such a simple thing.

The leading down a path of explanation is surely not forbidden if the original intention remains.


But explanation (do you agree?) is always by definition, can never be anything but what it is by definition...never the thing it may attempt to capture in description.

Even that word "description" from _describe_ de-scribe...says volumes in itself.

Using words...to explain what appears to us in word...who can "do it"?

I am brought to a thing all but overlooked here...yet said...and seemingly known (though I cannot assume lack of addressing it speaks of assent, or just _not seeing
_ except by the writer, and whoever else sees it.

It's a huge thing said... so large I can't help but wonder why it goes without comment. Nevertheless that wondering leads me to surmisings.

They are like the words of a prophet whom most would prefer to not see...or even begin to seek understanding of how such knowledge...is known.




> However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.




Playing with words is a fun occupation, but seeking to live where such a thing is known "Man is the glitch container"..."man's presence is the contaminant of _the rest_"...well, it takes something outside man to see that. To _know_ that.

A man knows what he knows. And trying to "unsee" a thing can only make him a liar to himself.


----------



## ambush80 (May 11, 2018)

Israel said:


> It's funny, you know, all the volumes one can find written...even...all _my volumes
> _ of explanations (so I surely can't fault Aquinas) were entered through such a simple thing.
> 
> The leading down a path of explanation is surely not forbidden if the original intention remains.
> ...



I have a sense that you aren't using the word "thing" in a generic way, and that you have something specific in mind.  I'm having a hard time trying to respond in an engaging way because of it.  What is the thing that you're talking about?


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2018)

Day trip said:


> At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean a dang thing about what you or I believe.  It’s how we act, how we treat others that matters.  Treat everyone like your brother or your mother and it all takes care of itself anyway.



You are right. Beliefs do not matter.
When a person tries to not only pass belief off as fact through unprovable claims and assertions but also expects everyone else to go along with it is when it starts to matter to me.
I figure if someone wants to say it why not call them on it to back it up.
Is that too much to ask of someone?


----------



## hummerpoo (May 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Those arguments are really just God of the Gaps arguments.
> 
> _The Quinque viæ (Latin "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa theologiciae. They are:
> 
> ...



Same Old Thing

"Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal. 

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions." 

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.1.i.html


----------



## WaltL1 (May 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You are right. Beliefs do not matter.
> When a person tries to not only pass belief off as fact through unprovable claims and assertions but also expects everyone else to go along with it is when it starts to matter to me.
> I figure if someone wants to say it why not call them on it to back it up.
> Is that too much to ask of someone?


And lets not forget, in a variety of ways, both believers and non-believers are affected by this particular belief.
How a person votes, laws that get created, whats taught in schools, monuments, finances, gotta stop because the cop is directing traffic to let the church goers out..... on and on.
Most are minor little inconveniences or no problem at all.
Some can make a difference. Think voting.
If you come on here or anywhere and make a claim like that on this subject or any subject,  it certainly seems fair for the other side affected by your beliefs to expect a little proof.
At least I know I wouldn't make a claim of that magnitude without expecting to be able to back it up
with a little more than "ya just gotta believe......".


----------



## ambush80 (May 11, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Same Old Thing
> 
> "Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.
> 
> ...



Believing this is just a preference and Aristotle couldn't prove it either way.  No one can.  I would argue the utility of operating from one preferred premise over the other. 

Aristotle didn't say what this premise is.  He didn't try to say that it's a guy who loves or hates us or that it's a guy at all. That's a leap too far.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Believing this is just a preference and Aristotle couldn't prove it either way.  No one can.



Notwithstanding your word "just", and substituting his "demonstrate" for your "prove", I agree; and, as I read him, so does he.



> I would argue the utility of operating from one preferred premise over the other.



 Which points to the really interesting question. — Why do some prefer a philosophy that provides no demonstrable answer and others prefer a philosophy with an indemonstrable answer?



> Aristotle didn't say what this premise is.



"there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions" doesn't do that?



> He didn't try to say that it's a guy who loves or hates us or that it's a guy at all. That's a leap too far.



Would that not be a leap from philosophy to theology?  In his roll of philosopher, he is content to show that the gap exists, and, at this point, his preference to fill it with an indemonstrable originative source than to unnecessarily, in his view, leave it blank.

I did not propose to argue Aristotle's argument; but to show that it's just the "Same Old Thing".
Nor do I propose to argue the "really interesting question": again, "Same Old Thing".


----------



## Israel (May 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I have a sense that you aren't using the word "thing" in a generic way, and that you have something specific in mind.  I'm having a hard time trying to respond in an engaging way because of it.  What is the thing that you're talking about?





> WaltL1:
> 
> However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.




As Walt well understood "me" enough in another place to say something like "Israel, I know you are reading this, and so I know you know I am not talking about you behind your back" I also believe I know Walt to a certain extent. For he did show...he _does know_ me... and I would say to an extent (even by using that _caveat_) that shows me a lot more than mere words could.

Something is exchanged between folks, even if we may say "it's not there", something we may find "in the words"...(and sometimes very plainly in their absence, also) that we _pick up_ of them.

And we all have a relationship to one another in whatever moment we are perceived as having being to one another.
And I would say we are all too far along to pretend this is not true.

What we labor over, it seems, what we spend time in so much of (seeming) dispute is all of "who has what?"

So, just as Walt had said to me, I say to him, believing he is reading this, along with whoever else may be, and if he does know me...(which I believe he does) he knows I fear and loathe the temptation of "gotcha" even though I may fall to it, and have, on occasion. I am not "above" any here to any immunity from temptation.

Yes, I _know_ we are too far along with one another to be coy, or even fey. I can't make any other hear the plainness of cry I hear, but I cannot deny I hear it either..."tell us (me)...show us, (me)...plainly what it is you've got!" (And _if there be sides_ of which I am not convinced are as plain as _seems_, or even are true, these things come forth as "I want to see what you have...far more than I care about _what you say_...you have")

And then words appear. And then discerning of words. Attempts to make sense of the words, to a showing of what _is really_ in them.

So, again, since I am no more, nor any less than any other in "right to speak"...and also read; that is, _allowed to_ seek in given words for a purity, if not at least a legitimate consistency (or, am _I allowed_ to make "judgments"? or _of all_...excluded?) those words of Walt's are _very big_.

Regardless of any disposition _of my own_ to dispossess another of their right to speak (and do not  doubt I both have...and to some extent am aware of _that leaning)_ by introductions of _my own_ requirements that constitute a legitimacy for utterance, (what assumption have we already made...all of us, in "right to speak"?) that we take as an a priori, given, so that we even may? What, and how much, is assumed therein? Do we have "the right to lie"? (If exchange is granted?) Yes, I am far more "caught up" with allowances assumed...that need to be explored...realizing I can never make my necessity, the necessity of another.

But please, for the love of Christ, do not go from assumption to presumption _in lie_ thinking "I can pin necessity to another, but to myself, I am free of it". For, it is far too late to hide from an eye that has seen...that pinning, that vain hope of shirking of necessity by pinning it to another, is so very very plainly motivated at depth...by the _operation of necessity_. "I will pin my weakness upon my brother, that it may not appear (ahhh, but it does!) in me". That very operation...betrays it...so very plainly.

So...let's be fair, if we can at all approach that. Not for Walt's shaming (for I see no shame in him) and indeed...those very words show me something very plainly...he has heard from the shameless One.

Others...Walt even...need not agree. It's a big statement. It's even a grand assertion (and how much has been said, how much has been tortured in the _assumed right_ of testing assertion?)



> However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.



Walt, I live, and am seeking to abide in the place of all assertion. In truth I am seeking the way of loving (with many stumbles, no doubt) that all assertive One. I find His assertions both troubling and wondrous, and I can find no speculation in Him. 

Oh! Don't doubt I have looked...(where does he utter "yes and no?) and may even, if He allows...continue to do so. It is not even that I "think" I want to, that is _test _His assertions...I can only say to this point (allowed in time) it appears I am set to it.

So, no Walt...I don't lift up your assertion for a dissection to shame. I have also heard this assertion, myself. And where _I know_ I have heard it from _is true_.

It is the smallest of steps...but has been for me the grandest of leaps that has led to an open door...a door I could not find or see, nor make any sense of how it could be "there"...until I was pressed, forced, coerced, commanded to see all that_ I had_ cut away in path of retreat and hope of going back. By my _right_ to "speak".



> However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.



It seems a small step...but no man can push it, no man can make any other take that step, no man has it in him to either take it, or coerce another.

I am...man.


_I am_ the stressor. I am_ that man._ I am the one who______________.

(We have mentioned this before, so it is not new. Do you think Oppenheimer was only speaking in hyperbole when witnessing the unleashing of some of the secrets of matter? Do you think "I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds"...was just a cleverness? Or do you think a man saw where his "need to know" in torturing from creation its secrets...understood a thing? Aghast?)  

Oh, the seeming comfort of always "needing" to see it as the "them". (Which is why I am heartily persuaded _sides_ do not exist as we think)
For what today sees all and only of contamination to creation in "the them"...may at any moment be changed...(in the twinkling of an eye found to be in gaze upon ONE) by a realization, totally _and always_ (apart from grace) _unacceptable_ 

"I am...the them"

I am...the man.

The door is there. It took a man, made willing to appear as the "all _of _them" to show it. This man made willing to be, verily (is that too stilted for some?) in Himself...all of the contamination. The "negative impact" upon all else in creation. And He took it (if one can even receive it in electrical terms) to "ground". He Himself _and in Himself_ became the short, the wire, the conductor in holding God's righteousness (the thing that I know lets you see that "negativity" even while being...in it) and not letting go of man, and ALL his negativity upon creation. And what happened to Him..._had to_ when these things, totally irreconcilable...meet. A death. 
A death to open a door.

Where what is all of irreconcilability is. Reconciled.
How can this be?

I would ask you: Are you man? Do you believe what you say? How do you...go on...if you know...what you have said?

Here's an assertion. When man stops lying  "out" to the creation by first finding the grace to no longer lie to himself (in creation)..."I am your crown", "I am the God of creation" "I am _the pinnacle_ of all"...he will find creation itself no longer, of necessity, reflecting _lying back_ to him. 

(If this sounds too weird, as well it could...I consider something Cormack McCarthy wrote as the words of one of his characters "Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.")

Truth is not merely allowed...it is commanded.

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

In submission to the Lord of creation, peace may even be found in it.

Primum non nocere.

One man walked in that.

It is a good thing to ask..."how?" 

How not to reap what_ all else seems_ to say "man is condemned to by his infection".

Watch the death _closely._ I assert...you will find something...else. A creation now set in such order...it could not, would not, is totally unable (nor willing) to hold Him...down.

One small step. To paying attention.


----------

