# How did God get started?



## bullethead

http://www.bu.edu/arion/archive/volume-18/colin_wells_how_did_god_get-started/


----------



## 660griz

Good read. Anticlimactic ending though.


----------



## gordon 2

Thanks for sharing bullethead. Good read. I think I'll read it a few times. It's been some time since I have seen brother reason dress so well. If this keeps up perhaps I can take him out one day. I have been so use to seeing him in his habit of political, ideological  spin, for so long, that this is quite refreshing.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Hey Bullet, I was very interested about halfway through. The beginning being about the Jews earliest beliefs is not popular. Everyone wants to think they were strict monotheistic from the beginning, but it is not true, or rather words we now hold as singular have not always been that way. Thinking of the word God. Christians and Jews alike reserve the use of the word for a single almighty God. But it has not always been that way. Here is a thread I started last week on Carms trinity forum

Default Who are the "us"
I have always stated that we don't know, that the "us" could have several logical answers, but nothing is proven, and it does not default to the trinity. But I no longer see it this way. I was looking at the literal word meanings of a particular verse and I noticed something. I dug a little deeper and did some research. I am confident that the "us" are Gods. Later translated as Sons of God or angels. 

Psalms 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council, in the midst of the gods he holds judgement
Psalms 138:1 Before the Gods will I sing praise to you
Psalms 97:7 Worship him all you Gods
Deut 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of Gods
Psalms 82:6 I said you are Gods, and all of you are sons of the most high

There are a few more that are ambiguous so I left them out. Notice that Jesus also quotes Psalms 82:6 but more specific, his use of "Gods". Jesus's translation should trump our translators. We later see God referred to as "the true God", the most high God", "Almighty God", these uses assuming other Gods. Now we know more about these Gods, that they are often called sons of God or angels but the fact remains that they were called Gods also. I not going to go so far as to say the Jews were believers of Henotheism, but they were called Gods. Not rivals to the Almighty God, not yet anyway, not yet at the time when God said "Let us make man in our image". Feel free to check the verses I presented for accuracy


----------



## bullethead

1GR8T I believe you are right about the early Jews not being monotheistic but the article does say that. 


> That the world’s monotheisms descended from a single ancestor probably also helps perpetuate the common perception that it all started with Abraham. Who else but the Jews, those famous monotheists from way back?
> 
> Yet religious scholars agree that this isn’t quite the sort of belief that Abraham would have recognized. Modern research suggests that the religion of Abraham and his fellow Hebrews was not, strictly speaking, monotheistic at all, but “monolatrous.” In other words, during Abraham’s time and for many centuries afterward, the ancient Hebrews worshipped not a God whom they held to be the sole deity in existence, but simply one god among many, a god whom they conceived of as being more powerful than the jostling plethora of lesser gods worshipped by other peoples, but who nonetheless shared the stage with them. This essentially polytheistic outlook accords with the frequent mention of other gods in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), for example. It also accords with the way that Abraham’s faith has the feel of a contractual arrangement. When religious scholars use the word “faith” at all to describe Abraham’s attitude to his God, it’s generally coupled with a word like “juridical.”
> 
> The God that Abraham worshipped went under various names—El ElionCensored(“God Most High”);CensoredEl OlamCensored(“God Eternal”);CensoredEl ShaddaiCensored(“God the Mountain”);CensoredEl Ro’iCensored(“God All-Seeing”)—and appears to have been a version of the indigenous god El whom the Canaanites worshipped before and after Abraham’s arrival. El was the Canaanite high god, but under him served other gods such as the fertility god Baal and the water god Yam. Perhaps Abraham and his kin adopted ElCensoredas their own, accepting him as the same god who had urged Abraham to leave Ur and seek out the land of milk and honey in the first place.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> 1GR8T I believe you are right about the early Jews not being monotheistic but the article does say that.


Yes it did, I was surprised the article did not use the word Henotheism


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> Yes it did, I was surprised the article did not use the word Henotheism



Do you see God almighty as the creator of these lesser gods?
What about angels and fallen angels, hosts in Heaven and legions of demons?
Demi-gods and semi-devils? 
Somehow even in Christianity we have many variations of beings with supernatural powers. We don't like to call them deity yet they possess powers greater than humans. Sometimes even manipulating  humans as in Job. Now in that story the supernatural entity had to ask God almighty if he wanted  him to intervene. I'm not sure if he was asking God for permission or just asking if he could assist.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you see God almighty as the creator of these lesser gods?
> What about angels and fallen angels, hosts in Heaven and legions of demons?
> Demi-gods and semi-devils?
> Somehow even in Christianity we have many variations of beings with supernatural powers. We don't like to call them deity yet they possess powers greater than humans. Sometimes even manipulating  humans as in Job. Now in that story the supernatural entity had to ask God almighty if he wanted  him to intervene. I'm not sure if he was asking God for permission or just asking if he could assist.



I really can't see how one could go through life and believe in those things.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you see God almighty as the creator of these lesser gods?
> What about angels and fallen angels, hosts in Heaven and legions of demons?
> Demi-gods and semi-devils?
> Somehow even in Christianity we have many variations of beings with supernatural powers. We don't like to call them deity yet they possess powers greater than humans. Sometimes even manipulating  humans as in Job. Now in that story the supernatural entity had to ask God almighty if he wanted  him to intervene. I'm not sure if he was asking God for permission or just asking if he could assist.


Maybe the "lesser Gods have always been, as God is. I dont know. No info on whether he created them. I think that the angels/gods/sons of God were in heaven with God when one of them tried to rival god and 1/3 was on his side. God kicked them out of heaven as spirits, called evil spirits/demons whom are on earth waiting for the coming judgement. I think they are like a tick, able to attach to something living, but not in full control. 
Demigods, if my definition is correct, the offspring of a god impregnating a woman. This was the purpose of the flood, to eradicate this race. As I think about this, I am not sure I believe all this, rather, I believe this is what scripture says. As the link said, writing or any form of an alphabet came much much later than the creation, flood, etc. So we have  word of mouth stories for decades before it was written down. Much folklore gets into oral stories as the stories evolve. On the other side of the coin, I see those stories as a prophesy of the coming times. The flood a picture of deliverance that many call the rapture, the creation a picture of the new creation, Abraham..... I could go on and on


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> I really can't see how one could go through life and believe in those things.



It gives you someone to blame for your bad actions and terrible natural occurrences.


----------



## Israel

In all the universe there may be no more flawed question.
When did reality start?


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> Maybe the "lesser Gods have always been, as God is. I dont know. No info on whether he created them. I think that the angels/gods/sons of God were in heaven with God when one of them tried to rival god and 1/3 was on his side. God kicked them out of heaven as spirits, called evil spirits/demons whom are on earth waiting for the coming judgement. I think they are like a tick, able to attach to something living, but not in full control.
> Demigods, if my definition is correct, the offspring of a god impregnating a woman. This was the purpose of the flood, to eradicate this race. As I think about this, I am not sure I believe all this, rather, I believe this is what scripture says. As the link said, writing or any form of an alphabet came much much later than the creation, flood, etc. So we have  word of mouth stories for decades before it was written down. Much folklore gets into oral stories as the stories evolve. On the other side of the coin, I see those stories as a prophesy of the coming times. The flood a picture of deliverance that many call the rapture, the creation a picture of the new creation, Abraham..... I could go on and on



Let me see if I follow... God flooded the Earth to kill off some Demigods (none of which had any powers that could withstand water) and in turn killed about 20 million humans along with them just to be sure he got them all?

The evil spirits and demons that roam the Earth are flood-proof because the flood didn't wipe them out. Essentially the real thorns in God's side are spared yet again? Initially an all knowing God allowed a bunch of them to rebel so he banished them from Heaven. He HAD to know this was coming and already had a plan for their disloyalty. Of all the planets and places within God's capability he sends them to Earth!!! He sends them to THE spot where puny powerless likenesses of himself can be victims of these troublemakers.
Sure as 'tootin the evil spirits and demons mate with innocent humans and now the ALL-KNOWING God doesn't like that at all...almost as if he didn't see it coming(at least that would be a good excuse) so he drowns everybody except 8. The ALL-POWERFUL God kills off every single human but 8 because his knowledge tells him everyone else must die in order to cleanse the Earth and fix HIS problems.
But....the evil spirits and demons remain!
They went right back to work corrupting the survivors of the flood. 6000 years later (after even concocting another plan that involves sacrificing himself disguised as his son that was to save mankind yet again) the Earth is filled with demons and evil spirits tempting humans to do wicked things and live by wicked ways. It would stand to reason that these evil spirits and demons do not follow any rules so there has got to be at least a few Demigods roaming around. If they could mate with humans in the first couple years of human existence I am sure they could find a way to mate with a couple more in the next 6000 years.
So...God saw a rebellion coming and sent the worst of the worst to the place he made for the humans he so loves.
He killed the humans. The evil spirits and demons(the real problems here) still exist.
I have to question an all-knowing and all-powerful being that allows the very forces he is against continue on and especially continue on against humans that he specifically created and loves sooooo much.
This God is either perfectly fine with the situation or unable to stop it.

And last but not final...the Earth is really a playground for Gods and demigods and spirits and demons with humans being the pawns for which each side fights over and uses in a spiritual war. That really sounds like many of the hundreds of thousands of other religions that pair Good against Evil with Good unable to have a clear advantage so excuses have to be made why the deity they worship is in reality powerless.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> It gives you someone to blame for your bad actions and terrible natural occurrences.



Why would you want someone to blame?


----------



## oldfella1962

he had no competition when he applied for the job! 
The world/universe was his oyster!


----------



## bullethead

oldfella1962 said:


> he had no competition when he applied for the job!
> The world/universe was his oyster!



Where did all of his competition come from?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> Let me see if I follow... God flooded the Earth to kill off some Demigods (none of which had any powers that could withstand water) and in turn killed about 20 million humans along with them just to be sure he got them all?
> 
> The evil spirits and demons that roam the Earth are flood-proof because the flood didn't wipe them out. Essentially the real thorns in God's side are spared yet again? Initially an all knowing God allowed a bunch of them to rebel so he banished them from Heaven. He HAD to know this was coming and already had a plan for their disloyalty. Of all the planets and places within God's capability he sends them to Earth!!! He sends them to THE spot where puny powerless likenesses of himself can be victims of these troublemakers.
> Sure as 'tootin the evil spirits and demons mate with innocent humans and now the ALL-KNOWING God doesn't like that at all...almost as if he didn't see it coming(at least that would be a good excuse) so he drowns everybody except 8. The ALL-POWERFUL God kills off every single human but 8 because his knowledge tells him everyone else must die in order to cleanse the Earth and fix HIS problems.
> But....the evil spirits and demons remain!
> They went right back to work corrupting the survivors of the flood. 6000 years later (after even concocting another plan that involves sacrificing himself disguised as his son that was to save mankind yet again) the Earth is filled with demons and evil spirits tempting humans to do wicked things and live by wicked ways. It would stand to reason that these evil spirits and demons do not follow any rules so there has got to be at least a few Demigods roaming around. If they could mate with humans in the first couple years of human existence I am sure they could find a way to mate with a couple more in the next 6000 years.
> So...God saw a rebellion coming and sent the worst of the worst to the place he made for the humans he so loves.
> He killed the humans. The evil spirits and demons(the real problems here) still exist.
> I have to question an all-knowing and all-powerful being that allows the very forces he is against continue on and especially continue on against humans that he specifically created and loves sooooo much.
> This God is either perfectly fine with the situation or unable to stop it.
> 
> And last but not final...the Earth is really a playground for Gods and demigods and spirits and demons with humans being the pawns for which each side fights over and uses in a spiritual war. That really sounds like many of the hundreds of thousands of other religions that pair Good against Evil with Good unable to have a clear advantage so excuses have to be made why the deity they worship is in reality powerless.


That would be a reasonable assessment. What the bible says anyway, with one correction. The offspring of the angel human union was killed in the flood but not the angels who had union with the women. They are eternal spirits who will suffer for eternity in what is called he11 wrongly believed to be the fate of unbelievers. LOL, I don't know that I believe all this as literal. But it is the sum of what the bible says


----------



## hobbs27

1gr8bldr said:


> That would be a reasonable assessment. What the bible says anyway, with one correction. The offspring of the angel human union was killed in the flood but not the angels who had union with the women. They are eternal spirits who will suffer for eternity in what is called he11 wrongly believed to be the fate of unbelievers. LOL, I don't know that I believe all this as literal. But it is the sum of what the bible says



Eternity...or till the day of judgement?


----------



## bullethead

If they are in h3ll they may have already been judged.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> If they are in h3ll they may have already been judged.



They weren't, they were in Tarsarus, which is mistranslated as he11.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

hobbs27 said:


> Eternity...or till the day of judgement?


The devil and his angels are  eternal spirits so they can not be killed. They will go into the "place prepared for the devil and his angels". Men face judgement, some to eternal life, some to destruction.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> The devil and his angels are  eternal spirits so they can not be killed. They will go into the "place prepared for the devil and his angels". Men face judgement, some to eternal life, some to destruction.


Honest questions...
Why can't they be killed or eliminated permanently?
What is stopping a capable God from doing this?
If h3ll is a place specially prepared for Satan and his crew How are they able to leave and enter the physical world here on Earth?

I have a very hard time trusting a book that tells us about an all powerful God that loves us and wants to keep from evils harm yet is incapable of eliminating the source of evil.
The powers do not add up to the claims.
Reality does not match up with the claims.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Honest questions...
> Why can't they be killed or eliminated permanently?
> What is stopping a capable God from doing this?
> If h3ll is a place specially prepared for Satan and his crew How are they able to leave and enter the physical world here on Earth?
> 
> I have a very hard time trusting a book that tells us about an all powerful God that loves us and wants to keep from evils harm yet is incapable of eliminating the source of evil.
> The powers do not add up to the claims.
> Reality does not match up with the claims.



God can't kill them because they are eternal entities with the power to live forever. His only choice is to place them in a Lake of Fire.
He has to wait until the great battle in the sky between Heaven's hosts and the league of Satan.
God has already made out his plan and can't change it. Therefore he has to follow his plan. This future battle is a part of his plan.
Perhaps he uses Satan just as he uses angels. I guess he figures he might as well use them until he cast them into the Lake of Fire.
Kinda like on Cop movies where the police use thugs, gang members, etc. to do some of their dirty work.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Honest questions...
> Why can't they be killed or eliminated permanently?
> What is stopping a capable God from doing this?
> If h3ll is a place specially prepared for Satan and his crew How are they able to leave and enter the physical world here on Earth?
> 
> I have a very hard time trusting a book that tells us about an all powerful God that loves us and wants to keep from evils harm yet is incapable of eliminating the source of evil.
> The powers do not add up to the claims.
> Reality does not match up with the claims.



Without Evil(sin) God wouldn't have needed to send his Son Jesus to save us. Jesus was his plan at creation. 
Everything biblical was written through Jesus. The world was created through Jesus. 
Therefore Adam had to sin in order for everything to go as God had planned.
Since Adam had to sin, Evil in the form of Satan was needed as the evil influence.  God being good couldn't have influenced Adam to sin. Although he did blind the Jews and make them do what they needed to do.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> I have a very hard time trusting a book that tells us about an all powerful God that loves us and wants to keep from evils harm yet is incapable of eliminating the source of evil.
> The powers do not add up to the claims.
> Reality does not match up with the claims.



I would too, if there was such a book. It seems a lot of critics of the Bible take so called religious people at their word as to what the book says and don't spend their own time reading, studying, and determining on their own what it says.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> God can't kill them because they are eternal entities with the power to live forever. His only choice is to place them in a Lake of Fire.
> He has to wait until the great battle in the sky between Heaven's hosts and the league of Satan.
> God has already made out his plan and can't change it. Therefore he has to follow his plan. This future battle is a part of his plan.
> Perhaps he uses Satan just as he uses angels. I guess he figures he might as well use them until he cast them into the Lake of Fire.
> Kinda like on Cop movies where the police use thugs, gang members, etc. to do some of their dirty work.



God can't 
God has to wait
God can't change his plan

Sounds like excuses that are made for an all powerful God that is unable to live up to his claims.

He might as well be called OZ.
Lots of curtains switches and levers to scare you but if you want anything done you have to do it yourself.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> It gives you someone to blame for your bad actions and terrible natural occurrences.



I'll be honest, I didn't read the article, but this was my first thought on seeing the thread title. 

In one of my college courses on religion we saw how it was possible to trace the lineage from one set of gods to the next, with more "power" and personification of the deity, from polytheistic peoples such as the Greeks and even Native Americans to monotheists like modern day Christians. 

It's a catch-22. Nobody really enjoys things happening that they can't explain, good or bad. That's why people thank Jesus for that promotion or touchdown, and curse the devil when they do something bad. The first explanations were for why crop yields fell or rose, or why the sun was swallowed up in an eclipse, or why it rose at all. As we started explaining those away those gods' roles became less important and it was incorporated into a more powerful deity. 

I am a proponent of evolution, and I don't think that's a mystery, but I do think that religion, and deities, are subject to it as well. It's often, inaccurately I might add, said that evolution is the survival of the fittest. It's not. It's survival of the best adapted for their environment. As each god, or demigod, was deemed to be unworthy by another they were replaced, often being incorporated into the overtaking religion so as to make conversion easier and more popular. 

In simple terms, how did God get started? The first time a human asked a question that no one knew how to answer. Everything after that has been the product of religious evolution.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Without Evil(sin) God wouldn't have needed to send his Son Jesus to save us. Jesus was his plan at creation.
> Everything biblical was written through Jesus. The world was created through Jesus.
> Therefore Adam had to sin in order for everything to go as God had planned.
> Since Adam had to sin, Evil in the form of Satan was needed as the evil influence.  God being good couldn't have influenced Adam to sin. Although he did blind the Jews and make them do what they needed to do.



Art I know that you have to believe that stuff in order for you to believe as you do but it really is just excuses made to give an imaginary God a free pass for the ungodlike human qualities that the writers had to make excuses for.
The world now and in all of it's history does not point to a loving God's involvement.
If there was a God's involvement at all and his plans include killing his own son and millions  upon millions of his creation in order to follow a plan that is designed to create suffering from day one....no wonder why so many people worship something else.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> God can't kill them because they are eternal entities with the power to live forever.WHO gave them this power? Is God incapable of taking the power away? Are you telling me the list of eternal beings that will live forever has increased? His only choice is to place them in a Lake of Fire.I am told the God of Abraham is the most powerful force that ever was and ever will be. Are you convinced that God only had one choice??
> He has to wait until the great battle in the sky between Heaven's hosts and the league of Satan.Your God "has to wait"???
> God has already made out his plan and can't change it. Therefore he has to follow his plan. This future battle is a part of his plan.Why can't your God change a plan?
> Perhaps he uses Satan just as he uses angels. I guess he figures he might as well use them until he cast them into the Lake of Fire.I think you are onto something here. You have to make excuses that sound right to you in order to make sense out of something that does not live up to it's own claims
> Kinda like on Cop movies where the police use thugs, gang members, etc. to do some of their dirty work.I agree to the point where both movies and dieties are equally as phony



This one is really bugging me so I had to come back to it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> This one is really bugging me so I had to come back to it.



You make some good points and I don't have all of the answers.
It was easier to accept when I was ignorant. Now I'm educated beyond my intelligence. 
But then again how do we explain all of the really, really smart people who believe in the God of Abraham?
People who have delved deeply in seminaries for years on end.


----------



## Artfuldodger

God has to wait because God can't change. He has already seen the future. He is under his plan too. If God changes his plan now he would have foreseen that he was going to change, from the beginning, and it wouldn't really be a change after all. He would be constantly changing which would make us change. If we could change our effects would affect God. 
Now the question would be if God foreknew everything before he even created it, why did he still go through with his plan?
Maybe he was already under his on destiny before creating our destiny, therefore he had to follow through.
What I'm getting at is because of destiny even God doesn't have free will. He had to follow his own rules. He had to operate under his own plan. A plan in place before creation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> You make some good points and I don't have all of the answers.
> It was easier to accept when I was ignorant. Now I'm educated beyond my intelligence.
> But then again how do we explain all of the really, really smart people who believe in the God of Abraham?
> People who have delved deeply in seminaries for years on end.



A will to believe that exceeds a will to acknowledge the holes in the story.


----------



## groundhawg

How did God get started?   

I do not know but I will ask Him for you when I see Him.


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> But then again how do we explain all of the really, really smart people who believe in the God of Abraham?



Maybe they wish to hold political office one day?


----------



## oldfella1962

bullethead said:


> Where did all of his competition come from?



Illegal aliens trying to take his job!


----------



## oldfella1962

Artfuldodger said:


> God has to wait because God can't change. He has already seen the future. He is under his plan too. If God changes his plan now he would have foreseen that he was going to change, from the beginning, and it wouldn't really be a change after all. He would be constantly changing which would make us change. If we could change our effects would affect God.
> Now the question would be if God foreknew everything before he even created it, why did he still go through with his plan?
> Maybe he was already under his on destiny before creating our destiny, therefore he had to follow through.
> What I'm getting at is because of destiny even God doesn't have free will. He had to follow his own rules. He had to operate under his own plan. A plan in place before creation.



Or maybe he is like a jazz musician, improvising as he goes along. But with improvisation comes untested ideas, and you end up with the duckbilled platypus.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> You make some good points and I don't have all of the answers.
> It was easier to accept when I was ignorant. Now I'm educated beyond my intelligence.
> But then again how do we explain all of the really, really smart people who believe in the God of Abraham?
> People who have delved deeply in seminaries for years on end.



IQ points doesn't mean they are schooled or put much thought in everything. Faith, as we see in here every day, trumps intelligence.
I do not mean that in a bad way. Just stating fact.
Smart, intelligent, and well schooled people conduct themselves in ways for religion that they absolutely do not do in any other aspect of their lives.


----------



## bullethead

groundhawg said:


> How did God get started?
> 
> I do not know but I will ask Him for you when I see Him.



Good luck


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> IQ points doesn't mean they are schooled or put much thought in everything. Faith, as we see in here every day, trumps intelligence.
> I do not mean that in a bad way. Just stating fact.
> Smart, intelligent, and well schooled people conduct themselves in ways for religion that they absolutely do not do in any other aspect of their lives.



Agreed, I guess this is where faith comes in as you mentioned.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Agreed, I guess this is where faith comes in as you mentioned.



Or personal relationship. Something only those of the Kingdom know about.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Or personal relationship. Something only those of the Kingdom know about.



Best laugh I had all day. Thank you


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Best laugh I had all day. Thank you


The "relationship" thing is puzzling to me.
What it is, is a relationship in your head using only what you have been told by a book. Without the book, no relationship.
A human and a book does not equal a relationship.
Cant believers just believe without stretching it into something it isn't?


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> The "relationship" thing is puzzling to me.
> What it is, is a relationship in your head using only what you have been told by a book. Without the book, no relationship.
> A human and a book does not equal a relationship.
> Cant believers just believe without stretching it into something it isn't?



The alternative is even more puzzling.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

hobbs27 said:


> Or personal relationship. Something only those of the Kingdom know about.



Does God speak directly, and clearly, to you? Serious question.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Best laugh I had all day. Thank you



No,  Thank you! Point made.


----------



## hobbs27

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Does God speak directly, and clearly, to you? Serious question.



Yes & No. Do I hear voices in my head? No

Does God answer prayers, or lead me in a direction when I need it, or fulfill all my needs? Yes.
 Does God discipline me when I need it? Yes.
 Does God make His presence known to me? Yes.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> The "relationship" thing is puzzling to me.
> What it is, is a relationship in your head using only what you have been told by a book. Without the book, no relationship.
> A human and a book does not equal a relationship.
> Cant believers just believe without stretching it into something it isn't?



 Again, point proven, that those not of the Kingdom know nothing of a personal relationship.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Again, point proven, that those not of the Kingdom know nothing of a personal relationship.


I guess we will have to ignore the personal relationships that nonbelievers have with family, friends, coworkers etc. But anyway.....
Instead of feel good to you nonsense, why don't you tell us all about the Christian God that doesn't come from the Bible?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

hobbs27 said:


> Yes & No. Do I hear voices in my head? No
> 
> Does God answer prayers, or lead me in a direction when I need it, or fulfill all my needs? Yes.
> Does God discipline me when I need it? Yes.
> Does God make His presence known to me? Yes.



If you don't mind, and are willing, please provide your best example of God clearly communicating with you, and you with him, in an unambiguous way. 

Something that could only be attributed to God, if you would. Asking for a miraculous cure, while you're already in the hospital and on meds, is a tough one to prove. Asking to be cured of cancer while doing nothing but sitting home maintaining your previous diet and activities is better. Something outside the sphere of your control is best.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Again, point proven, that those not of the Kingdom know nothing of a personal relationship.



Point?
What you attribute to your God happens to every other person on the planet too. 

I apologize for being so crass but you have to understand that I once knew I was as special as you think you are now. I used to self appoint myself into thinking that I belonged to a special piece of the Kingdom and had a personal relationship with God too. I once related every action to a special being.
Guess what....those things both good and bad still happen. Things work out and things do not. Just when I get a little arrogant I get knocked down a few pegs. Just when I think times are bleak things take a turn for the better.
It all works out just the same as it did before without the need to include an invisible being into the mix.
I am glad you are happy and content but please don't think "we" don't get it or are missing something or are inferior because we don't have a membership card to the Kingdom....but then again...you would be hard pressed to show us yours.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> Honest questions...
> Why can't they be killed or eliminated permanently?
> What is stopping a capable God from doing this?
> If h3ll is a place specially prepared for Satan and his crew How are they able to leave and enter the physical world here on Earth?
> 
> I have a very hard time trusting a book that tells us about an all powerful God that loves us and wants to keep from evils harm yet is incapable of eliminating the source of evil.
> The powers do not add up to the claims.
> Reality does not match up with the claims.


So says the bible, they were eternal beings before the fall, therefore they can not be eradicated and are on earth, maybe in pigs, ..... lol, awaiting the coming judgement day where they will put away for good, but still existing, in the place prepared for the devil and his angels. They are not in he11 yet. The problem of evil and good things happening to kids, etc, I have not mentally dealt with yet. Been thinking that it may strike my interest, but not yet. I usually learn more if I wait for it, [to interest me]


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> So says the bible, they were eternal beings before the fall, therefore they can not be eradicated and are on earth, maybe in pigs, ..... lol, awaiting the coming judgement day where they will put away for good, but still existing, in the place prepared for the devil and his angels. They are not in he11 yet. The problem of evil and good things happening to kids, etc, I have not mentally dealt with yet. Been thinking that it may strike my interest, but not yet. I usually learn more if I wait for it, [to interest me]



Does the Bible tell us why they cannot be eradicated by the most ALL-POWERFUL being among eternal beings?
"God" would have had to create them...unless they have existed forever along with "God"....and then that muddies the waters even more.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Does the Bible tell us why they cannot be eradicated by the most ALL-POWERFUL being among eternal beings?
> "God" would have had to create them...unless they have existed forever along with "God"....and then that muddies the waters even more.



Maybe they are the "rock that he made so big that he cannot lift it".


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> It gives you someone to blame for your bad actions and terrible natural occurrences.





1gr8bldr said:


> The devil and his angels are  eternal spirits so they can not be killed. They will go into the "place prepared for the devil and his angels". Men face judgement, some to eternal life, some to destruction.




Can god crush them if he wanted to?  If he can but he does not then they must be part of his plan along with all the pain and destruction that they cause.  

Can you see it any other way?


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Point?
> What you attribute to your God happens to every other person on the planet too.
> 
> I apologize for being so crass but you have to understand that I once knew I was as special as you think you are now. I used to self appoint myself into thinking that I belonged to a special piece of the Kingdom and had a personal relationship with God too. I once related every action to a special being.
> Guess what....those things both good and bad still happen. Things work out and things do not. Just when I get a little arrogant I get knocked down a few pegs. Just when I think times are bleak things take a turn for the better.
> It all works out just the same as it did before without the need to include an invisible being into the mix.
> I am glad you are happy and content but please don't think "we" don't get it or are missing something or are inferior because we don't have a membership card to the Kingdom....but then again...you would be hard pressed to show us yours.




I believe Judas made it through. It's an odd thing that he had to betray Jesus, had to be the devil for a while under the direction of the Holy Spirit so that the prophesy could be fulfilled.

 Many look upon him and judge him, but I realize He too was Jesus' chosen. It's amazing the depths and lengths of mire we go through sometimes just so God can put us in the right place at the right time to finish our works for Him.

 In other words. I too have been where you are.


----------



## ambush80

hobbs27 said:


> I believe Judas made it through. It's an odd thing that he had to betray Jesus, had to be the devil for a while under the direction of the Holy Spirit so that the prophesy could be fulfilled.
> 
> Many look upon him and judge him, but I realize He too was Jesus' chosen. It's amazing the depths and lengths of mire we go through sometimes just so God can put us in the right place at the right time to finish our works for Him.
> 
> In other words. I too have been where you are.




Do you or do you not see the depths and lengths of mire that you have to go though to call god a loving and just god when he does the things he does?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> Does the Bible tell us why they cannot be eradicated by the most ALL-POWERFUL being among eternal beings?
> "God" would have had to create them...unless they have existed forever along with "God"....and then that muddies the waters even more.


Maybe since they are made eternal, God just "has to live with it". lol, I don't know. My input in this discussion is only presenting what the bible says. I don't think it addresses the questions we are asking.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

ambush80 said:


> Can god crush them if he wanted to?  If he can but he does not then they must be part of his plan along with all the pain and destruction that they cause.
> 
> Can you see it any other way?


I have often wondered about God using evil to bring us to a particular understanding. Like the story of Job. But I have a problem with the picture of God squashing Jobs children like a bug on the sidewalk as if they did not matter. So, as others do, I write it off as poetic. But we do see angels dumping out bowls of wrath and record that they did not respond by asking to be saved. I think one could build a case for this theory. Or is it Carma? I will post an opinion in the Carma thread soon, when I have a chance. But even my opinion on what I plan to post there is not without holes


----------



## bullethead

Not everyone on the planet even believes such a God exists...and no two people in possibly the entire history of belief in such a God believe exactly in the same way.
This version of a God is just way too complex to be universally understood. Any God should be able to universally reach his followers without such disagreement and utter depths one must go to in order to make sense of it all individually.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> Maybe since they are made eternal, God just "has to live with it". lol, I don't know. My input in this discussion is only presenting what the bible says. I don't think it addresses the questions we are asking.



Yes I understand your position on this and appreciate your input. 
My problem is all the unanswered  questions that are left to individual interpretation instead of being answered by the only source that could answer them. It is very ungodlike.


----------



## hobbs27

ambush80 said:


> Do you or do you not see the depths and lengths of mire that you have to go though to call god a loving and just god when he does the things he does?



I see the big picture. Eternity vs temporary.
 Will Any of this matter the first day in heaven? What about after 100 years...or 1000.  Or after 100,000,000,000,000 years? Even 120 years here is nothing to what awaits.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 -
Hoping you are going to address this - just a reminder -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> The "relationship" thing is puzzling to me.
> What it is, is a relationship in your head using only what you have been told by a book. Without the book, no relationship.
> A human and a book does not equal a relationship.
> Cant believers just believe without stretching it into something it isn't?





> Originally Posted by hobbs27 View Post
> Again, point proven, that those not of the Kingdom know nothing of a personal relationship.





> I guess we will have to ignore the personal relationships that nonbelievers have with family, friends, coworkers etc. But anyway.....
> Instead of feel good to you nonsense, why don't you tell us all about the Christian God that doesn't come from the Bible?


Ive noticed a pattern with you is to make an assertion, you get challenged on it and then you move along without ever addressing it.
So in case you missed it -
please support this assertion with some sort of facts  -


> Again, point proven, that those not of the Kingdom know nothing of a personal relationship


And show how this is wrong -


> What it is, is a relationship in your head using only what you have been told by a book. Without the book, no relationship.


Thanks


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I see the big picture. Eternity vs temporary.
> Will Any of this matter the first day in heaven? What about after 100 years...or 1000.  Or after 100,000,000,000,000 years? Even 120 years here is nothing to what awaits.



Well...all that is wonderful thoughts to keep you motivated while alive so the thoughts of death do not consume you.
None of it will matter because death is eternal too. I suspect upon death you will know, feel, remember and act exactly as you did before you were born.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> Not everyone on the planet even believes such a God exists...and no two people in possibly the entire history of belief in such a God believe exactly in the same way.
> This version of a God is just way too complex to be universally understood. Any God should be able to universally reach his followers without such disagreement and utter depths one must go to in order to make sense of it all individually.


An underlying story is within this bible. It is about exactly what we see here so often. Us trying to understand or explain God. And everyone's story is different. The bible story begins with man being made in God's image. Supposed to represent God to the world. The setting is where people believe in all kinds of gods. A god for everything. So the one true god, the only god decides to reveal himself to a group of people, the Jews. And plans to reveal himself to the world through the Jews. Strange thing is that those whom God was supposed to reveal himself to were not very loyal even though they had seen "mountains moved", not literally, but had seen God do amazing things on their behalf. So after awhile, we are back in the same situation with everyone's view of God different. And those that claim to know him misrepresenting him for their own gain. Then comes Jesus, who says "I know him". His description of God was in direct opposition to the picture that the religious leaders had established. They were quite comfortable in the positions they had created for their own gain. The story goes on that looked for ways to have him killed for his lack of respect of their white wash. So they handed him over to Pilate as one starting a rebellion. Blasphemy against Ceasar for claiming a future coming "rulership". But God was pleased with him and where Adam failed being made in God's image to represent God to the world, Jesus did so being credited with being the exact representation of that image, so God raised him from the dead, restoring him to what Adam had lost . Sorry if I sound like I am preaching. Just pointing out a biblical story that seems to apply even today. Everyone with a different version of God


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> An underlying story is within this bible. It is about exactly what we see here so often. Us trying to understand or explain God. And everyone's story is different. The bible story begins with man being made in God's image. Supposed to represent God to the world. The setting is where people believe in all kinds of gods. A god for everything. So the one true god, the only god decides to reveal himself to a group of people, the Jews. And plans to reveal himself to the world through the Jews. Strange thing is that those whom God was supposed to reveal himself to were not very loyal even though they had seen "mountains moved", not literally, but had seen God do amazing things on their behalf. So after awhile, we are back in the same situation with everyone's view of God different. And those that claim to know him misrepresenting him for their own gain. Then comes Jesus, who says "I know him". His description of God was in direct opposition to the picture that the religious leaders had established. They were quite comfortable in the positions they had created for their own gain. The story goes on that looked for ways to have him killed for his lack of respect of their white wash. So they handed him over to Pilate as one starting a rebellion. Blasphemy against Ceasar for claiming a future coming "rulership". But God was pleased with him and where Adam failed being made in God's image to represent God to the world, Jesus did so being credited with being the exact representation of that image, so God raised him from the dead, restoring him to what Adam had lost . Sorry if I sound like I am preaching. Just pointing out a biblical story that seems to apply even today. Everyone with a different version of God



Adam
The Jews
Jesus
It is time for another update to clarify all things to the world's population.

The simple basic interpretation you present is understandable. For me, the actual complexity between and within those stories add to me having to question the basics.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> hobbs27 -
> Hoping you are going to address this - just a reminder -
> 
> 
> Ive noticed a pattern with you is to make an assertion, you get challenged on it and then you move along without ever addressing it.
> So in case you missed it -
> please support this assertion with some sort of facts  -
> 
> And show how this is wrong -
> 
> Thanks




 How can I explain colors to a blind man, that the blind man could see them? That is what you're asking me to do.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Well...all that is wonderful thoughts to keep you motivated while alive so the thoughts of death do not consume you.
> None of it will matter because death is eternal too. I suspect upon death you will know, feel, remember and act exactly as you did before you were born.



Oh death, where is thy sting? It is gone, I don't fear it, and occasionally look forward to it.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Oh death, where is thy sting? It is gone, I don't fear it, and occasionally look forward to it.


You are not in any hurry.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> How can I explain colors to a blind man, that the blind man could see them? That is what you're asking me to do.



Call upon your god to give you the means to relate it in ways that is understandable to us.
Or
Just try

We cant take you credibly if you are unable to back up what you claim is true. Truth is not hard to show. We are not blind. We are open to what you have. All you have to do is present it.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> How can I explain colors to a blind man, that the blind man could see them? That is what you're asking me to do.


Yeah that's about what I expected.
They aren't questions that require faith or a belief in God to answer or to understand.
You are using your belief to hide behind unsubstantiated, unprovable, see through, ridiculous claims.
You made the claim, you presented them as fact, you even said they proved a point.
Now all of a sudden you have to revert to ridiculous analogies when asked to back them up.
Lame.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah that's about what I expected.
> They aren't questions that require faith or a belief in God to answer or to understand.
> You are using your belief to hide behind unsubstantiated, unprovable, see through, ridiculous claims.
> Really lame.
> I cant figure out why its necessary for some to do that.



The only reason is because that is all they got.
Unless two believe exactly alike, which never happens, but even among believers one will take it to a level beyond what the other deems reasonable...and then one will claim the other is not as worthy. No Kingdom card for you...even though neither one can produce one.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> The only reason is because that is all they got.
> Unless two believe exactly alike, which never happens, but even among believers one will take it to a level beyond what the other deems reasonable...and then one will claim the other is not as worthy. No Kingdom card for you...even though neither one can produce one.


I just don't get why its necessary.
Why or how does a belief in God turn into -


> that those not of the Kingdom know nothing of a personal relationship


Its just ridiculous and void of any thought.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I just don't get why its necessary.
> Why or how does a belief in God turn into -
> 
> Its just ridiculous and void of any thought.



Necessary...no
But when entire beliefs are based off of un-provable claims of similar statements I don't find it odd that those believers use that tactic. Really worshiping  an un-provable deity sets the groundwork.
"I can't prove an invisible God gave me and invisible Kingdom card"..."and you can't  prove he didn't "
Never mind that the proof lies on the one making the claim and it is impossible to prove a negative.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Call upon your god to give you the means to relate it in ways that is understandable to us.
> Or
> Just try
> 
> We cant take you credibly if you are unable to back up what you claim is true. Truth is not hard to show. We are not blind. We are open to what you have. All you have to do is present it.



Explain your truth and back it up. Convince me, a man with a skeptical mind, one that doesn't believe in fairy tales, and was convinced for many years that people making claims of experience s with God were crazy....How I could see a man dead of 10 years walk right up to me and stand beside me. How could I even smell him, a memory of smell from my childhood. Tell me that there is no God when He sent my grandfather from the grave for a visit to me one day ten years after he passed..In a church building, during a Sunday night service. 
 Me being perfectly sober, and starting to feel less faithful again..How could this happen if there is no God? Why did this happen just when I needed it? He vanished right before me, all I could do was think of all the people I considered crazy for claiming such things and realize how foolish I was for thinking this of them. My hair standing up and goosebumps on top of goosebumps. I realized at that moment there was never going to be another turning away.....So in reality all this stuff about proving to you God is real, is nonsense to me. I know Hes real, I also know that it's not because some man convinced me to believe, but God Himself did, and I suspect many of you are in that same boat I was.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Explain your truth and back it up. Convince me, a man with a skeptical mind, one that doesn't believe in fairy tales, and was convinced for many years that people making claims of experience s with God were crazy....How I could see a man dead of 10 years walk right up to me and stand beside me. How could I even smell him, a memory of smell from my childhood. Tell me that there is no God when He sent my grandfather from the grave for a visit to me one day ten years after he passed..In a church building, during a Sunday night service.
> Me being perfectly sober, and starting to feel less faithful again..How could this happen if there is no God? Why did this happen just when I needed it? He vanished right before me, all I could do was think of all the people I considered crazy for claiming such things and realize how foolish I was for thinking this of them. My hair standing up and goosebumps on top of goosebumps. I realized at that moment there was never going to be another turning away.....So in reality all this stuff about proving to you God is real, is nonsense to me. I know Hes real, I also know that it's not because some man convinced me to believe, but God Himself did, and I suspect many of you are in that same boat I was.



You saw you grandfather that had passed 10years earlier.
Okay
Was God standing beside him?
Was it Satan in disguise? 
Was it a spirit from the ghost world?
Was there an overlap in the space/time continuum?
Were you on meds?
Did you doze off for a second?
Was it like you said..because you needed it?
What makes you positive a god..any god...your god...had anything to do with it and how do you know if it was a god that it was your god???

I have had conversations with passed relatives and friends.
I have had interactions with people that I have never ever actually met.
I have never done an illegal drug.
I have never smoked a cigarette.
I have never had a cup of coffee.
But boy do I have some intense realistic dreams.

I think it is an incredible experience that you had. I can appreciate it. I have had two incidents that to this day I cannot rationally explain. I did not automatically default to "God" because along with that there are a thousand other more credible possibilities to get through first that cannot be ruled out.
Believe me. I am open to any God willing to do exactly what it takes to contact me in a way that is undeniable. A God would know how to do it. 

Too bad we are so far apart. I'd love to hear your story in person.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Explain your truth and back it up. Convince me, a man with a skeptical mind, one that doesn't believe in fairy tales, and was convinced for many years that people making claims of experience s with God were crazy....How I could see a man dead of 10 years walk right up to me and stand beside me. How could I even smell him, a memory of smell from my childhood. Tell me that there is no God when He sent my grandfather from the grave for a visit to me one day ten years after he passed..In a church building, during a Sunday night service.
> Me being perfectly sober, and starting to feel less faithful again..How could this happen if there is no God? Why did this happen just when I needed it? He vanished right before me, all I could do was think of all the people I considered crazy for claiming such things and realize how foolish I was for thinking this of them. My hair standing up and goosebumps on top of goosebumps. I realized at that moment there was never going to be another turning away.....So in reality all this stuff about proving to you God is real, is nonsense to me. I know Hes real, I also know that it's not because some man convinced me to believe, but God Himself did, and I suspect many of you are in that same boat I was.


I will tell you my truth.
My nail in the coffin.
Everybody knows about my first 20 years as a believer and my last 25 as a slowly evolving unbeliever.
2-1/2 years ago was it.
The final straw was watching a woman that I loved dearly die of cancer.
She was my mother in law. She treated me like her own Son. She was my greatest adversary in my god/no god discussions. She was a woman that had lost and re-found her faith and dedicated many years to the cause.
I have been with her daughter since I was 15.
I knew she was terminal. She knew she was terminal but she fought hard till the cruel end.
I didn't pray for a miracle.
I didn't pray for one more minute with her.
I prayed FOR her.
I asked for her severe suffering to end.
I pleaded for him to take her loyalty into consideration. 
I made promises that I would keep.
I begged him to end her life quickly as she lay there literally being eaten from the inside out and she could no longer swallow a pea sized morsel of food.
I begged every minute of every day for weeks once she got so bad.
I stopped when the most loyal religious person I had ever known looked up (like she often did when talking to God) and said "I hate you"
Days.....DAYS later her eyes rolled back into her head and she threw up some of her liquefied insides, messed herself and took her last breath.

What is there to back up?
I honestly wish I had a different ending.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I will tell you my truth.
> My nail in the coffin.
> Everybody knows about my first 20 years as a believer and my last 25 as a slowly evolving unbeliever.
> 2-1/2 years ago was it.
> The final straw was watching a woman that I loved dearly die of cancer.
> She was my mother in law. She treated me like her own Son. She was my greatest adversary in my god/no god discussions. She was a woman that had lost and re-found her faith and dedicated many years to the cause.
> I have been with her daughter since I was 15.
> I knew she was terminal. She knew she was terminal but she fought hard till the cruel end.
> I didn't pray for a miracle.
> I didn't pray for one more minute with her.
> I prayed FOR her.
> I asked for her severe suffering to end.
> I pleaded for him to take her loyalty into consideration.
> I made promises that I would keep.
> I begged him to end her life quickly as she lay there literally being eaten from the inside out and she could no longer swallow a pea sized morsel of food.
> I begged every minute of every day for weeks once she got so bad.
> I stopped when the most loyal religious person I had ever known looked up (like she often did when talking to God) and said "I hate you"
> Days.....DAYS later her eyes rolled back into her head and she threw up some of her liquefied insides, messed herself and took her last breath.
> 
> What is there to back up?
> I honestly wish I had a different ending.



I'm glad her suffering came to an end.  I hope yours will too.

Peace be with you.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> Adam
> The Jews
> Jesus
> It is time for another update to clarify all things to the world's population.
> 
> The simple basic interpretation you present is understandable. For me, the actual complexity between and within those stories add to me having to question the basics.


LOL, your right, time for another update, because we Christians have failed to represent Jesus to the world. We are supposed to be the body of Christ. But be careful because the one that is prophesied to come next is an imposter who will deceive many. He will claim to be God but the true Messiah will come after him.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I'm glad her suffering came to an end.  I hope yours will too.
> 
> Peace be with you.


Thank you.
Our suffering ended when hers did.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, your right, time for another update, because we Christians have failed to represent Jesus to the world. We are supposed to be the body of Christ. But be careful because the one that is prophesied to come next is an imposter who will deceive many. He will claim to be God but the true Messiah will come after him.


No worries on my end.
I won't be jumping on anyone's bandwagon.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> I will tell you my truth.
> My nail in the coffin.
> Everybody knows about my first 20 years as a believer and my last 25 as a slowly evolving unbeliever.
> 2-1/2 years ago was it.
> The final straw was watching a woman that I loved dearly die of cancer.
> She was my mother in law. She treated me like her own Son. She was my greatest adversary in my god/no god discussions. She was a woman that had lost and re-found her faith and dedicated many years to the cause.
> I have been with her daughter since I was 15.
> I knew she was terminal. She knew she was terminal but she fought hard till the cruel end.
> I didn't pray for a miracle.
> I didn't pray for one more minute with her.
> I prayed FOR her.
> I asked for her severe suffering to end.
> I pleaded for him to take her loyalty into consideration.
> I made promises that I would keep.
> I begged him to end her life quickly as she lay there literally being eaten from the inside out and she could no longer swallow a pea sized morsel of food.
> I begged every minute of every day for weeks once she got so bad.
> I stopped when the most loyal religious person I had ever known looked up (like she often did when talking to God) and said "I hate you"
> Days.....DAYS later her eyes rolled back into her head and she threw up some of her liquefied insides, messed herself and took her last breath.
> 
> What is there to back up?
> I honestly wish I had a different ending.




It's never easy losing loved ones, especially when we watch them suffer. I think many of us have been there, some of us through worse, if there is a way to grade the degree of it.

I'm reminded of a great uncle that had 4 children. Two died as infants. One died of illness around four years old, and the other died at 16 in an automobile accident. Weeks after he buried his last son, his wife consumed with grief took her own life.
He kept the faith through all that, where many men wouldn't, or they would turn to hate. I have no explanation, no reasoning of why some go through life with experiences like these and some do not. I don't believe however that it is punishment from God although it would seem so.

Did your experience make you more aware of the need to cure cancer and aid those people brave enough to work in the hospice field? Are you now a major donor of money or time to cancer research?


----------



## 660griz

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, your right, time for another update, because we Christians have failed to represent Jesus to the world. We are supposed to be the body of Christ. But be careful because the one that is prophesied to come next is an imposter who will deceive many. He will claim to be God but the true Messiah will come after him.



Waaay too much cryptic, late night horror show stuff in religion for me. Cannibalism, apocalyptic, he!! fire...too much drama. It would be a pretty good movie...for adults only.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> You saw you grandfather that had passed 10years earlier.
> Okay
> Was God standing beside him?
> Was it Satan in disguise?
> Was it a spirit from the ghost world?
> Was there an overlap in the space/time continuum?
> Were you on meds?
> Did you doze off for a second?
> Was it like you said..because you needed it?
> What makes you positive a god..any god...your god...had anything to do with it and how do you know if it was a god that it was your god???
> 
> I have had conversations with passed relatives and friends.
> I have had interactions with people that I have never ever actually met.
> I have never done an illegal drug.
> I have never smoked a cigarette.
> I have never had a cup of coffee.
> But boy do I have some intense realistic dreams.
> 
> I think it is an incredible experience that you had. I can appreciate it. I have had two incidents that to this day I cannot rationally explain. I did not automatically default to "God" because along with that there are a thousand other more credible possibilities to get through first that cannot be ruled out.
> Believe me. I am open to any God willing to do exactly what it takes to contact me in a way that is undeniable. A God would know how to do it.
> 
> Too bad we are so far apart. I'd love to hear your story in person.



Yes, I could take you to the very spot and explain in detail the events leading up to this... I will say this. The way it happened, the place it happened...left me knowing that it was a direct connection to the spiritual realm..and this realm is the world that non believers cannot conceive in their mind and believers cannot Explain in a worldly logical sense, because it is not of this world, but it does exist.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> It's never easy losing loved ones, especially when we watch them suffer. I think many of us have been there, some of us through worse, if there is a way to grade the degree of it.
> 
> I'm reminded of a great uncle that had 4 children. Two died as infants. One died of illness around four years old, and the other died at 16 in an automobile accident. Weeks after he buried his last son, his wife consumed with grief took her own life.
> He kept the faith through all that, where many men wouldn't, or they would turn to hate. I have no explanation, no reasoning of why some go through life with experiences like these and some do not. I don't believe however that it is punishment from God although it would seem so.
> 
> Did your experience make you more aware of the need to cure cancer and aid those people brave enough to work in the hospice field? Are you now a major donor of money or time to cancer research?


I do not feel it is a punishment from a God. 
I feel no God.

We are very supportive of many causes and organizations before during and since.  I didn't need this to teach me a lesson.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> I have no explanation, no reasoning of why some go through life with experiences like these and some do not.



If life were easy, anybody could do it. 

I am a 'stuff happens' kind of guy. I have lost several friends to car wrecks and family members to horrible diseases. I have watched good people die young and horrible folks live a long life, and vice versa. 

I have watched the struggles of nature and thanked the lottery of birth I grew up when I did instead of 500 years ago or further. Survival was more of a daily task in line with the animal kingdom. 

What I have gathered is that ones religious strength has absolutely no bearing on the quality of life or death. All you have is the belief of a better place. (Which no one REALLY believes) 

People cry and wail at funerals but not when someone goes on a cruise...why? Because deep down, you know you aren't going to see them anymore...AND you don't want to die.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> If life were easy, anybody could do it.
> 
> I am a 'stuff happens' kind of guy. I have lost several friends to car wrecks and family members to horrible diseases. I have watched good people die young and horrible folks live a long life, and vice versa.
> 
> I have watched the struggles of nature and thanked the lottery of birth I grew up when I did instead of 500 years ago or further. Survival was more of a daily task in line with the animal kingdom.
> 
> What I have gathered is that ones religious strength has absolutely no bearing on the quality of life or death. All you have is the belief of a better place. (Which no one REALLY believes)
> 
> People cry and wail at funerals but not when someone goes on a cruise...why? Because deep down, you know you aren't going to see them anymore...AND you don't want to die.



Perfect


----------



## JB0704

Closest thing I got to a God story is just over two years ago a poster from here (at the time a complete stranger who I had only debated a little on here) PM'd me out of the blue one day asking what was wrong, not knowing my son had a massive siezure two weeks prior to the PM, and I was struggling with the unknowns.......bad, in addition to one of my closest friends dieing unexpectedly and for no apparent reason that same week.  The following telephone and PM conversations were, by far, the most beneficial of any I had through that season, through the kindness of a total stranger.  

I could only explain it as a God thing.  No miraculous healing, no life changing actions.  Just a helping hand from a stranger when none of my family or friends were able to help.  

I've not posted that on the forum before, but I think it's fittin' here.


----------



## JB0704

I should mention that I never said a word on the forum about what I was going through.......


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, I could take you to the very spot and explain in detail the events leading up to this... I will say this. The way it happened, the place it happened...left me knowing that it was a direct connection to the spiritual realm..and this realm is the world that non believers cannot conceive in their mind and believers cannot Explain in a worldly logical sense, because it is not of this world, but it does exist.



It must have been something to witness when church services came to a halt and all of the people around you that knew your Grandfather all gasped at his presence.
What was said by the others?

As far as a connection to a spiritual realm,  do you think it is possible that your Grandfather was able to appear to you by his own doing ? 
How is God connected to your Grandfathers appearance?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Closest thing I got to a God story is just over two years ago Gem (at the time a complete stranger who I had only debated a little on here) PM'd me out of the blue one day asking what was wrong, not knowing my son had a massive siezure two weeks prior to the PM, and I was struggling with the unknowns.......bad, in addition to one of my closest friends dieing unexpectedly and for no apparent reason that same week.  The following telephone and PM conversations were, by far, the most beneficial of any I had through that season, through the kindness of a total stranger.
> 
> I could only explain it as a God thing.  No miraculous healing, no life changing actions.  Just a helping hand from a stranger when none of my family or friends were able to help.
> 
> I've not posted that on the forum before, but I think it's fittin' here.





JB0704 said:


> I should mention that I never said a word on the forum about what I was going through.......



It could be that he was just perceptive to your change in tone, or behavior, but that's a very good example of a hard to explain coincidence. 

I'm glad that happened for you.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I should mention that I never said a word on the forum about what I was going through.......



But honestly....God?


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It could be that he was just perceptive to your change in tone, or behavior, but that's a very good example of a hard to explain coincidence.



Could be.  At the time, I debated all of y'all daily and only one person even mentioned anything.  Everybody in the "real world" knew what was going on, but, I'm not one to share my misery, so I didn't post anything on here about it.  A few months later I alluded to it in a thread I started about prayer, and in a few other threads, but never shared specifics.



			
				StripeRR HunteRR said:
			
		

> I'm glad that happened for you



  Thanks, and I am too......hard to explain how incredibly helpful it was.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> But honestly....God?



Why not?


----------



## JB0704

I don't even know if I shared with the poster the impact of all that.....sorry, I'll delete all this if you prefer.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Why not?



For the same reasons you have ruled everything else out.

Please share specifically how/why God stepped in and you are positive that God is the only reason that happened. I am 100% curious as to how God stepped in.


Don't take it that I am not thrilled you were able to get through tough times.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Could be.  At the time, I debated all of y'all daily and only one person even mentioned anything.  Everybody in the "real world" knew what was going on, but, I'm not one to share my misery, so I didn't post anything on here about it.  A few months later I alluded to it in a thread I started about prayer, and in a few other threads, but never shared specifics.
> 
> Thanks, and I am too......hard to explain how incredibly helpful it was.



It makes me think, not about God, but about how I look at each post on here. We all know we're all going through things, and there have been times where I've had to apologize because something I was going through IRL made me read something differently than it was intended and snap back at someone who didn't deserve it. 

It's pretty amazing that he picked up on that subtle change and offered you a hand when you needed it. 



JB0704 said:


> Why not?



In my opinion, because there are earthly reasons why he might have done that, without having to get, or wanting to get, supernatural with it. 

If you remove your belief in God, as a hypothetical, how quickly would you have made that leap to attribute that to God? I've seen some pretty amazing coincidences in my life, and while they do make me think about them and the possibility that maybe this is God trying to talk to me, the fact that I can't explain away all the earthly possibilities makes me stick with them as being more likely. 

Maybe I'll be like that story about the drowning victim ignoring earthly help that God sent, whereby God will tell me that he was speaking to me through those coincidences, but I seriously think he prefers me to be an honest skeptic over a false witness.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> For the same reasons you have ruled everything else out.



I am not sure what else there is......but, I guess it could be coincidence, perhaps poster is well tuned to the voices coming through the monitor, I dunno.  It just seemed to all fall into place in a way that was the right thing at the right time from a very unexpected source.



bullethead said:


> Please share specifically how/why God stepped in and you are positive that God is the only reason that happened. I am 100% curious as to how God stepped in..



It sure seemed that way to me then, and even more so in hindsight.  Why me and not the next person?  Who knows.  I don't understand how and why God operates, I just know this is the closest thing I have in my life to believing that I was "helped."  

Shared it with Ambush via PM a while back.  Always hesitant to post it out here 'cause I understood the skepticism that would follow.  It is what it is.




bullethead said:


> Don't take it that I am not thrilled you were able to get through tough times.



I believe you.


----------



## JB0704

There's additional details that aren't mine to share, btw.  Nothing supernatural, just interesting coincidence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> There's additional details that aren't mine to share, btw.  Nothing supernatural, just interesting coincidence.



It became supernatural when you attributed it to God and not just coincidence.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It became supernatural when you attributed it to God and not just coincidence.



Why would I begin by ruling God out, particularly given I believe in him.  When I consider all possibilities, that is the most likely.

If I did not believe in God, then obviously it would HAVE to be something else, wouldn't it?


----------



## JB0704

Very glad I've never seen a ghost.......don't think I'd admit it on here


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe I'll be like that story about the drowning victim ignoring earthly help that God sent, whereby God will tell me that he was speaking to me through those coincidences, but I seriously think he prefers me to be an honest skeptic over a false witness.



I don't pretend to know God's purposes or actions.  Bullethead's story is awful.  I have also watched a couple agonize, and pray, and a 1000's of people join them in prayer over the life of an infant, only to lose the child anyway.   I seriously don't know why.

I had lunch with those friends a few weeks ago who lost their child and discussed it again with them.  Thier faith strengthens mine.  And they don't understand why either.....but that doesn't stop them from believing. 

I don't think believing in god means we can understand God.  How can we if we look at the sufferring in life?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Why would I begin by ruling God out, particularly given I believe in him.  When I consider all possibilities, that is the most likely.
> 
> If I did not believe in God, then obviously it would HAVE to be something else, wouldn't it?



It COULD be something else, or it could be God, couldn't it? 

My point was that you're seemingly contradicting yourself. In one post you say it was, essentially, guided by the hand of God, and in another post you say it was coincidence. They're not the same thing. 

I asked you to step outside of your faith for a second as a hypothetical because, again, it seems like you went from the event to occurring straight to it being a Godly work. Do not stop at coincidence, do not collect the possibility that he is a good observer of people's tone through their posts, go directly to the Hand of God. That's just how it sounded based on what I've read, you said there's more to it than what you've told, and maybe those considerations are part of it. 




JB0704 said:


> Very glad I've never seen a ghost.......don't think I'd admit it on here



I've seen a few, or at least I believe I did. I can't explain it, but it was a real experience for me.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It COULD be something else, or it could be God, couldn't it?
> 
> My point was that you're seemingly contradicting yourself. In one post you say it was, essentially, guided by the hand of God, and in another post you say it was coincidence. They're not the same thing.
> 
> I asked you to step outside of your faith for a second as a hypothetical because, again, it seems like you went from the event to occurring straight to it being a Godly work. Do not stop at coincidence, do not collect the possibility that he is a good observer of people's tone through their posts, go directly to the Hand of God. That's just how it sounded based on what I've read, you said there's more to it than what you've told, and maybe those considerations are part of it.



My use of the word coincidence is for a lack of a better term.  There's a lot of pieces to the puzzle that seemed to fit.  

Kind-a like how I am always saying that existence is too interdependent to be an accident.......I see this situation as an example of that.  




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I've seen a few, or at least I believe I did. I can't explain it, but it was a real experience for me.



Very interesting.  How does that square with skepticism?  Particularly given the general consensus amongst y'all that there is no soul?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I don't pretend to know God's purposes or actions.  Bullethead's story is awful.  I have also watched a couple agonize, and pray, and a 1000's of people join them in prayer over the life of an infant, only to lose the child anyway.   I seriously don't know why.
> 
> I had lunch with those friends a few weeks ago who lost their child and discussed it again with them.  Thier faith strengthens mine.  And they don't understand why either.....but that doesn't stop them from believing.
> 
> I don't think believing in god means we can understand God.  How can we if we look at the sufferring in life?



Excellent question and specifically what made me drop religion in favor of faith. Religion being the organized worship and "message" of God. Faith being what takes place in the individual. 

For a God that, supposedly, loves us, he does a lot of his work through suffering and pain, it seems. Case in point, when I lost my girls, not death just unable to be with them right now, I was told repeatedly that God was doing it because he had a plan for them later. Maybe they would become lawyers and advocate against the bias so prevalent in favor of women in family law here in the south. They told me this like that was supposed to comfort me. It seems to me that if God has a plan for them to do that, that he could imbue them with that desire and that logic from birth, without the need to make them, or me, suffer through this ordeal. "Well, maybe he knew that they would argue harder for it because of the ordeal, and that's why he did that." People do great things all the time without facing down similar ordeals. It seem unimaginably cruel to me that, in order to do great things, according to believers, God must first hurt you. 

"Well, in order to build something up, you must first tear down the old." 

It's the same specious, circular logic, all of the time, and that's supposed to provide comfort. So that's when I really started to look at the core of the question. Either A) there is no God and life is random and cruel and some people are born lucky so as to never felt that sting while others have to face down these incredible ordeals, or B) God isn't random, but he is horribly cruel, since he isn't random and these things have some purpose, because if he's all powerful he could communicate these desires and goals in any one of untold ways, from burning bushes to talking donkeys to just plain innate desire within our personality, but chooses to do so, way more than any other method, via pain to the person. 

It may all be a test that we're supposed to use Him to get through, but that's just another cruel layer heaped upon if you ask me because not everyone was given the same text by which to take the tests, or even acknowledges that there's a test on at all.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> My use of the word coincidence is for a lack of a better term.  There's a lot of pieces to the puzzle that seemed to fit.
> 
> Kind-a like how I am always saying that existence is too interdependent to be an accident.......I see this situation as an example of that.
> 
> 
> Very interesting.  How does that square with skepticism?  Particularly given the general consensus amongst y'all that there is no soul?



Fair enough. It wasn't my goal to try to shoot holes in your account. I was just trying to understand the context of the words you chose. 

Complex existence would appear to be too complicated to be an accident, but that's only if you forget the 4ish billion years of evolution, and that life, according to our best guesses on the origin so far, started off as single cells rather than complex organisms. 

Well, that's not really fair to my position to lump me in with those that say we have no soul. If I said anything like that then let me correct that mistake right now. I doubt the existence of a soul, in the Christian sense of the word. I can't prove it either way, however, so I'm agnostic on it as well. 

I do believe in the possibility, say again possibility, that there is more to the human than lights and clockwork. That there could be a spark within all life that turns meat into consciousness, but I can't prove it either way. 

It's possible that I hallucinated the whole thing, or it occurred within a state of dreaming between asleep and awake, but it felt real to me at the time. 

If there is a God, I highly doubt that Christians are the ones telling the right story, and that's not bias, just an acknowledgement of the number of other times in human history we've thought a story has had a bead on creation and God. If there were only one story on earth claiming that, then I would say it's more likely the truth, if it comes be known as such, than right now where there are thousands. Still, there are common threads amongst them, so maybe there's a kernel of truth in all of them if you boil away the "fluff". It could be that the kernel of truth is that we're all human, so we have the same basic desire, which is to know that this existence isn't it and that eternal life in paradise is pleasing, and that's why they're on common themes. Or it could be because they are all inspired word by the Creator, and interpreted through the individual human lenses. 

If you look at it from a standpoint of pure probability, it's far more likely that Christianity has gotten it wrong, than gotten it right. But, people beat probability and win the lottery every day. 

I have very good reasons to doubt a lot of things, but my experiences are real to me so they get a pass, at least to me. That's why you don't see me railing on that ghosts are real even though I feel that I had a real experience with several of them. I can't prove that any more than I could prove God doesn't exist, or that he does. 

Even my acceptance of the BB, or evolution, or science as a whole isn't above skepticism. I, even though I may not say it every time, always leave room for being wrong. It could be that my understanding of it is flawed, or that the principle itself is flawed. If that's the case I evolve my beliefs.


----------



## Israel

JB0704 said:


> I don't pretend to know God's purposes or actions.  Bullethead's story is awful.  I have also watched a couple agonize, and pray, and a 1000's of people join them in prayer over the life of an infant, only to lose the child anyway.   I seriously don't know why.
> 
> I had lunch with those friends a few weeks ago who lost their child and discussed it again with them.  Thier faith strengthens mine.  And they don't understand why either.....but that doesn't stop them from believing.
> 
> I don't think believing in god means we can understand God.  How can we if we look at the sufferring in life?


It's not a peculiar matter for which men tend to indict God.
Suffering catches the eye, engages the heart...and yet...when a man wakes up feeling well, hale, and hearty...he rarely gives it second thought...does he?
The assumption...our "default", if you will, is more often that "life" is normal when pain free.
If we were to see all we take for granted in being...because it is all any of us has ever known...we might see something. But...who is equal to such a task?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> who is equal to such a task?



"I'm your huckleberry" 

I see the good in every day and every moment on earth. I am glad my suffering is in the minimal to none range and I try to be optimistic and see the good in even bad things. 
I know I take things for granted and I will occasionally sit back and behold at all the good I have created. I will sometimes pat myself on the back for making the right choices.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> "I'm your huckleberry"
> 
> I see the good in every day and every moment on earth. I am glad my suffering is in the minimal to none range and I try to be optimistic and see the good in even bad things.
> I know I take things for granted and I will occasionally sit back and behold at all the good I have created. I will sometimes pat myself on the back for making the right choices.


 I will take that as tongue planted firmly in cheek...or...do I misread?

But yes...it is not unusual for a man to say "what have I done to bring this on...I may need to see if there's something I can do differently to avoid it..." But rarely, in my experience, does a man with a winning lottery ticket say such.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> It must have been something to witness when church services came to a halt and all of the people around you that knew your Grandfather all gasped at his presence.
> What was said by the others?



 You're adding things into it that you know nothing of. No one there that night knew me or my grandfather, it was 80 miles from my hometown and 100 from my grandfather. It was only the third or fourth time I had ever been in the building.



> As far as a connection to a spiritual realm,  do you think it is possible that your Grandfather was able to appear to you by his own doing ?
> How is God connected to your Grandfathers appearance?



No it wasn't on his power, and more likely a spiritual vision just for me.

To the second point. I'd be willing to share that with you in pm, it's a long story, and too personal to put out in public, but if you're truly interested I can .


----------



## Artfuldodger

I didn't know we still had ghosts and faith healers. I have read of the snake handlers though. Something about cessation of the Holy Spirit's gifts.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> I will take that as tongue planted firmly in cheek...or...do I misread?



I know it is foreign for folks to take responsibility for the good and bad in their lives but, I do. If you eat at my house and thank God for the food, you will be asked to leave.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Why would I begin by ruling God out, particularly given I believe in him.  When I consider all possibilities, that is the most likely.
> 
> If I did not believe in God, then obviously it would HAVE to be something else, wouldn't it?



It's like luck or talismans.  If you believe in luck you will attribute it to everything; catching a red light, just missing getting hit by a texting driver.  Then it becomes natural to attribute things to bad luck or the Debbil.  I suppose it's just a matter of whether or not you want to think there are mysterious forces at work.  It's not that there is evidence, just that you want to.



JB0704 said:


> Very glad I've never seen a ghost.......don't think I'd admit it on here



I've experienced things that people typically attribute to ghosts.  Apparitions, voices, touches etc.   It would be soooo easy to just say they were caused by ghosts but why go there?  Because of traditions of people that didn't understand how the mind works?  Why go there _first_?   Big vertical shape moving through the dark of the forest= Bigfoot.  Why?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> If you eat at my house and thank God for the food, you will be asked to leave.



Really?  Even if they thanked you as well?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> It's not that there is evidence, just that you want to.



We will disagree on the evidence assertion.



ambush80 said:


> Why go there _first_?   Big vertical shape moving through the dark of the forest= Bigfoot.  Why?



Not sure if that's the first place I go when considering unexplainable stuff.  Unlike bigfoot, I am convinced for other reasons that God exists.  I have no such faith that bigfoot exists.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I didn't know we still had ghosts and faith healers. I have read of the snake handlers though. Something about cessation of the Holy Spirit's gifts.



Because the Holy Spirit is active in our lives, doesn't mean that people have gifts to do those things.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Why would I begin by ruling God out, particularly given I believe in him.  When I consider all possibilities, that is the most likely.
> 
> If I did not believe in God, then obviously it would HAVE to be something else, wouldn't it?



I could see if you had a dream or vision in where God told you that you would be sent help by a familiar stranger...and then boom that PM came to you.
I could see if you received an email from a sender that you never heard of on a computer screen that was unplugged on a shelf in your basement telling you that you would have such an encounter...then the email is signed "God".
THAT would have me seriously thinking a divine force had something to do with it.

I could see if it was something specific about God but should I thank God for being me 3 seconds ahead of a 15 car pile up on icy roads while three fatalities occurred and multiple permanent injuries were sustained?
Believers can make a case that 12 people lived due to God...the permanent injuries could have been worse if it were not for God and the three dead, well it was their time....but REALLY???!!!!


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> I don't even know if I shared with the poster the impact of all that.....sorry, I'll delete all this if you prefer.


No need to delete. It impacted my life as well.

I was minding my own business at the time.


----------



## JB0704

Cool.  It's a good story for me.  I've shared it often in person amongst those who know me.......'cause I am the last person to have a "God story" amongst my friends and family.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> ....but REALLY???!!!!



Yea, there's a reason why I never brought this up out here.  

The bar is where you put it.  Mine is higher than most, but, I'll remain convinced of my conclusions until I have information which leads me elsewhere.

Then again......couldn't God's interaction be simple, and subtle, and unseen to the individual?  Why does it have to be a talking donkey to be God's hand?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Yea, there's a reason why I never brought this up out here.
> 
> The bar is where you put it.  Mine is higher than most, but, I'll remain convinced of my conclusions until I have information which leads me elsewhere.
> 
> Then again......couldn't God's interaction be simple, and subtle, and unseen to the individual?  Why does it have to be a talking donkey to be God's hand?



Why does a simple act of kindness from a stranger have to be God's hand? Why can't it be someone doing someone else a solid?


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why does a simple act of kindness from a stranger have to be God's hand? Why can't it be someone doing someone else a solid?



Dunno, Striper, maybe it wasn't.  Just seemed that way to me at the time, still does.  Either way, it helped an awful lot in a very tough time in my life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Dunno, Striper, maybe it wasn't.  Just seemed that way to me at the time, still does.  Either way, it helped an awful lot in a very tough time in my life.



That's what matters, really, is that you took meaning from it and it helped you. 

I'm sure that question sounded more harsh than I meant it.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's what matters, really, is that you took meaning from it and it helped you.
> 
> I'm sure that question sounded more harsh than I meant it.





But, I have much regret posting it all......not sure anything was accomplished worthwhile.   If I had a ghost story or something, that might'a been a bit more useful to the topic.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Very glad I've never seen a ghost.......don't think I'd admit it on here





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I've seen a few, or at least I believe I did. I can't explain it, but it was a real experience for me.





JB0704 said:


> Very interesting.  How does that square with skepticism?  Particularly given the general consensus amongst y'all that there is no soul?



I also am fairly sure I saw someone who should not have been where they were.
Too long to list here but I am convinced that I saw someone sitting in an office in the basement of our former business(restaurant). Elderly gentleman, salt/pepper hair, dressed in a nice grey suit. Happened as I opened a door and looked up to see that man looking up at me. The office was behind yet another door with glass windows. I absolutely took a second glance and it/he was gone.
I said nothing to no one.
At least a year later one of our customers, a man in his early 60's and well established business man in the area, was talking about a former owner of our restaurant 40 years prior. Mr Taylor. Then asked if we have ever seen him. My mother said he has been dead for 30 years. The customer said Mr Taylor has been seen working in his old office by former employees over the years. This man even described the suit color.
I thought someone was pulling a prank on me.
But I literally told NO ONE.
I had and have been in that basement a thousand times before and since. Never seen anything like it.
There is no way in or out except by where I was coming from.

I convinced myself that the light bulb behind my head must have made my reflection in the glass make it look like I saw someone else in there. It could be the only solution(I was still a believer in God and did not jump to the conclusion that God had anything to do with it).
I was fine with that solution until a year later when I talked to that customer. He described what/who I saw.

Skeptic, heck yes.
Probably should have a card in my wallet stating how much of a skeptic I am.
But I did see something extremely unusual and then had a confirmation about what I saw from someone that I would have never expected.

I cannot believe I saw a mans soul. I do not think that what I saw was in any way religious. 
Was it some form of energy?
I don't know.
I cannot wrap my mind around a physical form manifesting...especially in clothes that are inanimate... and in a way that is completely recognizable in detail to someone who has never seen that person before.
I STILL have no confident and convincing answer to what I saw. But over 20 years later I am still trying to figure it out.


----------



## JB0704

Interesting Bullet.....thanks for posting.


----------



## JB0704

I used to drive home in the middle of the night after working 40+ hours straight......the mind can play some serious tricks on you when you are that tired.  Outside of those hallucinations, I have not seen anything extraordinary.  Just circumstances and experiences which don't line up with coincidence.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why does a simple act of kindness from a stranger have to be God's hand? Why can't it be someone doing someone else a solid?


I never thought of it as an act of kindness. I was compelled, in an overwhelming way, to contact him. I couldn't do anything else at the time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> I never thought of it as an act of kindness. I was compelled, in an overwhelming way, to contact him. I couldn't do anything else at the time.



But you did all that you could for someone you perceived to need help and later confirmed that they did need help. That's amazingly kind, IMO. 

We can argue God until we're blue in the face, but the inarguable fact of the matter is that you're a good man, Charlie Brown.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> But, I have much regret posting it all......not sure anything was accomplished worthwhile.   If I had a ghost story or something, that might'a been a bit more useful to the topic.



I think it was a good discussion. Moreover, I think it's right in line with the title of the thread, anyway. 

How did got get started? Someone saw, or experienced something that didn't line up with coincidence that they couldn't otherwise explain. Nearly End of story.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> I know it is foreign for folks to take responsibility for the good and bad in their lives but, I do. If you eat at my house and thank God for the food, you will be asked to leave.



To him who has, more will be given...but to him who has not, _even that which he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him...

It's quite a promise, and a real fine incentive in all ways.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think it was a good discussion. Moreover, I think it's right in line with the title of the thread, anyway.
> 
> How did got get started? Someone saw, or experienced something that didn't line up with coincidence that they couldn't otherwise explain. Nearly End of story.



Fitting, very fitting.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Fitting, very fitting.



Other than my typo saying got instead of God, thanks.


----------



## JB0704

I'm about to hit the road......my boy has a basketball game in a little while.

Another part of my story is that my son was eventually cleared to play all sports except swimming, which is ok since he never really hd an interest in swimming anyway.  We still put him in swim lessons each summer until this past one, just in case he needs it.  But, he still plays football (football took some time to get cleared, but helmets have made some major advances in recent years, and the Dr finally gave the go-ahead), basketball, and baseball and has not missed a beat since the incident happened.  We are extremely thankful for that, because many are not so fortunate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I'm about to hit the road......my boy has a basketball game in a little while.
> 
> Another part of my story is that my son was eventually cleared to play all sports except swimming, which is ok since he never really hd an interest in swimming anyway.  We still put him in swim lessons each summer until this past one, just in case he needs it.  But, he still plays football (football took some time to get cleared, but helmets have made some major advances in recent years, and the Dr finally gave the go-ahead), basketball, and baseball and has not missed a beat since the incident happened.  We are extremely thankful for that, because many are not so fortunate.



That's an excellent beginning, JB. 

I think everyone should be taught to swim, personally.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> There's additional details that aren't mine to share, btw.  Nothing supernatural, just interesting coincidence.


Not coincidence... providence. 

My son had seizures as well.


----------



## bullethead

Thread killed.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Thread killed.




Glad I could help!


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Glad I could help!



Naw man you had nuthin to do with it.
I enjoyed your inclusion and learned a lot.


All posts were good.
The Vid did it in.


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> Not coincidence... providence.
> 
> My son had seizures as well.



I am sorry we both had that experience.  But, the conversations about it were definitely able to help me find peace with it all, and hope.  Thanks again


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think everyone should be taught to swim, personally.



Me too.  To that point we had him in swim lessons each summer.  WE just didn't do it this past summer because he had already taken so many lessons.  The only major change for him in life is that he can never get in a tub of water alone, and he can't swim alone.  Nobody should swim alone anyway, and guys don't really get in tubs, so, for now, it seems there has been no major changes.  When he starts driving there will be a whole new set of fears.  We will cross that bridge when we get there.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Me too.  To that point we had him in swim lessons each summer.  WE just didn't do it this past summer because he had already taken so many lessons.  The only major change for him in life is that he can never get in a tub of water alone, and he can't swim alone.  Nobody should swim alone anyway, and guys don't really get in tubs, so, for now, it seems there has been no major changes.  When he starts driving there will be a whole new set of fears.  We will cross that bridge when we get there.



That's all any of us can do. Live life one day at a time and treat tomorrow like the gift it is. 

As to the sender, well, we'll disagree, but the gift is inarguable.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Good read.  Very informative.  I disagree with its central thesis however in that I don't see faith and reason as opposing forces.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> ...I don't see faith and reason as opposing forces.


 Well, they are.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Holy non-resizing image, Batman.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Holy non-resizing image, Batman.



Sorry. Just posted from link. Should be better now.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> Good read.  Very informative.  I disagree with its central thesis however in that I don't see faith and reason as opposing forces.





660griz said:


> Sorry. Just posted from link. Should be better now.



Excellent. 

SFD, I have a challenge for you then. Draw a straight line of logic, with no faith, between the assertion that there is no God and being able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is one, and that the Christian one is the right one. 

Anywhere there is "faith" there is no substantive reason. You can interject anecdotal personal evidence, but that's barely holds up in court, and that's much more trivial than is something as important as God and the afterlife.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Doesn't just the idea of faith mean going against reason/logic or whatever you want to call it.
We have faith because it isn't provable. It isn't seen. It's like when we see a wire in our house. We can't see the electricity flowing in the wire but we have faith that it is there because we can see the light.
I guess God wants us to have faith instead of proof. 

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

2 Corinthians 5:7
For we live by faith, not by sight.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Doesn't just the idea of faith mean going against reason/logic or whatever you want to call it.
> We have faith because it isn't provable. It isn't seen. It's like when we see a wire in our house. We can't see the electricity flowing in the wire but we have faith that it is there because we can see the light.
> I guess God wants us to have faith instead of proof.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1
> Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:7
> For we live by faith, not by sight.



With you, except on the electricity thing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Excellent.
> 
> SFD, I have a challenge for you then. Draw a straight line of logic, with no faith, between the assertion that there is no God and being able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is one, and that the Christian one is the right one.
> 
> Anywhere there is "faith" there is no substantive reason. You can interject anecdotal personal evidence, but that's barely holds up in court, and that's much more trivial than is something as important as God and the afterlife.






> SFD, I have a challenge for you then. Draw a straight line of logic, with no faith, between the assertion that there is no God and being able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is one, and that the Christian one is the right one.



I think you've misinterpreted what I stated.   When I said 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg
> Good read. Very informative. I disagree with its central thesis however in that I don't see faith and reason as opposing forces.



I was not implying it's either faith *or* reason such as your challenge to me is based upon.  That is specifically what I'm denying.  I think it's faith *and * reason.  

I think the problem lies in the definition of faith.  If you're
using the word faith to mean "blind faith" then of course that's opposed to reason, and it's a very dangerous thing to boot.  But, my faith is not blind faith.  It's faith based on evidence , which is quiet another thing.

Take for instance your statement 



> Anywhere there is "faith" there is no substantive reason.



If we're talking about blind faith then it may be correct, but if we are talking about faith based on evidence then the statement becomes absurd and dissolves itself.  If you believe it, you have no reason to.

Do you see my point?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think you've misinterpreted what I stated.   When I said
> 
> 
> 
> I was not implying it's either faith *or* reason such as your challenge to me is based upon.  That is specifically what I'm denying.  I think it's faith *and * reason.
> 
> I think the problem lies in the definition of faith.  If you're
> using the word faith to mean "blind faith" then of course that's opposed to reason, and it's a very dangerous thing to boot.  But, my faith is not blind faith.  It's faith based on evidence , which is quiet another thing.
> 
> Take for instance your statement
> 
> 
> 
> If we're talking about blind faith then it may be correct, but if we are talking about faith based on evidence then the statement becomes absurd and dissolves itself.  If you believe it, you have no reason to.
> 
> Do you see my point?



I do see your point. But, removing anecdotes, what evidence is there of God? Inarguable evidence? The only thing is the Bible, and religious texts are a dime a dozen in the rest of the world.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I do see your point. But, removing anecdotes, what evidence is there of God? Inarguable evidence? The only thing is the Bible, and religious texts are a dime a dozen in the rest of the world.



What evidence is there of God? Inarguable evidence? 

Well none of course.  I suspect there is nothing that is considered as "Inarguable", don't you.  I've been told that with regards to quantum physics even the "Inarguable" laws of nature such as law of gravity, etc can come into question, so again I doubt the existence of an "Inarguable" anything, and that's good, because if we based our most important decisions in life on "Inarguable evidence" we would all lead very inactive lives.  

I think the better question is "Is there serviceable evidence that can be acted on?"  Now everyone has their own personable criteria for "serviceable" and I think that's fine.  What I find a problem with is demanding a higher level of serviceable evidence with regards to one belief or world view over another.  If you are going to demand empirical evidence to prove the existence of God then you should also demand empirical evidence as proof that God doesn't exist.  BTW I know both are impossible and only use this example to illustrate the point.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> What evidence is there of God? Inarguable evidence?
> 
> Well none of course.  I suspect there is nothing that is considered as "Inarguable", don't you.  I've been told that with regards to quantum physics even the "Inarguable" laws of nature such as law of gravity, etc can come into question, so again I doubt the existence of an "Inarguable" anything, and that's good, because if we based our most important decisions in life on "Inarguable evidence" we would all lead very inactive lives.
> 
> I think the better question is "Is there serviceable evidence that can be acted on?"  Now everyone has their own personable criteria for "serviceable" and I think that's fine.  What I find a problem with is demanding a higher level of serviceable evidence with regards to one belief or world view over another.  If you are going to demand empirical evidence to prove the existence of God then you should also demand empirical evidence as proof that God doesn't exist.  BTW I know both are impossible and only use this example to illustrate the point.



I do demand just that. That's why I'm agnostic.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I do demand just that. That's why I'm agnostic.



That's a very fair stance, but is it reasonable?


----------



## Israel

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's all any of us can do. Live life one day at a time and treat tomorrow like the gift it is.
> 
> As to the sender, well, we'll disagree, but the gift is inarguable.



That's an interesting stance.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a very fair stance, but is it reasonable?



I would argue that it is. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to both sides of an argument, the only logical position is one outside of both. It doesn't hinder research into either argument, and doesn't taint that research with prejudiced opinions. 

Single sourced anecdotes are interesting to me, but don't sway me to either side because they're too difficult to prove. 

I do give believers are harder time, and sometimes a harsher tone, than complete atheists, but that's because being able to prove a negative is admittedly nigh on impossible. Proof of existence, however, should be pretty easy.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> That's an interesting stance.



I just hold that the sender of the gift is randomness in the universe. I could live to be 100, I could get hit by a meteor as I type this, it's all possible and tomorrow is not promised.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I would argue that it is. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to both sides of an argument, the only logical position is one outside of both. It doesn't hinder research into either argument, and doesn't taint that research with prejudiced opinions.
> 
> Single sourced anecdotes are interesting to me, but don't sway me to either side because they're too difficult to prove.
> 
> I do give believers are harder time, and sometimes a harsher tone, than complete atheists, but that's because being able to prove a negative is admittedly nigh on impossible. Proof of existence, however, should be pretty easy.




I would argue it's not reasonable and here's why.  As I said before it's a PERSONAL relationship that God wishes to establish with you; not a merit based legalistic religiosity or system though some of Christianity has certainly fell into that.  Indeed, the New Testament uses Marriage to symbolize the relationship.  

Given this, I think your standard of evidence is too high because I don't think you would subject your fiancé to the same rigorous standards you subject God to.

An example: (and not mine but a good one).

You wouldn't go to someone you were hoping to marry and demand that they provide empirical evidence that they loved you before you would propose to them.  Nor would you  hand them a book of rules and tell them if they keep these rules for the next 50 years you will think about accepting them 

In a relationship the trust and acceptance come up front.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would argue it's not reasonable and here's why.  As I said before it's a PERSONAL relationship that God wishes to establish with you; not a merit based legalistic religiosity or system though some of Christianity has certainly fell into that.  Indeed, the New Testament uses Marriage to symbolize the relationship.
> 
> Given this, I think your standard of evidence is too high because I don't think you would subject your fiancé to the same rigorous standards you subject God to.
> 
> An example: (and not mine but a good one).
> 
> You wouldn't go to someone you were hoping to marry and demand that they provide empirical evidence that they loved you before you would propose to them.  Nor would you  hand them a book of rules and tell them if they keep these rules for the next 50 years you will think about accepting them
> 
> In a relationship the trust and acceptance come up front.



No, respectfully, meeting them comes up front. After that you can build trust and acceptance. I have yet to meet God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, respectfully, meeting them comes up front. After that you can build trust and acceptance. I have yet to meet God.



Takes 2 for a date, but yes meeting comes first and then trust based on what you learn.  

Maybe that's why we haven't had a great deal of Baptisms in my church lately.  After every sermon I extend a invitation, but i urge people to consider it very carefully, as it's a serious decision and commitment and not one to be based on just emotion.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would argue it's not reasonable and here's why.  As I said before it's a PERSONAL relationship that God wishes to establish with you; not a merit based legalistic religiosity or system though some of Christianity has certainly fell into that.  Indeed, the New Testament uses Marriage to symbolize the relationship.
> 
> Given this, I think your standard of evidence is too high because I don't think you would subject your fiancé to the same rigorous standards you subject God to.
> 
> An example: (and not mine but a good one).
> 
> You wouldn't go to someone you were hoping to marry and demand that they provide empirical evidence that they loved you before you would propose to them.  Nor would you  hand them a book of rules and tell them if they keep these rules for the next 50 years you will think about accepting them
> 
> In a relationship the trust and acceptance come up front.





> In a relationship the trust and acceptance come up front


Now apply that to the Flood.
Acceptance? well actually no, extermination.
Trust? Naw didn't trust folks to turn themselves around to meet his standards.
Your arguments are coming from the end of the field where the pretty flowers grow while not accounting for at the other end is prickers and poison ivy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Now apply that to the Flood.
> Acceptance? well actually no, extermination.
> Trust? Naw didn't trust folks to turn themselves around to meet his standards.
> Your arguments are coming from the end of the field where the pretty flowers grow while not accounting for at the other end is prickers and poison ivy.



You know I try not to judge a person based only on a glimpse.  If the Bible ended at Genesis I would say you have a valid point, but....


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know I try not to judge a person based only on a glimpse.  If the Bible ended at Genesis I would say you have a valid point, but....


Surely you aren't classifying the near extermination of all living things a "glimpse"?
And while the Bible doesn't end there it doesn't get erased either.
It feels good to you to glorify Christianity. But to do that you have to ignore much of its own history.
And that's not a jab at you, we all do it to a certain extent with the things that are important to us.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Surely you aren't classifying the near extermination of all living things a "glimpse"?
> And while the Bible doesn't end there it doesn't get erased either.
> It feels good to you to glorify Christianity. But to do that you have to ignore much of its own history.
> And that's not a jab at you, we all do it to a certain extent with the things that are important to us.



Do you believe the death penalty is evil or bad in all circumstances?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Do you believe the death penalty is evil or bad in all circumstances?


Do you believe its ok for parents to put their children to death if they don't like how they behave?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Do you believe its ok for parents to put their children to death if they don't like how they behave?



The folks that died in the flood were not children of God. They were evil and needed to be disposed of.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The folks that died in the flood were not children of God. They were evil and needed to be disposed of.


That's really sick.
And even sicker that you don't get how sick it is.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> The folks that died in the flood were not children of God. They were evil and needed to be disposed of.



How can a conversation be had...a serious conversation...when this is the mindset?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

bullethead said:


> How can a conversation be had...a serious conversation...when this is the mindset?


I have trouble with a God of love who sends Joshua into Jericho and demands that he kill everything. Women and children. And then the same for town of Aia. And the story continues. If he hated them, why create them. The creator must assume some responsibility for the evil, if they were evil. Christians overlook the realization of the story and only see one side. I struggle with this.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

I read a book once that had a theory that the winners always write the history books and that they justify their oppression by saying they were doing Gods will.


----------



## ambush80

1gr8bldr said:


> I have trouble with a God of love who sends Joshua into Jericho and demands that he kill everything. Women and children. And then the same for town of Aia. And the story continues. If he hated them, why create them. The creator must assume some responsibility for the evil, if they were evil. Christians overlook the realization of the story and only see one side. I struggle with this.




Please, I implore you, continue the struggle.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

The context is that Noah cursed Canaan because of what his father did to Noah. So later God promises to give them the promised land. Which is the land of Canaan. Taking from Canaan and giving to Israel. So they had to have faith that God would do as he says, that they would be victorious in taking the land. And that they should not share the land otherwise they will be influenced by their gods. So we see the Israelites take portions of the land, but not all that is promised. Sounds good on the surface. But a lot of blood shed. And God knowing all, had to have had foreknowledge that they would eventually cause him grief. And we have not even gotten to David, all his raids. How I wish all that was not in my bible


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> I have trouble with a God of love who sends Joshua into Jericho and demands that he kill everything. Women and children. And then the same for town of Aia. And the story continues. If he hated them, why create them. The creator must assume some responsibility for the evil, if they were evil. Christians overlook the realization of the story and only see one side. I struggle with this.


Very ungodlike for something that claims to God. What troubles me even more are the people that cannot see the book and stories for what they really are.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> That's really sick.
> And even sicker that you don't get how sick it is.



Oh well....They had options. years of a man preaching to get on board and they used the logic they knew and turned from the man of God. It was their choice to die.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> The context is that Noah cursed Canaan because of what his father did to Noah. So later God promises to give them the promised land. Which is the land of Canaan. Taking from Canaan and giving to Israel. So they had to have faith that God would do as he says, that they would be victorious in taking the land. And that they should not share the land otherwise they will be influenced by their gods. So we see the Israelites take portions of the land, but not all that is promised. Sounds good on the surface. But a lot of blood shed. And God knowing all, had to have had foreknowledge that they would eventually cause him grief. And we have not even gotten to David, all his raids. How I wish all that was not in my bible



Most of these stories are as you say, written by the victors. It is done in ways to justify their cause.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Oh well....They had options. years of a man preaching to get on board and they used the logic they knew and turned from the man of God. It was their choice to die.



Had to happen to continue the stories.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Oh well....They had options. years of a man preaching to get on board and they used the logic they knew and turned from the man of God. It was their choice to die.


Yeah Oh well.
Except that God made them.
Except that all men sin.
Except that there were children and babies and pregnant women.
Except that some of them surely did believe.
Oh well.
Sick.


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> I have trouble with a God of love who sends Joshua into Jericho and demands that he kill everything. Women and children. And then the same for town of Aia. And the story continues. If he hated them, why create them. The creator must assume some responsibility for the evil, if they were evil. Christians overlook the realization of the story and only see one side. I struggle with this.


If it was "anyone" other than the Christian God that these things were attributed to, would you worship them?
For me that was the million $ question.


----------



## bullethead

I wonder if the flood would have reached the top of the pedestal that some put themselves on thinking they are somehow more worthy?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah Oh well.
> Except that God made them.
> Except that all men sin.
> Except that there were children and babies and pregnant women.
> Except that some of them surely did believe.
> Oh well.
> Sick.



God gave them a choice. They chose to die.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> God gave them a choice. They chose to die.


How is choice relevant if they could not choose to leave it all alone?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> God gave them a choice. They chose to die.


Tell yourself whatever you need to justify genocide.
Tell yourself that children and babies chose to die.
But please save your breath or keyboard in this case and don't tell me because I think its sick.


----------



## Day trip

1gr8bldr said:


> I have trouble with a God of love who sends Joshua into Jericho and demands that he kill everything. Women and children. And then the same for town of Aia. And the story continues. If he hated them, why create them. The creator must assume some responsibility for the evil, if they were evil. Christians overlook the realization of the story and only see one side. I struggle with this.



This story is a metaphor.  The evil ones being destroyed are the bad habits, the sins inside everyone.  In order to achieve peace in our hearts and souls, we must destroy all of the evil inside of us.  Leaving the smallest flame to smolder results in it coming back with great power and fury which consumes and destroys us. 
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't David try to save one person from the evil city, meaning an addiction, a sin inside if us that we cannot let go of, hate, anger, jealousy.   And doesn't that one person gets violently killed because in order to achieve that peace, we must be pure and eliminate all sin?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Surely you aren't classifying the near extermination of all living things a "glimpse"?
> And while the Bible doesn't end there it doesn't get erased either.
> It feels good to you to glorify Christianity. But to do that you have to ignore much of its own history.
> And that's not a jab at you, we all do it to a certain extent with the things that are important to us.



Yes it is a glimpse.  It represents one scene(which I hold as literally true)  from one chapter out of 66.  I hardly think any serious person would read the Bible and make the claim that the story of the flood represents the central thesis of the Book, but if that is your contention I suppose you are entitled to it.




> It feels good to you to glorify Christianity.



Wrong.  Let's not confuse Christianity and God.

There are many things done in the name of Christianity
which are wrong.  I have consistently stated that along with the reminder that you don't judge a philosophy by its abuses.  Regardless I hope I am never seen as glorifying Christianity.

God, however I hope is who is glorified, because I think he justly deserves it.

Are his actions in the OT sometimes difficult for me to reconcile with the picture we are painted of him in the NT.
Absolutely.

How do I do it.  I look at the whole picture of who he is,  what his end goal was, and what his overall actions say about him and his nature.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> That's really sick.
> And even sicker that you don't get how sick it is.



It's a tragedy.  I think it pained him immensely, thus the promise to never do it again.

That being said and on a lighter side.  If I'm Noah's neighbor and he's been preaching an impending flood to me for 40 years.  I wake up one morning to see two of each animal lined up and boarding, I'm right behind the squirrels.  Just saying.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes it is a glimpse.  It represents one scene(which I hold as literally true)  from one chapter out of 66.  I hardly think any serious person would read the Bible and make the claim that the story of the flood represents the central thesis of the Book, but if that is your contention I suppose you are entitled to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Let's not confuse Christianity and God.
> 
> There are many things done in the name of Christianity
> which are wrong.  I have consistently stated that along with the reminder that you don't judge a philosophy by its abuses.  Regardless I hope I am never seen as glorifying Christianity.
> 
> God, however I hope is who is glorified, because I think he justly deserves it.
> 
> Are his actions in the OT sometimes difficult for me to reconcile with the picture we are painted of him in the NT.
> Absolutely.
> 
> How do I do it.  I look at the whole picture of who he is,  what his end goal was, and what his overall actions say about him and his nature.





> Yes it is a glimpse.  It represents one scene(which I hold as literally true)  from one chapter out of 66.


I guess I view it differently. If Im reading a book about somebody and chapter 1 starts out with them being a mass murderer and the next 65 chapters tells about them working in a soup kitchen for the homeless and saving puppies from the pound, that's not going to make up for chapter 1. 


> Wrong.  Let's not confuse Christianity and God.


I assure you I don't. I reject Christianity and leave open the possibility of God. Unfortunately every iota of information about God comes out of Christianity so you cant reject one and know anything about the other.


> God, however I hope is who is glorified, because I think he justly deserves it.


I respect that. But lets not confuse the fact that you are using what Christianity tells you about God to determine what he justly deserves.


> I look at the whole picture of who he is,  what his end goal was, and what his overall actions say about him and his nature


See my first response.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's a tragedy.  I think it pained him immensely, thus the promise to never do it again.
> 
> That being said and on a lighter side.  If I'm Noah's neighbor and he's been preaching an impending flood to me for 40 years.  I wake up one morning to see two of each animal lined up and boarding, I'm right behind the squirrels.  Just saying.





> I think it pained him immensely, thus the promise to never do it again.


That's a whole other bucket of worms when you consider he is omni-everything as the story goes.


> I wake up one morning to see two of each animal lined up and boarding, I'm right behind the squirrels.  Just saying.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> God gave them a choice. They chose to die.



Yet when radical Muslims want to kill all "non Children" of God, they are considered evil.

The very thing God did with the flood, they are trying to accomplish. Are they really sick or just lost?


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Yet when radical Muslims want to kill all "non Children" of God, they are considered evil.
> 
> The very thing God did with the flood, they are trying to accomplish. Are they really sick or just lost?


Exactly.
Its interesting that who is doing it seems to determine if its good or bad instead of what is being done.
Hitler = evil
Stalin = evil
Radical Muslims = evil
God = that's where it all changes to who did it instead of what was done.
It just doesn't add up for me.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Yet when radical Muslims want to kill all "non Children" of God, they are considered evil.
> 
> The very thing God did with the flood, they are trying to accomplish. Are they really sick or just lost?



God is not equal to man, you cant make that analogy stick.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> God is not equal to man, you cant make that analogy stick.



But they are doing the work of God or God is doing his work through them.
Then you agree with Gem, all deeds are of God? We just label them evil but they really aren't?


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> Exactly.
> Its interesting that who is doing it seems to determine if its good or bad instead of what is being done.
> Hitler = evil
> Stalin = evil
> Radical Muslims = evil
> God = that's where it all changes to who did it instead of what was done.
> It just doesn't add up for me.



What's the logical conclusion?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> But they are doing the work of God or God is doing his work through them.
> Then you agree with Gem, all deeds are of God? We just label them evil but they really aren't?



In the case of the flood God didn't use man to kill man. I can probably agree with Gem on this if I took the time to study it and verify, since I haven't I'm not going to disagree with his point.


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> What's the logical conclusion?


There are a number of logical conclusions that can be made. Hypocricy would be at the root of most of them.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Day trip said:


> This story is a metaphor.  The evil ones being destroyed are the bad habits, the sins inside everyone.  In order to achieve peace in our hearts and souls, we must destroy all of the evil inside of us.  Leaving the smallest flame to smolder results in it coming back with great power and fury which consumes and destroys us.
> If I'm not mistaken, doesn't David try to save one person from the evil city, meaning an addiction, a sin inside if us that we cannot let go of, hate, anger, jealousy.   And doesn't that one person gets violently killed because in order to achieve that peace, we must be pure and eliminate all sin?


I hope your right. Much easier to deal with.


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> I hope your right. Much easier to deal with.


One way to check if it is a metaphor is to see if a worldwide flood on that scale ever happened.

It did not.

So then we have to start there and move on to what these stories are all about because accurate world history and 100% truth are not represented within the stories.


----------



## Day trip

1gr8bldr said:


> I hope your right. Much easier to deal with.



Right or wrong, we can never say without a time machine.  But now this story has value.  This is how it was explained to me and instead of trembling in fear at some angry god, I can take value from it.   It is a benefit to me. 

In Greek mythology their is a flood that destroys the world also.  The world is re populated by the two remaining survivors dropping rocks over their shoulders.  Nobody takes it seriously and literally.  If Noah's ark is literal, wow!  where do you begin with all of the scientific inconsistencies?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> Takes 2 for a date, but yes meeting comes first and then trust based on what you learn.
> 
> Maybe that's why we haven't had a great deal of Baptisms in my church lately.  After every sermon I extend a invitation, but i urge people to consider it very carefully, as it's a serious decision and commitment and not one to be based on just emotion.



It should be a serious decision, I applaud you for that, not that you need my approval. 

Right or wrong, I think that there are a good many people who fall into the category of believing because that's all they've known their entire lives and are going along to get along, or because they'd rather believe and be wrong, than be skeptical and be wrong. 

However, it's this last part that I'm confused, well not necessarily confused because I get what you're trying to say, it's just that it comes back to the "holes" in the linear logic between the antipodes of No God and God. 

If we could trace a line between those two points that didn't have holes that relied on faith, or that which can't be seen, then I'd be a Christian still. I would suggest that faith is an emotion, or at least causes an emotion, since it's been observed that prayer, or thinking of God, has produced changes in fMRI scans of test subjects similar to them seeing a beautiful person, or thinking of another happy memory. 

I'm sorry, but you have to at least acknowledge that, if there were a coldly logical path between no belief and God that there would be very few people on this board discussing such things with you, as we'd all be on the same side, and that would be a very boring discussion indeed. The fact that this isn't the case corroborates the "holes" between the opposing viewpoints that faith, and emotion, occupy.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Right or wrong, we can never say without a time machine.  But now this story has value.  This is how it was explained to me and instead of trembling in fear at some angry god, I can take value from it.   It is a benefit to me.
> 
> In Greek mythology their is a flood that destroys the world also.  The world is re populated by the two remaining survivors dropping rocks over their shoulders.  Nobody takes it seriously and literally.  If Noah's ark is literal, wow!  where do you begin with all of the scientific inconsistencies?


If you take the things that are troubling to you and twist them around to have positive value to you, at what point are you worshipping your peace of mind instead of what the supposed word of God is?


----------



## Day trip

The story doesn't trouble me.  I read a book.  It told a story of destruction.  Now I have to determine to the best of my ability the author's intent.  Purely historical?  Not likely, it doesn't read like Plutarch or other historical writers.  If only historical, does it hit its intended purpose?  Not really.  If I on the other hand find value from a metaphor and through my own life and experiences, understand that value and can learn from it, isn't that prudent?  If others cannot see it the same, they should simply leave it alone and not form an opinion.  Finally, if it's meant to be historically accurate, I really don't see any value to the story, therefore, I will leave it alone.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Day trip said:


> The story doesn't trouble me.  I read a book.  It told a story of destruction.  Now I have to determine to the best of my ability the author's intent.  Purely historical?  Not likely, it doesn't read like Plutarch or other historical writers.  If only historical, does it hit its intended purpose?  Not really.  If I on the other hand find value from a metaphor and through my own life and experiences, understand that value and can learn from it, isn't that prudent?  If others cannot see it the same, they should simply leave it alone and not form an opinion.  Finally, if it's meant to be historically accurate, I really don't see any value to the story, therefore, I will leave it alone.



A wise point of view, up until one small snag. 

Some people try to govern from that metaphor.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> The story doesn't trouble me.  I read a book.  It told a story of destruction.  Now I have to determine to the best of my ability the author's intent.  Purely historical?  Not likely, it doesn't read like Plutarch or other historical writers.  If only historical, does it hit its intended purpose?  Not really.  If I on the other hand find value from a metaphor and through my own life and experiences, understand that value and can learn from it, isn't that prudent?  If others cannot see it the same, they should simply leave it alone and not form an opinion.  Finally, if it's meant to be historically accurate, I really don't see any value to the story, therefore, I will leave it alone.


I agree with you, however this -


> This is how it was explained to me and instead of trembling in fear at some angry god, I can take value from it. It is a benefit to me.


To me says, trembling in fear at an angry God was not acceptable so you took an interpretation that you determined to be valuable to you instead.
Maybe because Im not sure where you sit in the A/A/A thing Im reading it from the wrong angle.


----------



## Day trip

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A wise point of view, up until one small snag.
> 
> Some people try to govern from that metaphor.



How is that a snag?  I would think it good that people encourage us to eliminate evil from our minds and bodies.  Very wise.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Day trip said:


> How is that a snag?  I would think it good that people encourage us to eliminate evil from our minds and bodies.  Very wise.



You're fine with a theocracy then? 

It's a snag because not everyone believes as you believe, and the definition of evil varies from person to person. Some are consistent, at least with enough backing to be law, like no murder, but to some alcohol and caffeine are evil.


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with you, however this -
> 
> To me says, trembling in fear at an angry God was not acceptable so you took an interpretation that you determined to be valuable to you instead.
> Maybe because Im not sure where you sit in the A/A/A thing Im reading it from the wrong angle.



It's not that trembling is unacceptable, I will gladly tremble before God if that is his wish.  However from my entire life experience I have a deep feeling, an intuition that our trembling before God is of no value.  If one such as God, just wanted an adoring population of idolators, sure, scare them into submission, like the pagans and their volcano god.  But That doesn't work to produce true followers.   
Are you more apt to follow and love a bully who protects you because you submit or are you more apt to follow a friend, a father who gives you the path to peace?  

Regardless, poetry can be read by several different people and have several different meanings,  to each his own.  From this story, I can see an application that is consistent with my life's experiences, you cannot take that away.  I would be a fool to ignore it.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> It's not that trembling is unacceptable, I will gladly tremble before God if that is his wish.  However from my entire life experience I have a deep feeling, an intuition that our trembling before God is of no value.  If one such as God, just wanted an adoring population of idolators, sure, scare them into submission, like the pagans and their volcano god.  But That doesn't work to produce true followers.
> Are you more apt to follow and love a bully who protects you because you submit or are you more apt to follow a friend, a father who gives you the path to peace?
> 
> Regardless, poetry can be read by several different people and have several different meanings,  to each his own.  From this story, I can see an application that is consistent with my life's experiences, you cannot take that away.  I would be a fool to ignore it.


Again I agree with you.
But dont you agree you are putting your spin on it so that it makes sense to you based on your experiences etc?


> If one such as God, just wanted an adoring population of idolators, sure, scare them into submission,


You mean like sentencing them to an eternity of torture?
Call it a consequence if you want but its also a threat or a punishment.
Do this or you get that.
There is a big difference between "If you don't wear your jacket outside or you will get cold" and "If you don't wear your jacket outside I will bury you in a snow bank until you freeze to death".


----------



## drippin' rock

Parables are great lessons. They DO have value. The difference is no one is swearing Little Red Riding Hood REALLY happened. 

But I guess if God could make a whale swallow a person and that person lives, he could make a wolf swallow a girl whole so she could be cut out of the belly alive. 

Maybe the Brothers Grim were divinely inspired.


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> Again I agree with you.
> But dont you agree you are putting your spin on it so that it makes sense to you based on your experiences etc?
> 
> You mean like sentencing them to an eternity of torture?
> Call it a consequence if you want but its also a threat or a punishment.
> Do this or you get that.
> There is a big difference between "If you don't wear your jacket outside or you will get cold" and "If you don't wear your jacket outside I will bury you in a snow bank until you freeze to death".




Yes, I am putting my spin on it based upon my experiences.  That's what logic and reason is.  I could be wrong, my mind is still open but for now it make perfect sense.  Why would I not use my experiences to help develop my opinion?  

As far as people being sentenced to an eternity of torture, what does that mean?  I can speculate but my opinion would be no better than another's.  I can understand,"if you don't wear your jacket you will cold".   I cannot understand " if you don't wear your jacket, I will bury you...".   Just because I can't see the logic in the second statement, doesn't make it false.  I leave it alone because at the moment, I cannot digest it.  

 However, 
What if heaven and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored will be all souls, living together in eternity completely exposed.  Having to answer to everyone for every single wrong deed and thought you've committed.  Being acknowledged for every single kind act and good deed youve done.   Now logically, that would be a good afterlife.   It makes perfect sense.  That is consistent with the loving God that I know from my life experiences.  But it doesn't make it true.  Can you imagine the torture of having to constantly look everyone in the face and be held accountable for your own errors?  Can you imagine the glory of being credited for every kind act that nobody knew about?  


But forming an opinion based on vague discriptions about something we cannot understand from our experiences is dangerous.  We would be better to have no opinion at all, continue to live, gather knowledge and then maybe one day down the road we can form an opinion.


----------



## Day trip

drippin' rock said:


> Parables are great lessons. They DO have value. The difference is no one is swearing Little Red Riding Hood REALLY happened.
> 
> But I guess if God could make a whale swallow a person and that person lives, he could make a wolf swallow a girl whole so she could be cut out of the belly alive.
> 
> Maybe the Brothers Grim were divinely inspired.



There is no doubt some truth and some lessons are to be learned from the Grimm brothers, however there are better sources.


----------



## Day trip

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're fine with a theocracy then?
> 
> It's a snag because not everyone believes as you believe, and the definition of evil varies from person to person. Some are consistent, at least with enough backing to be law, like no murder, but to some alcohol and caffeine are evil.



You're way ahead if me.  I'm just saying that looking for and finding the good in stories, in life is beneficial.  I would love to see that applied in a theocracy but there are way too many details for me to work out.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Day trip said:


> You're way ahead if me.  I'm just saying that looking for and finding the good in stories, in life is beneficial.  I would love to see that applied in a theocracy but there are way too many details for me to work out.



Alrighty then.


----------



## drippin' rock

Day trip said:


> There is no doubt some truth and some lessons are to be learned from the Grimm brothers, however there are better sources.



Where's the fun in that?  

You are willing to look at the flood story as a parable, where do you stop? Lot and his daughters? Giants? Job? Virgin birth? Lazarus? Water to wine? How do you decide what is literal?


----------



## Day trip

drippin' rock said:


> Where's the fun in that?
> 
> You are willing to look at the flood story as a parable, where do you stop? Lot and his daughters? Giants? Job? Virgin birth? Lazarus? Water to wine? How do you decide what is literal?



I wonder that myself.  I have never seen a man that was dead, buried and starting to rot (Lazarus), come back to life.  My experiences say its not possible, but I keep my mind open because every word that I now understand from our bible has been absolute truth.  Every word that I now understand is consistent with everything that I know from life.  

Don't ask me how I know it's true, you know I can't answer that.  How do you know the wind is blowing when your inside and the trees are moving?  Then add thousands of more examples that all point to the same thing, the same principles consistent with everything I know from living.  These are all things that I had already known but only "remembered" after understanding those parables and stories.  

 Does my God (your red ridding hood) break the laws of nature in order to gather followers?  It doesn't seem logical, however, I do not know all that man is capable of.  True miracles are not violations of the laws, they are perfection of the law.  Sure, we Christians try to wrap God up in a nice neat box so that we can understand and be comforted.  However, the more I follow his truth, the more I discover his promise.  There comes a point when you just know.  If it was absolute and provable, it would not work.  Then their would be a line in the sand and you are either in or out.  People would do just enough to be in and that will not work.  There is not a point of being good enough.  To know God, you must jump in head first with faith and humility.  To say ,"It doesn't make sense" means you are too proud to admit that you simply don't understand.  Sure, there are things in life that are pointless and don't make sense but I believe the bible has earned enough credibility to at least approach it with the idea of "I don't understand".    It's scary, I understand people's hesitation.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Yes, I am putting my spin on it based upon my experiences.  That's what logic and reason is.  I could be wrong, my mind is still open but for now it make perfect sense.  Why would I not use my experiences to help develop my opinion?
> 
> As far as people being sentenced to an eternity of torture, what does that mean?  I can speculate but my opinion would be no better than another's.  I can understand,"if you don't wear your jacket you will cold".   I cannot understand " if you don't wear your jacket, I will bury you...".   Just because I can't see the logic in the second statement, doesn't make it false.  I leave it alone because at the moment, I cannot digest it.
> 
> However,
> What if heaven and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored will be all souls, living together in eternity completely exposed.  Having to answer to everyone for every single wrong deed and thought you've committed.  Being acknowledged for every single kind act and good deed youve done.   Now logically, that would be a good afterlife.   It makes perfect sense.  That is consistent with the loving God that I know from my life experiences.  But it doesn't make it true.  Can you imagine the torture of having to constantly look everyone in the face and be held accountable for your own errors?  Can you imagine the glory of being credited for every kind act that nobody knew about?
> 
> 
> But forming an opinion based on vague discriptions about something we cannot understand from our experiences is dangerous.  We would be better to have no opinion at all, continue to live, gather knowledge and then maybe one day down the road we can form an opinion.


I maybe wrong but Im not sure if I have heard a believer come at it from this view point before.
That's not any type of insult or anything Im just saying it seems to be different than what I usually hear.

Fellow A/As does it seem different to you or is it the same ol' same ol' and Im just not catching it?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I maybe wrong but Im not sure if I have heard a believer come at it from this view point before.
> That's not any type of insult or anything Im just saying it seems to be different than what I usually hear.
> 
> Fellow A/As does it seem different to you or is it the same ol' same ol' and Im just not catching it?



It's phrased differently, but it's acknowledging the limitations of trying to prove faith to someone who hasn't experienced it, so I don't think it's new material, but the "bow" is a nice addition. 

But if you focus on his interpretation of Hades when compared with both the common concept you get some very interesting disagreements.


----------



## Day trip

How do athiests determine there is no God?  I can understand agnostics saying that they don't know.  I just can't see how one could definitively say that there is no God. To say that you don't get it, therefore it doesn't exist is not a credible argument.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Day trip said:


> How do athiests determine there is no God?  I can understand agnostics saying that they don't know.  I just can't see how one could definitively say that there is no God. To say that you don't get it, therefore it doesn't exist is not a credible argument.


 I am a believer, but it is by faith, my faith based on my experiences. But I would think that athiest would have a more credible argument than we do.


----------



## gemcgrew

1gr8bldr said:


> I am a believer, but it is by faith, my faith based on my experiences. But I would think that athiest would have a more credible argument than we do.


Just don't include me in your "we".


----------



## Day trip

1gr8bldr said:


> I am a believer, but it is by faith, my faith based on my experiences. But I would think that athiest would have a more credible argument than we do.



Would have or would need?  There is a big difference.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Would have or would need?  There is a big difference.


Name some things that can't be proven to exist that actually do exist.
Just a couple will do.


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> Name some things that can't be proven to exist that actually do exist.
> Just a couple will do.



Dark matter can only be assumed because of its gravitational pull.

I was really hoping for the thought process behind no possibility of God.  I am not threatening anyone by asking I hope.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Dark matter can only be assumed because of its gravitational pull.
> 
> I was really hoping for the thought process behind no possibility of God.  I am not threatening anyone by asking I hope.


An assumption is an assumption.
The point is strictly from an intellectual standpoint, if something cant be proven to exist, it doesn't.
That's why an Atheist can say there is no God.
Christianity doesn't claim that a God is possible it claims unequivocally that there IS not only a God but he's the Christian God. 
That's what makes this -


> Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr View Post
> I am a believer, but it is by faith, my faith based on my experiences. But I would think that atheist would have a more credible argument than we do.


Completely honest and completely correct.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> Dark matter can only be assumed because of its gravitational pull.
> 
> I was really hoping for the thought process behind no possibility of God.  I am not threatening anyone by asking I hope.


Outside of the Bible, which was written by man, Where is God?
Dang near anything is possible so I cannot rule out a creator...or a source of creation...but it is highly doubtful it is a God. The odds of it being an intelligent force with a purpose for us is even more remote...and then throw in it IS the God as described in the Bible and I am even more convinced that it is nothing more than the work of humans who have written so many God stories since the dawn of human history without a single one having a shred of proof to be backed up to show for the stories. There is as much of a lack of evidence for them all equally. A believer in one should believe in them all based on the same criteria or they should realize that for the same reasons they dismiss all the other gods, people dismiss theirs too.
My thought process is..without me having to assign credit to a god for things..there is nothing to show a god is responsible.
Something so powerful so right so perfect so TRUTH such as the God of all gods should not raise a single eyebrow to question its existence. If anything would be universal it would be evidence for such a divine being, not lack of evidence.


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> An assumption is an assumption.
> The point is strictly from an intellectual standpoint, if something cant be proven to exist, it doesn't.
> That's why an Atheist can say there is no God.
> Christianity doesn't claim that a God is possible it claims unequivocally that there IS not only a God but he's the Christian God.
> That's what makes this -
> 
> Completely honest and completely correct.



I don't understand.  Are you saying dark matter doesn't exist either?  Certainly, like God, it is not understood and can only be inferred based on its influence on the universe, however it is pretty much proven to be "something".  

At the same time, if a native from a hot pacific island, isolated from the world could not prove that snow exists, then snow doesn't exist? 
It is absurd to think humans are so smart that we already know it all.  We are quite simply natives on a pacific island compared to the full understanding of the universe.   Don't tell me that mankind has reached such a state of perfection that it will never prove any new organisms, elements or forces exist.  Yet those undiscovered items certainly do exist.  

That's the problem with atheist, quite simply they think they know it all and nothing is beyond them.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> I don't understand.  Are you saying dark matter doesn't exist either?  Certainly, like God, it is not understood and can only be inferred based on its influence on the universe, however it is pretty much proven to be "something".
> 
> At the same time, if a native from a hot pacific island, isolated from the world could not prove that snow exists, then snow doesn't exist?
> It is absurd to think humans are so smart that we already know it all.  We are quite simply natives on a pacific island compared to the full understanding of the universe.   Don't tell me that mankind has reached such a state of perfection that it will never prove any new organisms, elements or forces exist.  Yet those undiscovered items certainly do exist.
> 
> That's the problem with atheist, quite simply they think they know it all and nothing is beyond them.


I have found that people with atheistic views are more open to reason and a willingness to change views and opinions based on evidence.
If the person on your isolated island doesn't think snow exists.. you can show him snow. You can show him how to make it.
If you still must resort to dark matter as your example it is because scientific theory has been used to test, test some more, have the tests be reviewed by peers and be tested more, have the majority of the scientific community agree that based off of all the available information that Dark Matter is more likely than not the best answer we have right now AND....it will continue to be studied and revised if necessary for the sole purpose of constantly assuring what we learn backs up what we know.
There is more evidence for dark matter than the God of the Bible.....shouldn't that set off an alarm?


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> I don't understand.  Are you saying dark matter doesn't exist either?  Certainly, like God, it is not understood and can only be inferred based on its influence on the universe, however it is pretty much proven to be "something".
> 
> At the same time, if a native from a hot pacific island, isolated from the world could not prove that snow exists, then snow doesn't exist?
> It is absurd to think humans are so smart that we already know it all.  We are quite simply natives on a pacific island compared to the full understanding of the universe.   Don't tell me that mankind has reached such a state of perfection that it will never prove any new organisms, elements or forces exist.  Yet those undiscovered items certainly do exist.
> 
> That's the problem with atheist, quite simply they think they know it all and nothing is beyond them.





> Don't tell me that mankind has reached such a state of perfection that it will never prove any new organisms, elements or forces exist.  Yet those undiscovered items certainly do exist.


How can you say they CERTAINLY do exist? To be certain you would have to KNOW they were there. You don't KNOW it until its discovered.


> At the same time, if a native from a hot pacific island, isolated from the world could not prove that snow exists, then snow doesn't exist?


That's kind of silly isn't it? 


> That's the problem with atheist, quite simply they think they know it all and nothing is beyond them.


Really? Wouldn't the claim that God exists, he's the Christian God, all other Gods are false and everybody else goes to he11 kinda fit right in to that statement?
Atheist don't claim to be geniuses. This is pretty simple if you remove emotion, indoctrination, beliefs etc from it -


> The point is strictly from an intellectual standpoint, if something cant be proven to exist, it doesn't.


----------



## Day trip

bullethead said:


> Outside of the Bible, which was written by man, Where is God?
> Dang near anything is possible so I cannot rule out a creator...or a source of creation...but it is highly doubtful it is a God. The odds of it being an intelligent force with a purpose for us is even more remote...and then throw in it IS the God as described in the Bible and I am even more convinced that it is nothing more than the work of humans who have written so many God stories since the dawn of human history without a single one having a shred of proof to be backed up to show for the stories. There is as much of a lack of evidence for them all equally. A believer in one should believe in them all based on the same criteria or they should realize that for the same reasons they dismiss all the other gods, people dismiss theirs too.
> My thought process is..without me having to assign credit to a god for things..there is nothing to show a god is responsible.
> Something so powerful so right so perfect so TRUTH such as the God of all gods should not raise a single eyebrow to question its existence. If anything would be universal it would be evidence for such a divine being, not lack of evidence.




So you are agnostic I guess, admitting you cannot rule out a creator,  but its the terms that your not buying, right?  Other people's descriptions of their experiences and beliefs just dont add up for you.  I can certainly respect that.

  If I held up an object and asked ten people around me to describe it, how many discriptions would I get?  Lets say a pencil, some say its a long parallel structure with a pointed end and the other end is silver and red.  Another would say it is a perfect circle (looking at it from the end).  Who is right?  Just because somebody described the pencil different than what you see, doesn't mean they are wrong.  Now look at an obscure subject like God, with millions of  view points, with so many vague descriptions, with, In all probability, some describing it incorrectly and throwing us off.  Certainly it is complicated and difficult.  Especially since God must be inferred from his "gravitational pull".    

But by not buying their description and by not understanding his wisdom it does not mean that you can logically rule out God.  By him not presenting himself as you would, if you were God, does not rule him out.  By admitting that we just don't understand and leaving it at that, no annoyance from us "Christian fools", no annoyance over the many gods man has created,  we are open to maybe one day understanding. 

It's amazing to me,  when you start to "see" God, you start to look at all these silly notions about God and realize how many are actually quite accurate but simply poorly described (from our point if view).


----------



## Day trip

Day trip said:


> How do athiests determine there is no God?  I can understand agnostics saying that they don't know.  I just can't see how one could definitively say that there is no God. To say that you don't get it, therefore it doesn't exist is not a credible argument.



We haven't made any progress from here.  I'm not meaning to argue that God does exist, I want to know how athiest are sure he doesn't. 

It seems the only explanation is that they cannot prove that he does exist, is that fair?  So wouldn't it be more prudent for all athiest to become agnostics? Really, I'm not trying to stir the pot.  

Anyway, I think we are 
I enjoyed the discussion, look forward to more but not about does God exist or not,  I can't convince you guys and you can't convince me.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> So you are agnostic I guess, admitting you cannot rule out a creator,  but its the terms that your not buying, right?  Other people's descriptions of their experiences and beliefs just dont add up for you.  I can certainly respect that.
> 
> If I held up an object and asked ten people around me to describe it, how many discriptions would I get?  Lets say a pencil, some say its a long parallel structure with a pointed end and the other end is silver and red.  Another would say it is a perfect circle (looking at it from the end).  Who is right?  Just because somebody described the pencil different than what you see, doesn't mean they are wrong.  Now look at an obscure subject like God, with millions of  view points, with so many vague descriptions, with, In all probability, some describing it incorrectly and throwing us off.  Certainly it is complicated and difficult.  Especially since God must be inferred from his "gravitational pull".
> 
> But by not buying their description and by not understanding his wisdom it does not mean that you can logically rule out God.  By him not presenting himself as you would, if you were God, does not rule him out.  By admitting that we just don't understand and leaving it at that, no annoyance from us "Christian fools", no annoyance over the many gods man has created,  we are open to maybe one day understanding.
> 
> It's amazing to me,  when you start to "see" God, you start to look at all these silly notions about God and realize how many are actually quite accurate but simply poorly described (from our point if view).



But now wait...
You can show us a pencil and not only can we can describe it in all those different ways BUT we can show you what it is made of..what it does..how it is used and everyone can get a better understanding of exactly what a pencil is! Can you show me your God?
I thought I knew him at one time until I realized that I really did not know anything about the God of the Bible except for what is written in the Bible which NONE of it was written by God or even claimed to be written by God.

You obviously seem to think that you have an accurate description of the God you worship. How can you be so sure? How is your version accurate?

I can admit that as much as I thought I knew about God the reality of it is he never ever spoke to me. He never ever appeared to me. I cannot tell you what Jesus looked like. I cannot tell you how tall he is.
In fact if Jesus was in a lineup with two other men of middle eastern descent could you pick him out?
Can you honestly tell me that out of all the people in the history of religion that, by your own words, have vague descriptions..millions of view points and incorrect descriptions..YOU got it all right????

You seem to think that you are equipped to accurately see God.
Well I am your Huckleberry.....God has graced you with a gift that is well above Billions of believers that live now and billions that have passed on...
Surely having such a powerful force on your side it is going to be easy to once and for all show me the one and only universal TRUTH that describes your God.
I am open to see him. I can admit I am wrong and change. All you need to do is show me what you claim you see and tell me what you know and pass that pencil around so we can all get a look.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> We haven't made any progress from here.  I'm not meaning to argue that God does exist, I want to know how athiest are sure he doesn't.
> 
> It seems the only explanation is that they cannot prove that he does exist, is that fair?  So wouldn't it be more prudent for all athiest to become agnostics? Really, I'm not trying to stir the pot.
> 
> Anyway, I think we are
> I enjoyed the discussion, look forward to more but not about does God exist or not,  I can't convince you guys and you can't convince me.



This is your opportunity to get yourself out of the corner you painted yourself into.
The explanation of " atheists can't  prove god doesn't exist" really is all the information they need.
If you want to use the logic of  "can't  prove he doesn't exist" then are you willing to concede every other god that has ever been talked about is as real as your god???....because you cannot prove they aren't???
I am trying to figure out how you have narrowed it down to just one using your own logic.


----------



## Day trip

bullethead said:


> But now wait...
> You can show us a pencil and not only can we can describe it in all those different ways BUT we can show you what it is made of..what it does..how it is used and everyone can get a better understanding of exactly what a pencil is! Can you show me your God?
> I thought I knew him at one time until I realized that I really did not know anything about the God of the Bible except for what is written in the Bible which NONE of it was written by God or even claimed to be written by God.
> 
> You obviously seem to think that you have an accurate description of the God you worship. How can you be so sure? How is your version accurate?
> 
> I can admit that as much as I thought I knew about God the reality of it is he never ever spoke to me. He never ever appeared to me. I cannot tell you what Jesus looked like. I cannot tell you how tall he is.
> In fact if Jesus was in a lineup with two other men of middle eastern descent could you pick him out?
> Can you honestly tell me that out of all the people in the history of religion that, by your own words, have vague descriptions..millions of view points and incorrect descriptions..YOU got it all right????
> 
> You seem to think that you are equipped to accurately see God.
> Well I am your Huckleberry.....God has graced you with a gift that is well above Billions of believers that live now and billions that have past on...
> Surely having such a powerful force on your side it is going to be easy to once and for all show me the one and only universal TRUTH that describes your God.
> I am open to see him. I can admit I am wrong and change. All you need to do is show me what you claim you see and tell me what you know and pass that pencil around so we can all get a look.



I'm sorry that I'm frustrating you.  Im not trying to create a problem.  Don't think that I'm an expert on God, that I see him better than others.  Apparently I'm not getting my points across very well because your replies and Walt's replies do not correlate to my comments.  No, I can't show you God, he will reveal himself if you would open your heart again and be patient.  I read your story.  I know how hard that was.  I still remember looking in my mothers eyes as I walked out of her hospital room for the last time.  As awful as your experience was, I am jealous.  I wish I could have been there for her last breath.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> We haven't made any progress from here.  I'm not meaning to argue that God does exist, I want to know how athiest are sure he doesn't.
> 
> It seems the only explanation is that they cannot prove that he does exist, is that fair?  So wouldn't it be more prudent for all athiest to become agnostics? Really, I'm not trying to stir the pot.
> 
> Anyway, I think we are
> I enjoyed the discussion, look forward to more but not about does God exist or not,  I can't convince you guys and you can't convince me.





> I want to know how athiest are sure he doesn't.





> It seems the only explanation is that they cannot prove that he does exist, is that fair?


Basically yes. If you or anybody else cant prove something exists what is there to make one believe that it does?
The only answer is faith and faith is required for the precise reason that there is no proof or even a preponderance of the evidence.
That's why I asked you to name some things that exist that cant be proven to exist and you could only come up with an "assumption".


> So wouldn't it be more prudent for all athiest to become agnostics?


Based on the above why would it be more prudent? Its not like they are inaccurate.
And your description of Agnostic as "I don't know" is not entirely accurate.
Im Agnostic and what I do know is there is no evidence for the Christian God other than the Bible. And I also know the Bible isn't the only book out there making basically the same claims.
I also know that where we sit today it hasn't been 100% proven how life originated. That means to me I have to leave any and all possibilities open until there is proof one way or another. But there is no scientific evidence that points to any god. None of them. 
You had mentioned before about us not believing people's testimony. What I do believe is that those who believe in a god, any of them, throughout history all have stories about things that happen that they attribute to the particular god that coincidently they just so happen to believe in.


> I can't convince you guys and you can't convince me.


I have no desire to convince you of anything. Im merely giving you the other side of the argument/debate. 
Do with it what you will.
By the way Im curious, do you know that almost all of us were believers at one time? That has a lot to do with why you aren't going to convince us. Been there, done that.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> I'm sorry that I'm frustrating you.  Im not trying to create a problem.  Don't think that I'm an expert on God, that I see him better than others.  Apparently I'm not getting my points across very well because your replies and Walt's replies do not correlate to my comments.  No, I can't show you God, he will reveal himself if you would open your heart again and be patient.  I read your story.  I know how hard that was.  I still remember looking in my mothers eyes as I walked out of her hospital room for the last time.  As awful as your experience was, I am jealous.  I wish I could have been there for her last breath.



You are telling me that God will reveal himself...as if it is fact...and you cannot even prove your exists let alone is any better than the tens of thousands of other gods that people believe in.
I appreciate your passion and faith but you do the same things that you say atheists do.
It is as if you almost need others to be in the same unsure predicament as you are so there is comfort in numbers. So much invested that you cannot afford to be mistaken even though you admittedly actually have nothing nor can provide anything to someone else.
You may have missed posts that I have made explaining how I got to my current situation.
I did not set out to disprove a god...I set out to back up what I was taught and believed.
25 years later I am further from my task than when I started and for no better reason than there is no evidence to help me. None.


----------



## Israel

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I just hold that the sender of the gift is randomness in the universe. I could live to be 100, I could get hit by a meteor as I type this, it's all possible and tomorrow is not promised.


How random is random?


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> How random is random?


Completely...


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> I'm sorry that I'm frustrating you.  Im not trying to create a problem.  Don't think that I'm an expert on God, that I see him better than others.  Apparently I'm not getting my points across very well because your replies and Walt's replies do not correlate to my comments.  No, I can't show you God, he will reveal himself if you would open your heart again and be patient.  I read your story.  I know how hard that was.  I still remember looking in my mothers eyes as I walked out of her hospital room for the last time.  As awful as your experience was, I am jealous.  I wish I could have been there for her last breath.



Then when you said this


Day trip said:


> It's amazing to me,  when you start to "see" God, you start to look at all these silly notions about God and realize how many are actually quite accurate but simply poorly described (from our point if view).


 and you are not including yourself as one who sees God better than others.. Who are you talking about? How can you make that claim? 
With words like "me" and "our point of view" It certainly sounds like you have included yourself as one who does see god better than others.
I am interested in the information that allows you to achieve this better than others. Are you making an unprovable claim in order to make it sound more official or can you back up the claim?


----------



## Day trip

Bullet, I can give you my story and if you want you can walk my path and see where it goes.  Its a long story but if your interested, we can take it a little at a time so its not a burden, if not I wont bother.  If your interested, the beginning: 
I was raised Catholic and went to church until college.  Religeon and all the wild stories did not seem consistent with life as I knew it so for ten years I was just living, no opinion either way.  I graduated, had a great job, a great wife, making a good salary and by 27 Years old, all I had to do was to show up every day for the next thirty or forty years and my life would be considered by most a great success. I had it made and I was miserable.  Not about earthly things (I had it made) but something inside was craving something else.  I can't tell you exactly how it felt or what it was.  I didn't run to the bible. I wasn't thinking about Religeon.   I wanted truth.  So I started with philosophy, thinking I may be inspired to understand life a little better.  I read quite a few books, getting little tidbits of feel good quotes here and there but nothing earth shattering.  Then I found a book that sent my mind to really working.  "Professions of a Savoyard Vicar" by Jean Jaqued Rousseau.  I read it 4 or 5 times over about 6 months.  Researching some ideas from the book and really attempted to understand the authors purpose.  If you want to continue, let's read it together.  We can have a book club meeting and discuss things critically, with no preconceived notions or any baggage from what we've been told about God.  That's how I began. I pretty much called bull-stinky on evetything but truth.  
You ask me to show you God.  I cannot, you must discover him.   I can show you how I discovered God and you can make your own opinions and help refine mine if you want.  This took me many years so if you are interested lets talk.  You are obviously a smart and interesting guy. I would enjoy the discussions.


----------



## ambush80

Day trip said:


> Bullet, I can give you my story and if you want you can walk my path and see where it goes.  Its a long story but if your interested, we can take it a little at a time so its not a burden, if not I wont bother.  If your interested, the beginning:
> I was raised Catholic and went to church until college.  Religeon and all the wild stories did not seem consistent with life as I knew it so for ten years I was just living, no opinion either way.  I graduated, had a great job, a great wife, making a good salary and by 27 Years old, all I had to do was to show up every day for the next thirty or forty years and my life would be considered by most a great success. I had it made and I was miserable.  Not about earthly things (I had it made) but something inside was craving something else.  I can't tell you exactly how it felt or what it was.  I didn't run to the bible. I wasn't thinking about Religeon.   I wanted truth.  So I started with philosophy, thinking I may be inspired to understand life a little better.  I read quite a few books, getting little tidbits of feel good quotes here and there but nothing earth shattering.  Then I found a book that sent my mind to really working.  "Professions of a Savoyard Vicar" by Jean Jaqued Rousseau.  I read it 4 or 5 times over about 6 months.  Researching some ideas from the book and really attempted to understand the authors purpose.  If you want to continue, let's read it together.  We can have a book club meeting and discuss things critically, with no preconceived notions or any baggage from what we've been told about God.  That's how I began. I pretty much called bull-stinky on evetything but truth.
> You ask me to show you God.  I cannot, you must discover him.   I can show you how I discovered God and you can make your own opinions and help refine mine if you want.  This took me many years so if you are interested lets talk.  You are obviously a smart and interesting guy. I would enjoy the discussions.



I'm tingling with anticipation.  

Please, discuss.  I might even get a copy myself.....


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> Bullet, I can give you my story and if you want you can walk my path and see where it goes.  Its a long story but if your interested, we can take it a little at a time so its not a burden, if not I wont bother.  If your interested, the beginning:
> I was raised Catholic and went to church until college.  Religeon and all the wild stories did not seem consistent with life as I knew it so for ten years I was just living, no opinion either way.  I graduated, had a great job, a great wife, making a good salary and by 27 Years old, all I had to do was to show up every day for the next thirty or forty years and my life would be considered by most a great success. I had it made and I was miserable.  Not about earthly things (I had it made) but something inside was craving something else.  I can't tell you exactly how it felt or what it was.  I didn't run to the bible. I wasn't thinking about Religeon.   I wanted truth.  So I started with philosophy, thinking I may be inspired to understand life a little better.  I read quite a few books, getting little tidbits of feel good quotes here and there but nothing earth shattering.  Then I found a book that sent my mind to really working.  "Professions of a Savoyard Vicar" by Jean Jaqued Rousseau.  I read it 4 or 5 times over about 6 months.  Researching some ideas from the book and really attempted to understand the authors purpose.  If you want to continue, let's read it together.  We can have a book club meeting and discuss things critically, with no preconceived notions or any baggage from what we've been told about God.  That's how I began. I pretty much called bull-stinky on evetything but truth.
> You ask me to show you God.  I cannot, you must discover him.   I can show you how I discovered God and you can make your own opinions and help refine mine if you want.  This took me many years so if you are interested lets talk.  You are obviously a smart and interesting guy. I would enjoy the discussions.



I appreciate you shared your story.
I wish I had time to read the book and discuss.
Really though I was just looking for answers to questions I asked you because I felt that your statements were made in a way that seemed as if you hinted in having something more than bold claims. I had hoped to get further into that.
I do appreciate your honesty.
By all means continue with your story. I will certainly follow and chime in as I can.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

For me, although I trust God for everything, seeing him work in mighty ways, even expecting his intervention when things look glem, I can not put it into words, much less show any of it as being from God, as much as I want to, even when my own children are the one's that I want to convince the most. I have come to terms with it being by faith, each one individual, by his own experience. And once I realize this, It is probably better this way. I have faith based on my own experience, not my father's experience.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Bullet, I can give you my story and if you want you can walk my path and see where it goes.  Its a long story but if your interested, we can take it a little at a time so its not a burden, if not I wont bother.  If your interested, the beginning:
> I was raised Catholic and went to church until college.  Religeon and all the wild stories did not seem consistent with life as I knew it so for ten years I was just living, no opinion either way.  I graduated, had a great job, a great wife, making a good salary and by 27 Years old, all I had to do was to show up every day for the next thirty or forty years and my life would be considered by most a great success. I had it made and I was miserable.  Not about earthly things (I had it made) but something inside was craving something else.  I can't tell you exactly how it felt or what it was.  I didn't run to the bible. I wasn't thinking about Religeon.   I wanted truth.  So I started with philosophy, thinking I may be inspired to understand life a little better.  I read quite a few books, getting little tidbits of feel good quotes here and there but nothing earth shattering.  Then I found a book that sent my mind to really working.  "Professions of a Savoyard Vicar" by Jean Jaqued Rousseau.  I read it 4 or 5 times over about 6 months.  Researching some ideas from the book and really attempted to understand the authors purpose.  If you want to continue, let's read it together.  We can have a book club meeting and discuss things critically, with no preconceived notions or any baggage from what we've been told about God.  That's how I began. I pretty much called bull-stinky on evetything but truth.
> You ask me to show you God.  I cannot, you must discover him.   I can show you how I discovered God and you can make your own opinions and help refine mine if you want.  This took me many years so if you are interested lets talk.  You are obviously a smart and interesting guy. I would enjoy the discussions.


Based on this book, do you contend that "God" is the Christian God and the Christian God is the one true God?


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> Based on this book, do you contend that "God" is the Christian God and the Christian God is the one true God?



Goodness no!  It's was not that simple.  It was just a step along the way.  That idea of Christian God and true God being above other Gods that keeps coming up, I have to say I dislike it.  It burns me a little. I almost see it as an insult, i hope it's not.  

What I am talking about is not some idol or statue.  What I call God is not a dude sitting on a cloud.  What I call God is the creator, the origin of everything.  And when I think about it, what makes me give a darn, what makes me love "him" (for lack of a better word) is through my life experience, I have discovered that he "loves" (again, for lack of better word) us.  God is love!   God IS.  Whether we believe in him or not.  This "God" is what my soul was craving.  (Referring back to my story of being so successful but miserable)  I often wonder if people really and truely are rejecting God the creator or are they rejecting man's pathetic description.   Then by rejecting mans description, it becomes a barrier to knowing the Creator, Our Father.  

No Walt, my story is long.  Their was a complete change of mindset, which is a literal translation for metanoia as the Greeks say.  Metanoia is Greek for repentance,  I repented, I changed my mindset and discovered God.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> Goodness no!  It's was not that simple.  It was just a step along the way.  That idea of Christian God and true God being above other Gods that keeps coming up, I have to say I dislike it.  It burns me a little. I almost see it as an insult, i hope it's not.
> 
> What I am talking about is not some idol or statue.  What I call God is not a dude sitting on a cloud.  What I call God is the creator, the origin of everything.  And when I think about it, what makes me give a darn, what makes me love "him" (for lack of a better word) is through my life experience, I have discovered that he "loves" (again, for lack of better word) us.  God is love!   God IS.  Whether we believe in him or not.  This "God" is what my soul was craving.  (Referring back to my story of being so successful but miserable)  I often wonder if people really and truely are rejecting God the creator or are they rejecting man's pathetic description.   Then by rejecting mans description, it becomes a barrier to knowing the Creator, Our Father.
> 
> No Walt, my story is long.  Their was a complete change of mindset, which is a literal translation for metanoia as the Greeks say.  Metanoia is Greek for repentance,  I repented, I changed my mindset and discovered God.



Please tell us more about God is Love.
I understand that where you are at and for whatever reasons you may need a loving God.
Can you describe to us how you feel this love?
Is it possible that this love is through certain actions?
Does his actions speak louder than words?
What examples can we take away as proof of his love?

Forgive me for all of the questions but I am interested in how you view things so that I may attempt to look at it in the same manner and see if I can relate or see if it drums up even more questions.
Basically more clear for me or more cloudy.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> Goodness no!  It's was not that simple.  It was just a step along the way.  That idea of Christian God and true God being above other Gods that keeps coming up, I have to say I dislike it.  It burns me a little. I almost see it as an insult, i hope it's not.
> 
> What I am talking about is not some idol or statue.  What I call God is not a dude sitting on a cloud.  What I call God is the creator, the origin of everything.  And when I think about it, what makes me give a darn, what makes me love "him" (for lack of a better word) is through my life experience, I have discovered that he "loves" (again, for lack of better word) us.  God is love!   God IS.  Whether we believe in him or not.  This "God" is what my soul was craving.  (Referring back to my story of being so successful but miserable)  I often wonder if people really and truely are rejecting God the creator or are they rejecting man's pathetic description.   Then by rejecting mans description, it becomes a barrier to knowing the Creator, Our Father.
> 
> No Walt, my story is long.  Their was a complete change of mindset, which is a literal translation for metanoia as the Greeks say.  Metanoia is Greek for repentance,  I repented, I changed my mindset and discovered God.


So do you consider yourself a Deist, a Christian or other?
EDIT -


> I often wonder if people really and truely are rejecting God the creator or are they rejecting man's pathetic description.


In my case I can tell you that I reject organized religion. I believe the Bible is entirely man inspired with an agenda to merely further the interests of Christianity (not God).
However that leaves me with zero information about God and I don't I feel the need to conjure one up to explain why I am here.
So I would fall into your rejecting mans pathetic description category. However that's the only description there is.


----------



## Day trip

First, let me clarify my personal beliefs about the Christian God, the one True God, etc.  In order for me to discuss this, I need a clean slate.  I don't want to continue to have to be answer about claims made by someone else or your preconceived notions. YET!  

 When we talk about Buddha, Allah, God, Zeus, etc,  it is my belief that their is indeed one True God, however, all of these names are from different groups trying to explain the same Creator from their own points of view.  Like the pencil we discussed yesterday.  So right off the bat, their is no one God above another.  Their is One God. 

Next, the Christian God vs other versions;  I was raised Christian, Catholic as a matter of fact, so yes, I prefer the Christian version of  worshiping God.  If I spent years studying other religions, I could speak for them but as of now, I have only briefly touched on the teaching of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and several other minor religions.  Therefore, I don't know if other religions are better at bringing men to God. What I know is that the Christian Religeon brought me to God and the more I study its teaching, the more clear the picture becomes. It is possible that some other Religeon could be spot on and could give you the proof you need, could be much better than Christianity at fulfilling God's wishes.  It's possible. But Christianity is the path I traveled to God,  it may not be the only path. But I have to say this, I hope I don't lose you here,  You cannot get to God except through Jesus.  That's why Christianity is the "one true Religeon".  Bear with me now, give me that clean slate to work on, I need you to understand what that really means and not any preconceived notions.  But we will discuss that later along with the questions about God is Love, if you don't mind.  
PS, Walt, you can categorize me as a human being but if you won't accept that, a Christian, A Catholic Christian.  
 Goodnight.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The only kicker to all of those other paths to God is they don't include Jesus. Jesus is the only way to get to or see that one true God.
There is a compassionate part of me that wishes there were many paths to see the one True God.


----------



## Day trip

Artfuldodger said:


> The only kicker to all of those other paths to God is they don't include Jesus. Jesus is the only way to get to or see that one true God.
> There is a compassionate part of me that wishes there were many paths to see the one True God.



Yes, but we haven't got that far yet.  So we must define and understand what it means to "Come through Jesus". 
In a nut shell, it means repenting and learning to think and act like Jesus.  I leave the possibility open to other religions because others may be practicing some of his principles without knowing about Jesus. Consider the South Pacific Islander, is he at fault and blamed for not following Jesus if he has never heard of Jesus? No!  Because all men have been given the ability to know God.  It is written in their hearts.  So the path to God does go through Jesus, some just can't read the name of the road.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> The only kicker to all of those other paths to God is they don't include Jesus. Jesus is the only way to get to or see that one true God.
> There is a compassionate part of me that wishes there were many paths to see the one True God.



This Muslim found Jesus and converted through reading the koran.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> The place where all other _forms_ fail is the place at which all fails no matter what name is attached...the place where Christ alone succeeds remains.
> Not in form, but in substance.


We finally have a believer willing to go step by step  in detailed discussion to tell us how HE came to his beliefs and you are taking it as an opportunity to jump in and get a few more unsubstantiated claims in. Day Trip is willing to take the time to walk us through how he got to his conclusions.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> This Muslim found Jesus and converted through reading the koran.



And there are men of the cloth that quit Christianity.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> And there are men of the cloth that quit Christianity.


Its interesting that he is rejecting his religion based on the Qurans inconsistencies to it. 
Wait until he gets done with the Bible.
I kinda feel bad for him.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting that he is rejecting his religion based on the Qurans inconsistencies to it.
> Wait until he gets done with the Bible.
> I kinda feel bad for him.



Lolol.
It would be interesting to see how many converts actually stick with it. Or make a vid to tell how it didn't work out. 
Usually these vids are made as propaganda by one side or another and only tell the story that wants to be told at the expense of the individual.
I remember when I was active in church and the amount of new comers and re-introductions and converts that would come in and get involved like gangbusters. Then within a year they are nowhere to be seen in either the extra activities or the pews.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting that he is rejecting his religion based on the Qurans inconsistencies to it.
> Wait until he gets done with the Bible.
> I kinda feel bad for him.



He will be fine with the Bible, no doubt he will change some of his ideologies as he grows in faith.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> He will be fine with the Bible, no doubt he will change some of his ideologies as he grows in faith.


I didn't realize you knew him.
What we do know is he is willing to think critically about religious books.


----------



## Day trip

bullethead said:


> Please tell us more about God is Love.
> I understand that where you are at and for whatever reasons you may need a loving God.
> Can you describe to us how you feel this love?
> Is it possible that this love is through certain actions?
> Does his actions speak louder than words?
> What examples can we take away as proof of his love?
> 
> Forgive me for all of the questions but I am interested in how you view things so that I may attempt to look at it in the same manner and see if I can relate or see if it drums up even more questions.
> Basically more clear for me or more cloudy.



I love the questions.  Before I start on replying to them, I want to clear one more thing up.  Re-reading my posts, I get this impression of a guy who just has it all figured out.  I want it to be clear that that is NOT the case.  I have something that I have discovered that I want to share.  It is a work in progress but far from complete, if completion is possible this side of the grave.  But I'm not ready to tie the bible in yet.  That's not how it happened for me.  

After reading Rousseau and some other philosophers, I was anxious.  I had never stopped believing in God, I just left it alone and went on with life because it made no sense to me.  Did you catch that?  "It made no sense to me"!  Like I was the almighty gold standard and if I didn't understand it then it was hogwash.  A lot of pride there.   So I came to the conclusion that if God was real, I would rather be held accountable for my own thoughts and actions rather than simply follow rules and sacraments that I didn't understand because I am "supposed to".  

I would rather look someone in the face and say, "I did my best and will be glad to suffer any consequences for that." Or, "I committed these sins and I know I deserve the consequences of them."  Rather than say,"Well, they told me to."  

So this is my story, my ideas, all  per your permission. I do not know it all, I do not have all the answers but what I have is worth discusding.  So far I don't think I've made any unsubstantiated claims without admitting them and delaying discussion until I've built up to it.  

I'll go into your questions later, I don't time now to give it the attention it deserves.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> I didn't realize you knew him.
> What we do know is he is willing to think critically about religious books.



He's one of my brothers. 

 I think you've possibly missed something here about this guy. He didnt think critically about the koran..he thought critically about what was being taught to him about the koran. This happens in churches and tbn every day, false teachings are all around, but Christ can supercede that and does.

 He was able to find Jesus as Lord in the koran, and it's an odd thing, because I have noticed myself when God calls, you start to see Jesus as Lord in the darndest places..In poetry, songs, movies, even in the newspaper. Ive even sat in the woods way up in a tree and looked around and saw Jesus as Lord all around me.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> I love the questions.  Before I start on replying to them, I want to clear one more thing up.  Re-reading my posts, I get this impression of a guy who just has it all figured out.  I want it to be clear that that is NOT the case.  I have something that I have discovered that I want to share.  It is a work in progress but far from complete, if completion is possible this side of the grave.  But I'm not ready to tie the bible in yet.  That's not how it happened for me.
> 
> After reading Rousseau and some other philosophers, I was anxious.  I had never stopped believing in God, I just left it alone and went on with life because it made no sense to me.  Did you catch that?  "It made no sense to me"!  Like I was the almighty gold standard and if I didn't understand it then it was hogwash.  A lot of pride there.   So I came to the conclusion that if God was real, I would rather be held accountable for my own thoughts and actions rather than simply follow rules and sacraments that I didn't understand because I am "supposed to".
> 
> I would rather look someone in the face and say, "I did my best and will be glad to suffer any consequences for that." Or, "I committed these sins and I know I deserve the consequences of them."  Rather than say,"Well, they told me to."
> 
> So this is my story, my ideas, all  per your permission. I do not know it all, I do not have all the answers but what I have is worth discusding.  So far I don't think I've made any unsubstantiated claims without admitting them and delaying discussion until I've built up to it.
> 
> I'll go into your questions later, I don't time now to give it the attention it deserves.



I can appreciate all of that.
Thanks


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> He's one of my brothers.
> 
> I think you've possibly missed something here about this guy. He didnt think critically about the koran..he thought critically about what was being taught to him about the koran. This happens in churches and tbn every day, false teachings are all around, but Christ can supercede that and does.
> 
> He was able to find Jesus as Lord in the koran, and it's an odd thing, because I have noticed myself when God calls, you start to see Jesus as Lord in the darndest places..In poetry, songs, movies, even in the newspaper. Ive even sat in the woods way up in a tree and looked around and saw Jesus as Lord all around me.


What about people like me that lost God and Jesus in organized religion and within the pages of Scripture?


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> What about people like me that lost God and Jesus in organized religion and within the pages of Scripture?



Want to discuss those pages of scripture and get you back where you belong?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> He's one of my brothers.
> 
> I think you've possibly missed something here about this guy. He didnt think critically about the koran..he thought critically about what was being taught to him about the koran. This happens in churches and tbn every day, false teachings are all around, but Christ can supercede that and does.
> 
> He was able to find Jesus as Lord in the koran, and it's an odd thing, because I have noticed myself when God calls, you start to see Jesus as Lord in the darndest places..In poetry, songs, movies, even in the newspaper. Ive even sat in the woods way up in a tree and looked around and saw Jesus as Lord all around me.


Why is it odd? You believe in Jesus therefore that's who you see in those places.
If you saw Ozzy Osbourne in those places then I would agree its odd.
And the guy didn't "find Jesus" as though he went on some sabbatical in the desert and Jesus appeared before him.
He translated and counted words in a religious book.
As for false teachings when you consider the thousands of brands of Christianity it would appear that most of you think most of you have it wrong.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Want to discuss those pages of scripture and get you back where you belong?



I have been doing that for 25 years.
You and I do not have enough years to start now and cover and discuss every verse from Genesis to Revelation.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Why is it odd? You believe in Jesus therefore that's who you see in those places.
> If you saw Ozzy Osbourne in those places then I would agree its odd.
> And the guy didn't "find Jesus" as though he went on some sabbatical in the desert and Jesus appeared before him.
> He translated and counted words in a religious book.
> As for false teachings when you consider the thousands of brands of Christianity it would appear that most of you think most of you have it wrong.



Yes! It would be way more impressive for a non believer or a non religious person to constantly see Jesus.
I am very open minded. I am all for Jesus appearing to me. Heck I'll take good old fashioned drop-kick off the top rope from him if he needs to get my attention because I don't see him every morning in my shredded mini wheats. He may be a God. His Pops may be a God. Who ever or what ever might be a God. IF anything that is God wants to get my attention they have the advantage of using their God powers to do it in a way that only a God would know will work.
Till then it is gonna take more than some video of a former Quran follower to convince me.
When I was a Christian I thought it was a personal relationship because how I felt Jesus affected me differed in ways than other Christians were affected.
I went with that until I had the same things still  happen and I could appreciate situations and outcomes just the same without a deity involved.

Call it 50/50 or Even Steven  or whatever.
Show me a former Muslim that now worships Jesus and I will show you a former Christian that now either worships another God...or nothing at all.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would think it easy for a Muslim or Jew to find Jesus in their scriptures but what about Hindus or Shinto?

Isn't having more pathways to God other than Jesus called Unitarian Universalism?


----------



## Day trip

bullethead said:


> Please tell us more about God is Love.
> I understand that where you are at and for whatever reasons you may need a loving God.
> Can you describe to us how you feel this love?
> Is it possible that this love is through certain actions?
> Does his actions speak louder than words?
> What examples can we take away as proof of his love?
> 
> Forgive me for all of the questions but I am interested in how you view things so that I may attempt to look at it in the same manner and see if I can relate or see if it drums up even more questions.
> Basically more clear for me or more cloudy.



When all of this started, I was on top of the world.  I had won.  I had money, I had a loving family, I had friends, a stimulating job, vacations, etc.  I didn't need a loving God, I was doing great.  But despite having everything a man could want, I was miserable.  So the philosophical search began.   I am a science guy.  I have studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, genetics, philosophy, psychology, evolution, etc.  
 So the universe began with all matter and energy being confined in an area the size of an atom and instantaneously expanding into what is still expanding today.  Then through billions of years of random trial and error, we have advanced life forms with the capability of higher thought.   With this unguided force of evolution, organisms are produced with the instinct and physical attributes to survive.  And that is certainly a large part of the universe that we know today.  But a few things don't fit.  
First, where did the matter and energy that became our universe begin?  Something had to create it.  Infinity is not the answer.  It can go back so far in time to make our feeble minds swim, but somewhere, at some time,  their was a creator.  By accident or on purpose, something caused our existence.  
Second, why would mere chance, evolution, create beings who are willing to risk their existence for the sake of another?  For the sake of someone outside of their gene pool?  And by creating this being, how long would it take until that being is no longer part of the gene pool, thereby eliminating its existence?  Yet instead of disappearing, this compassion, this willingness to risk ones life to save another remains and grows stronger as the species develops.  
Third, and maybe a subset of the second, a sense of right and wrong. Evolutionarily, a species does what is right, always.  It is neither right or wrong to the evolved animal, it simply is.  Right is considered what it is programmed to do.  It may not be convienent for others but it is still understood as right.  Yet beings, from different cultures, from different age groups, prior to being taught, have been demonstrated to understand certain social norms, ideas of right and wrong that are universally understood.  


These thoughts (majorly summarized) led me to believe that their is indeed a creator and that this creator did not simply let the wheels turn.  This creator, whom we call God, did more than create a perfect masterpiece,  he instilled something in his masterpiece to stir things up.  Guilt, remorse, compassion, these are hardly valuable tools for an animal trying to survive.  He created a survivalist animal that desires more than just the need to survive.  The animalistic survival instincts are there and are very strong, but their is another instinct, another desire in him.  A desire or craving that is not satisfied by perfect evolutionary development.  The evolutionary desire to survive and to look out for ourselves first is called the flesh.  This second desire, this seemingly useless craving to look out for truth and justice is called the soul.  

These were my initial conclusions after the philosophical search.  I still haven't approached the bible or Christianity other than borrowing names to call these developments.  

Before I start the sticky business of describing how I proceeded, let me know how you all feel about this much.  Nothing groundbreaking here, but now it was mine, inspired by others but found to be consistent with life as I knew it.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I would think it easy for a Muslim or Jew to find Jesus in their scriptures but what about Hindus or Shinto?
> 
> Isn't having more pathways to God other than Jesus called Unitarian Universalism?[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> We are creating a force more powerful than one person or one religion. By welcoming people who identify with Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Earth-Centered Traditions, Hinduism, Islam, and more, we are embodying a vision “beyond belief:” a vision of peace, love, and understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unitarian Universalists have a proud history of LGBTQ advocacy and inclusion. We have fought for marriage equality and equal rights since the movement began. Most of our congregations are Welcoming Congregations, which means they have gone through an educational process to widen their welcome to LGBTQ people of all ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sounds like pathways to God yes. But it isn't the Christian God. Just God.
Click to expand...


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> When all of this started, I was on top of the world.  I had won.  I had money, I had a loving family, I had friends, a stimulating job, vacations, etc.  I didn't need a loving God, I was doing great.  But despite having everything a man could want, I was miserable.  So the philosophical search began.   I am a science guy.  I have studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, genetics, philosophy, psychology, evolution, etc.
> So the universe began with all matter and energy being confined in an area the size of an atom and instantaneously expanding into what is still expanding today.  Then through billions of years of random trial and error, we have advanced life forms with the capability of higher thought.   With this unguided force of evolution, organisms are produced with the instinct and physical attributes to survive.  And that is certainly a large part of the universe that we know today.  But a few things don't fit.
> First, where did the matter and energy that became our universe begin?  Something had to create it.  Infinity is not the answer.  It can go back so far in time to make our feeble minds swim, but somewhere, at some time,  their was a creator.  By accident or on purpose, something caused our existence.
> Second, why would mere chance, evolution, create beings who are willing to risk their existence for the sake of another?  For the sake of someone outside of their gene pool?  And by creating this being, how long would it take until that being is no longer part of the gene pool, thereby eliminating its existence?  Yet instead of disappearing, this compassion, this willingness to risk ones life to save another remains and grows stronger as the species develops.
> Third, and maybe a subset of the second, a sense of right and wrong. Evolutionarily, a species does what is right, always.  It is neither right or wrong to the evolved animal, it simply is.  Right is considered what it is programmed to do.  It may not be convienent for others but it is still understood as right.  Yet beings, from different cultures, from different age groups, prior to being taught, have been demonstrated to understand certain social norms, ideas of right and wrong that are universally understood.
> 
> 
> These thoughts (majorly summarized) led me to believe that their is indeed a creator and that this creator did not simply let the wheels turn.  This creator, whom we call God, did more than create a perfect masterpiece,  he instilled something in his masterpiece to stir things up.  Guilt, remorse, compassion, these are hardly valuable tools for an animal trying to survive.  He created a survivalist animal that desires more than just the need to survive.  The animalistic survival instincts are there and are very strong, but their is another instinct, another desire in him.  A desire or craving that is not satisfied by perfect evolutionary development.  The evolutionary desire to survive and to look out for ourselves first is called the flesh.  This second desire, this seemingly useless craving to look out for truth and justice is called the soul.
> 
> These were my initial conclusions after the philosophical search.  I still haven't approached the bible or Christianity other than borrowing names to call these developments.
> 
> Before I start the sticky business of describing how I proceeded, let me know how you all feel about this much.  Nothing groundbreaking here, but now it was mine, inspired by others but found to be consistent with life as I knew it.


A quick question -


> First, where did the matter and energy that became our universe begin?  Something had to create it.


I may be wrong but Im guessing this very important and logical question in your process gets dropped when it comes to God right?


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> When all of this started, I was on top of the world.  I had won.  I had money, I had a loving family, I had friends, a stimulating job, vacations, etc.  I didn't need a loving God, I was doing great.  But despite having everything a man could want, I was miserable.  So the philosophical search began.   I am a science guy.  I have studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, genetics, philosophy, psychology, evolution, etc.
> So the universe began with all matter and energy being confined in an area the size of an atom and instantaneously expanding into what is still expanding today.  Then through billions of years of random trial and error, we have advanced life forms with the capability of higher thought.   With this unguided force of evolution, organisms are produced with the instinct and physical attributes to survive.  And that is certainly a large part of the universe that we know today.  But a few things don't fit.
> First, where did the matter and energy that became our universe begin?  Something had to create it.  Infinity is not the answer.  It can go back so far in time to make our feeble minds swim, but somewhere, at some time,  their was a creator.  By accident or on purpose, something caused our existence.
> Second, why would mere chance, evolution, create beings who are willing to risk their existence for the sake of another?  For the sake of someone outside of their gene pool?  And by creating this being, how long would it take until that being is no longer part of the gene pool, thereby eliminating its existence?  Yet instead of disappearing, this compassion, this willingness to risk ones life to save another remains and grows stronger as the species develops.
> Third, and maybe a subset of the second, a sense of right and wrong. Evolutionarily, a species does what is right, always.  It is neither right or wrong to the evolved animal, it simply is.  Right is considered what it is programmed to do.  It may not be convienent for others but it is still understood as right.  Yet beings, from different cultures, from different age groups, prior to being taught, have been demonstrated to understand certain social norms, ideas of right and wrong that are universally understood.
> 
> 
> These thoughts (majorly summarized) led me to believe that their is indeed a creator and that this creator did not simply let the wheels turn.  This creator, whom we call God, did more than create a perfect masterpiece,  he instilled something in his masterpiece to stir things up.  Guilt, remorse, compassion, these are hardly valuable tools for an animal trying to survive.  He created a survivalist animal that desires more than just the need to survive.  The animalistic survival instincts are there and are very strong, but their is another instinct, another desire in him.  A desire or craving that is not satisfied by perfect evolutionary development.  The evolutionary desire to survive and to look out for ourselves first is called the flesh.  This second desire, this seemingly useless craving to look out for truth and justice is called the soul.
> 
> These were my initial conclusions after the philosophical search.  I still haven't approached the bible or Christianity other than borrowing names to call these developments.
> 
> Before I start the sticky business of describing how I proceeded, let me know how you all feel about this much.  Nothing groundbreaking here, but now it was mine, inspired by others but found to be consistent with life as I knew it.


"Infinity is not the answer...something had to create it."
Who created God? Who created the creator of God?

We only can trace things back to that Big Bang but there are unlimited possibilities that may have been before that.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> "Infinity is not the answer...something had to create it."
> Who created God? Who created the creator of God?
> 
> We only can trace things back to that Big Bang but there are unlimited possibilities that may have been before that.


We are thinking along the same lines


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> When all of this started, I was on top of the world.  I had won.  I had money, I had a loving family, I had friends, a stimulating job, vacations, etc.  I didn't need a loving God, I was doing great.  But despite having everything a man could want, I was miserable.  So the philosophical search began.   I am a science guy.  I have studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, genetics, philosophy, psychology, evolution, etc.
> So the universe began with all matter and energy being confined in an area the size of an atom and instantaneously expanding into what is still expanding today.  Then through billions of years of random trial and error, we have advanced life forms with the capability of higher thought.   With this unguided force of evolution, organisms are produced with the instinct and physical attributes to survive.  And that is certainly a large part of the universe that we know today.  But a few things don't fit.
> First, where did the matter and energy that became our universe begin?  Something had to create it.  Infinity is not the answer.  It can go back so far in time to make our feeble minds swim, but somewhere, at some time,  their was a creator.  By accident or on purpose, something caused our existence.


I addressed that in previous reply  


Day trip said:


> Second, why would mere chance, evolution, create beings who are willing to risk their existence for the sake of another?


Why couldn't it work out that way? 





Day trip said:


> For the sake of someone outside of their gene pool?  And by creating this being, how long would it take until that being is no longer part of the gene pool, thereby eliminating its existence?  Yet instead of disappearing, this compassion, this willingness to risk ones life to save another remains and grows stronger as the species develops.


Humans existence is the equivalent of a grain of salt resting on the Himalayas compared to the existence of the Earth and Universe.
How do you figure this willingness to save others grows?
"We" have developed better and better ways to kill off each other. "We" kill each other over what version of a God the other believes in. "We"... all 9 Billion of "us" , if everyone had the same hair color, eye color, all believed in the same God, all liked the same baseball team, all drank the same beer and all liked the same color would have a peeing match on who would rule the rest. "We" if it came down to the last two people on Earth would smack the other over the head in order to establish some sort of dominance over the other.
Sorry. I do not agree with your assessment.


Day trip said:


> Third, and maybe a subset of the second, a sense of right and wrong. Evolutionarily, a species does what is right, always.  It is neither right or wrong to the evolved animal, it simply is.  Right is considered what it is programmed to do.  It may not be convienent for others but it is still understood as right.  Yet beings, from different cultures, from different age groups, prior to being taught, have been demonstrated to understand certain social norms, ideas of right and wrong that are universally understood.


Do Elk in Montana have social norms the same as Stags in New Zealand? Rights and Wrongs so to speak?




Day trip said:


> These thoughts (majorly summarized) led me to believe that their is indeed a creator and that this creator did not simply let the wheels turn.  This creator, whom we call God, did more than create a perfect masterpiece,  he instilled something in his masterpiece to stir things up.  Guilt, remorse, compassion, these are hardly valuable tools for an animal trying to survive.  He created a survivalist animal that desires more than just the need to survive.  The animalistic survival instincts are there and are very strong, but their is another instinct, another desire in him.  A desire or craving that is not satisfied by perfect evolutionary development.  The evolutionary desire to survive and to look out for ourselves first is called the flesh.  This second desire, this seemingly useless craving to look out for truth and justice is called the soul.


Did this same creator pick a spot for us to live that is totally safe from asteroids that can, have, and will hit us? Are we or are we not one giant hunk of rock away from being wiped off the planet?



Day trip said:


> These were my initial conclusions after the philosophical search.  I still haven't approached the bible or Christianity other than borrowing names to call these developments.


No need for Bible or Christianity just yet.



Day trip said:


> Before I start the sticky business of describing how I proceeded, let me know how you all feel about this much.  Nothing groundbreaking here, but now it was mine, inspired by others but found to be consistent with life as I knew it.


Lots O Ground to cover to make a case for a God. Then a loving caring God. Then a specific God. Then a God that also happens to be the only one an individual ever heard of or was taught about.

I am game.


----------



## Day trip

I didn't expect that to be the sticking point.  It seems logical that something had to create matter and energy.  I obviously can only say this is my deduction. Whatever the force is, whatever created the universe originally is what I call God.  No other ideas about "him" at the moment other than something exists, outside of the universe that created the universe. 

What about the sense of right and wrong, compassion and willingness to risk ones life to save another's?  It seems to me that those things are driven by something outside of evolutionary necessity.  I expected this to merit some discussion.


----------



## WaltL1

Day trip said:


> I didn't expect that to be the sticking point.  It seems logical that something had to create matter and energy.  I obviously can only say this is my deduction. Whatever the force is, whatever created the universe originally is what I call God.  No other ideas about "him" at the moment other than something exists, outside of the universe that created the universe.
> 
> What about the sense of right and wrong, compassion and willingness to risk ones life to save another's?  It seems to me that those things are driven by something outside of evolutionary necessity.  I expected this to merit some discussion.


It does merit discussion.


> compassion and willingness to risk ones life to save another's?


A survival instinct and learned behavior. Strength in numbers. If you protect and keep alive those in your group you are more likely to be able to gather more food, kill bigger and more animals and protect yourself from enemies.


> What about the sense of right and wrong


We can fill the pages of examples where humans of other cultures, places and right here on this forum don't agree on right and wrong.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> I didn't expect that to be the sticking point.  It seems logical that something had to create matter and energy.  I obviously can only say this is my deduction. Whatever the force is, whatever created the universe originally is what I call God.  No other ideas about "him" at the moment other than something exists, outside of the universe that created the universe.


Infinity certainly is a sticking point.
It is impossible for anything to be infinite....well except of course...my God.
See how that works?
**EDIT**
Why can't Energy be infinite..eternal?



Day trip said:


> What about the sense of right and wrong, compassion and willingness to risk ones life to save another's?  It seems to me that those things are driven by something outside of evolutionary necessity.  I expected this to merit some discussion.



I can see how you want to use that as a point but did you at all consider just how many people have died at the hands of other people since humans have existed?
Dominance of the species turns into dominance within the species.
Would you be willing to travel to the Middle East to test your theory..??... and put your compassion and trust in human compassion, morals, right and wrong with your life?


----------



## bullethead

Some good points to add to the discussion.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/18/bil..._of_jesus_and_the_truth_about_moral_progress/

small part from article..


> Most people believe that moral progress has primarily been due to the guiding light of religious teachings, the activities of spiritual leaders, and the power of faith-based initiatives. In “The Moral Arc” I argue that this is not the case, and that most moral progress is the result of science, reason, and secular values developed during the Enlightenment. Once moral progress in a particular area is underway, most religions eventually get on board—as in the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, women’s rights in the 20th century, and gay rights in the 21st century—but this often happens after a shamefully protracted lag time. Why?
> 
> The rules that were dreamt up and enshrined by the various religions over the millennia did not have as their goal the expansion of the moral sphere to include other sentient beings. Moses did not come down from the mountain with a detailed list of the ways in which the Israelites could make life better for the Moabites, the Edomites, the Midianites, or for any other tribe of people that happened not to be them. One justification for this constricted sphere can be found in the Old Testament injunction to “Love thy neighbor,” who at that time was one’s immediate kin and kind, which was admittedly an evolutionary stratagem appropriate for the time. It would be suicidal to love thy neighbor as thyself when thy neighbor would like nothing better than to exterminate you, which was often the case for the Bronze Age peoples of the Old Testament. What good would have come of the Israelites loving, for example, the Midianites as themselves? The results would have been catastrophic given that the Midianites were allied with the Moabites in their desire to see the Israelites wiped off the face of the earth.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think it easy for a Muslim or Jew to find Jesus in their scriptures but what about Hindus or Shinto?
> 
> Isn't having more pathways to God other than Jesus called Unitarian Universalism?[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> It sounds like pathways to God yes. But it isn't the Christian God. Just God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not Universalism in that sense but I think that is what Day trip is saying. It's really just one God, the God of Abraham. The other religions and people on small islands and villages are worshiping this God of Abraham not realizing whom they are worshiping. It's a kind of Universal salvation because they are becoming and living more like God. This way everyone who has never heard about Jesus gets salvation.
> The only problem I see with this from Christian dogma is it's a works based salvation that doesn't include a belief that Jesus died for your sins.
> While it is true that these people around the world are outstanding God believers how can they be Christians having never heard of Christ? They may even be Christ like. They could and I'm sure many live a more righteous life than many Christians. This is the opposite of what Christianity is all about.
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not Universalism in that sense but I think that is what Day trip is saying. It's really just one God, the God of Abraham. The other religions and people on small islands and villages are worshiping this God of Abraham not realizing whom they are worshiping. It's a kind of Universal salvation because they are becoming and living more like God. This way everyone who has never heard about Jesus gets salvation.
> The only problem I see with this from Christian dogma is it's a works based salvation that doesn't include a belief that Jesus died for your sins.
> While it is true that these people around the world are outstanding God believers how can they be Christians having never heard of Christ? They may even be Christ like. They could and I'm sure many live a more righteous life than many Christians. This is the opposite of what Christianity is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> There is always some sort of excuse that individuals convince themselves of in order to make sense of the senseless.
> Many Gods are and have been worshiped. (MY God is the right one)
> The majority of the world still worships other deities (those people just don't know they are really worshiping MY God)
> Innocents have never accepted Jesus as their savior( MY God would not hold that against them so they get a free pass)
Click to expand...


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not Universalism in that sense but I think that is what Day trip is saying. It's really just one God, the God of Abraham. The other religions and people on small islands and villages are worshiping this God of Abraham not realizing whom they are worshiping. It's a kind of Universal salvation because they are becoming and living more like God. This way everyone who has never heard about Jesus gets salvation.
> The only problem I see with this from Christian dogma is it's a works based salvation that doesn't include a belief that Jesus died for your sins.
> While it is true that these people around the world are outstanding God believers how can they be Christians having never heard of Christ? They may even be Christ like. They could and I'm sure many live a more righteous life than many Christians. This is the opposite of what Christianity is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that's what I understand Day trip to mean.
> However the odds that they are worshipping his God without realizing it and that he is worshipping their God without realizing it are exactly the same.
> It seems nobody is happy with just worshipping "God".
> It has to be their particular God.
> Why isn't this more important -
> 
> 
> 
> live a more righteous life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> instead of who's God it is?
> If there is really one God, he might be really ticked off with the fact that everybody tries to claim "ownership" of him.
Click to expand...


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> How random is random?



Depends on the person and the day, I guess.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> So, the random is dependent?



Only on randomness.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Do you get that "a" god being ticked off, with no one to answer to, and unopposed power, leaves, at least for man...one...if not more than a host of other questions?


Do you get that even most Christians unintentionally admit there are at least two Gods...the other being Satan.
Satan gets worshiped and opposes the power of the Christian God.
That leaves, at least for Christians, one....if not more than a host of other questions.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Then, if even that be so, I am happy that I don't have to answer for most, or any other.



Do you acknowledge Satan exists?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> So...random is "self dependent"?
> And that "inarguable gift" you had mentioned...is...from the "random"...(can a gift be unpurposed from a giver?)



I don't try to extrapolate any meaning from the gift or the randomness other than to say that tomorrow's not guaranteed. 

Randomness is. That's all there is. 

That last part is the difference between a believer and non-, IMO. I take randomness at face value, and the gift of tomorrow as unpromised while being completely out of my hands to control. Believers try to personify it.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Then, if even that be so, I am happy that I don't have to answer for most, or any other.



You dont even want to answer for yourself because you know you will contradict yourself.
I guess you are a Christian.
If you believe scripture then you acknowledge Satan exists.
You know that Satan is worshiped by people, which elevates him to god status.
According to scripture Satan opposes Gods power and has power of his own.

If all that "be so" you are included by default. The only reason you choose not to answer is because you cannot deny it.....or you can deny it and lie.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> That's irreducible..."all there is".



Is there something wrong with that? Like where it reduces to (someplace other than God)?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> It's just an answer, by a man.
> "That's all there is" is sufficient.



Yes, I recognize the limitations of my own explanations for the why's and how's of the universe. That's why I don't try to proselytize, at least to my point of view. 

I do try to get people to step outside of their own views, not into mine, in order to lend them some perspective, but that's another matter.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get that "a" god being ticked off, with no one to answer to, and unopposed power, leaves, at least for man...one...if not more than a host of other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> That's all there is are hosts of questions. And no answers.
> So man makes up the answers that suit him. Hence all the different religions, beliefs and even different beliefs within those religions.
> Seems to me anyway.
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> It's better you be left with your assertions and presumptions.



You have not countered them because you are unable to. 
Point out where I have gotten it wrong if I am.

The difference between my assertions and presumptions and yours is that I can back them up.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would think that having a Creator there would have to be only one God who is this Creator. It possibly could be that all of the nations, tribes, and villages are worshiping this one God and not realizing that they are.
Perhaps the Creator and one true God has allowed them to visualize him in different ways and reach him by various paths. 
This could be possible and I really hope it's true. I would rather everyone getting a chance at nirvana, intervention in this life, and salvation from eternal death. 
I would like to think rewards and punishments are based on righteous living. Most religions are "works" based religions.
However Christianity which started out as a "works" based religion was either changed by God or evolved by man into a "grace" based religion. Changed or evolved according to one's beliefs.
The God of Abraham didn't change it per say as it was always his original plan but presented it to us as a change from works to grace.
When you think about it grace/forgiveness is a way better plan than a works/righteous living plan. I can see how a non-believer might think Man invented it. It's a way out. It's salvation and all from the Grace of God. We no longer have to try and get eternal life from righteous living. In fact we never could in the first place. God just let us try to as proof we never could. His plan never changed. Finally we were presented with this form of salvation from a Messiah who saved us from this works based religion caused by our sin. 
It's a perfect plan. It came by a Man named Jesus. I guess it's possible for every God believer in the whole world to live like Jesus but if they don't know the story of Jesus and God's plan then they are still living a "works" based plan. 
They never got the memo that it changed. Must they get the memo? I hope not but the Bible says differently. The Christian Bible that is.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I would think that having a Creator there would have to be only one God who is this Creator. It possibly could be that all of the nations, tribes, and villages are worshiping this one God and not realizing that they are.
> Perhaps the Creator and one true God has allowed them to visualize him in different ways and reach him by various paths.
> This could be possible and I really hope it's true. I would rather everyone getting a chance at nirvana, intervention in this life, and salvation from eternal death.
> I would like to think rewards and punishments are based on righteous living. Most religions are "works" based religions.
> However Christianity which started out as a "works" based religion was either changed by God or evolved by man into a "grace" based religion. Changed or evolved according to one's beliefs.
> The God of Abraham didn't change it per say as it was always his original plan but presented it to us as a change from works to grace.
> When you think about it grace/forgiveness is a way better plan than a works/righteous living plan. I can see how a non-believer might think Man invented it. It's a way out. It's salvation and all from the Grace of God. We no longer have to try and get eternal life from righteous living. In fact we never could in the first place. God just let us try to as proof we never could. His plan never changed. Finally we were presented with this form of salvation from a Messiah who saved us from this works based religion caused by our sin.
> It's a perfect plan. It came by a Man named Jesus. I guess it's possible for every God believer in the whole world to live like Jesus but if they don't know the story of Jesus and God's plan then they are still living a "works" based plan.
> They never got the memo that it changed. Must they get the memo? I hope not but the Bible says differently. The Christian Bible that is.





> Perhaps the Creator and one true God has allowed them to visualize him in different ways and reach him by various paths.


That's what I was thinking when I said this -


> If there is really one God, he might be really ticked off with the fact that everybody tries to claim "ownership" of him.


If God planned all these different paths I wonder what he thinks about Christianity condemning people to he11 for not following only the Christian path? And the wars between the different paths? And each path telling the other paths that they are wrong? 
He might just turn his back on all of you for not going along with his plan. Maybe he already has, that's why there is suffering, terrible things, tragedy etc that happen to people even though they are "religious".
Maybe. Maybe not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> That's what I was thinking when I said this -
> 
> If God planned all these different paths I wonder what he thinks about Christianity condemning people to he11 for not following only the Christian path? And the wars between the different paths? And each path telling the other paths that they are wrong?
> He might just turn his back on all of you for not going along with his plan. Maybe he already has, that's why there is suffering, terrible things, tragedy etc that happen to people even though they are "religious".
> Maybe. Maybe not.



But that's all excluded by grace based belief as opposed to merit based belief.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But that's all excluded by grace based belief as opposed to merit based belief.


Pretty convenient. 
If you cant merit it by your own rules well just change the rules of course.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Pretty convenient.
> If you cant merit it by your own rules well just change the rules of course.



Not weighing an opinion on it, just repeating a recent lesson I was taught about an aspect of their faith.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> That's what I was thinking when I said this -
> 
> If God planned all these different paths I wonder what he thinks about Christianity condemning people to he11 for not following only the Christian path? And the wars between the different paths? And each path telling the other paths that they are wrong?
> He might just turn his back on all of you for not going along with his plan. Maybe he already has, that's why there is suffering, terrible things, tragedy etc that happen to people even though they are "religious".
> Maybe. Maybe not.



Maybe he gets a chuckle out of all of the people that kill each other in his name(s)?
7 billion people alive right now (not counting the billions that have died already strictly because of religious differences) that unbeknownst to them are all worshiping the same god but this God of Love allows all the deaths to continue solely because of the differences associated with his name(s).
That is one sick twisted God.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not weighing an opinion on it, just repeating a recent lesson I was taught about an aspect of their faith.


Sure the convenience of it is my opinion. But its not an opinion based on "nothing" -


> However Christianity which started out as a "works" based religion was either changed by God or evolved by man into a "grace" based religion.


Im guessing God would have given it some thought to begin with so if it got changed.....


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Maybe he gets a chuckle out of all of the people that kill each other in his name(s)?
> 7 billion people alive right now (not counting the billions that have died already strictly because of religious differences) that unbeknownst to them are all worshiping the same god but this God of Love allows all the deaths to continue solely because of the differences associated with his name(s).
> That is one sick twisted God.


Or maybe he just threw his hands up in despair and said "the he11 with these kids I cant take it anymore Im outta here".


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Or maybe he just threw his hands up in despair and said "the he11 with these kids I cant take it anymore Im outta here".



It has got to be something because the excuses do not match the reality.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Sure the convenience of it is my opinion. But its not an opinion based on "nothing" -
> 
> Im guessing God would have given it some thought to begin with so if it got changed.....



True, and well...I dunno.


----------



## Day trip

WaltL1 said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that's what I understand Day trip to mean.
> However the odds that they are worshipping his God without realizing it and that he is worshipping their God without realizing it are exactly the same.
> It seems nobody is happy with just worshipping "God".
> It has to be their particular God.
> Why isn't this more important -
> 
> instead of who's God it is?
> If there is really one God, he might be really ticked off with the fact that everybody tries to claim "ownership" of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%.  This is the point I'm trying to get to.
Click to expand...


----------



## Artfuldodger

Day trip said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%.  This is the point I'm trying to get to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite following you. Do you believe the one True God made the many religions to see if we can all get along and accept each other? Without trying to convert each other?
> Like it's some type of test from God to see how we all live in peace without trying to change each other?
> A test to see if we can live without wars, fighting, and killing each other in his name or using God for an excuse to kill?
> 
> That sounds like a pretty cool concept but why does Christianity also have the Jesus clause added?
> Maybe he added that to see if he could trick up the Christians. To see if he could get them to change from righteous living/rule following  to God's grace & forgiveness.
> Maybe the true path to God is righteousness and he tempted us with Jesus/grace/forgiveness to see how many would fall for it. A type of test/trial/temptation.
> Maybe the true God is the God of everything and everyone.
> Could salvation be for all? He does wish all to be saved.
> His goodness does rain on everyone. His wrath does fall on everyone.
Click to expand...


----------



## Day trip

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't try to extrapolate any meaning from the gift or the randomness other than to say that tomorrow's not guaranteed.
> 
> Randomness is. That's all there is.
> 
> That last part is the difference between a believer and non-, IMO. I take randomness at face value, and the gift of tomorrow as unpromised while being completely out of my hands to control. Believers try to personify it.



Does accepting randomness excuse one from holding themself accountable?  "It's not my fault, things are random",  "I don't get what others say about Religeon, the heck with it, it's not my fault".  If one disagrees with the dogma of organized Religeon, I would hope he would take the responsibility upon himself to be sure he is always accountable, for his actions and for his legacy.  To look in the mirror and to be able to say, "I did it and I would do it again" with a clean conscience, no lies, that is a worthy man.  But it's so easy to believe the lies.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Day trip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite following you. Do you believe the one True God made the many religions to see if we can all get along and accept each other? Without trying to convert each other?
> Like it's some type of test from God to see how we all live in peace without trying to change each other?
> A test to see if we can live without wars, fighting, and killing each other in his name or using God for an excuse to kill?
> 
> That sounds like a pretty cool concept but why does Christianity also have the Jesus clause added?
> Maybe he added that to see if he could trick up the Christians. To see if he could get them to change from righteous living/rule following  to God's grace & forgiveness.
> Maybe the true path to God is righteousness and he tempted us with Jesus/grace/forgiveness to see how many would fall for it. A type of test/trial/temptation.
> Maybe the true God is the God of everything and everyone.
> Could salvation be for all? He does wish all to be saved.
> His goodness does rain on everyone. His wrath does fall on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> One God/Many Religions does not bode well for the Bible either.
Click to expand...


----------



## Day trip

Artfuldodger said:


> Day trip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite following you. Do you believe the one True God made the many religions to see if we can all get along and accept each other? Without trying to convert each other?
> Like it's some type of test from God to see how we all live in peace without trying to change each other?
> A test to see if we can live without wars, fighting, and killing each other in his name or using God for an excuse to kill?
> 
> That sounds like a pretty cool concept but why does Christianity also have the Jesus clause added?
> Maybe he added that to see if he could trick up the Christians. To see if he could get them to change from righteous living/rule following  to God's grace & forgiveness.
> Maybe the true path to God is righteousness and he tempted us with Jesus/grace/forgiveness to see how many would fall for it. A type of test/trial/temptation.
> Maybe the true God is the God of everything and everyone.
> Could salvation be for all? He does wish all to be saved.
> His goodness does rain on everyone. His wrath does fall on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in God.  He is not mine.  There are no other gods.  People may worship false idols and may worship God differently, even incorrectly but God is Love, Truth.  Set your goal on truth, make love your plan of action and you will find yourself following the path of Jesus.  By sending his only Son, God gave a map, a pathway to follow to righteousness.  Followers are meant to spread the word so that people in every corner of the world can walk in truth.  It is a d@mn shame, so many claim full possession of Gods truth with no discipline or humility.  It closes the door on dialogue, masquerades and *******izes truth and turns people away.  God does not fail, humans fail.
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> Does accepting randomness excuse one from holding themself accountable?  "It's not my fault, things are random",  "I don't get what others say about Religeon, the heck with it, it's not my fault".  If one disagrees with the dogma of organized Religeon, I would hope he would take the responsibility upon himself to be sure he is always accountable, for his actions and for his legacy.  To look in the mirror and to be able to say, "I did it and I would do it again" with a clean conscience, no lies, that is a worthy man.  But it's so easy to believe the lies.



Religion does not take away personal accountability.
"It's somebody else's fault "  is a tired excuse.


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in God.  He is not mine.  There are no other gods.  People may worship false idols and may worship God differently, even incorrectly but God is Love, Truth.  Set your goal on truth, make love your plan of action and you will find yourself following the path of Jesus.  By sending his only Son, God gave a map, a pathway to follow to righteousness.  Followers are meant to spread the word so that people in every corner of the world can walk in truth.  It is a d@mn shame, so many claim full possession of Gods truth with no discipline or humility.  It closes the door on dialogue, masquerades and *******izes truth and turns people away.  God does not fail, humans fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mmmmmm, now we have completely bypassed proving a God...any God exists and elevated the conversation to un-provable assertions.
> Can't make jumps like that and expect the conversation to flow well.
Click to expand...


----------



## WaltL1

> Day trip;9247565
> I agree 100%.  This is the point I'm trying to get to.


When you get to that point be prepared for me to ask how you can agree 100% with that yet still say this -


> You cannot get to God except through Jesus. That's why Christianity is the "one true Religeon"


Because Im going to ask.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Day trip said:


> Does accepting randomness excuse one from holding themself accountable?  "It's not my fault, things are random",  "I don't get what others say about Religeon, the heck with it, it's not my fault".  If one disagrees with the dogma of organized Religeon, I would hope he would take the responsibility upon himself to be sure he is always accountable, for his actions and for his legacy.  To look in the mirror and to be able to say, "I did it and I would do it again" with a clean conscience, no lies, that is a worthy man.  But it's so easy to believe the lies.



I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I hold myself accountable for everything, including what others think of me, to an extent. I recognize that, at some point, the issue is out of my control, but that point is very narrow. 

I've mentioned it in other posts, but it's my belief that our eternal life is lived by those who survive us after our deaths. I've been told I've been dead before and I didn't experience anything. No lights, no voices, nothing. Just nothing. I didn't even know I was unconscious until they brought me back. The bottom line is that I believe that the only thing that survives us is how people look upon our lives after we're gone, and whether or not we've impacted them at any point. That's my motivation for being a "good" man and not cheating, killing, raping, etc, in addition to the pragmatic viewpoint of reciprocity. Not that what I do can influence what others, specifically criminals and crazies, will do to me; but treating people how I'd like to be treated is "being the change I want to see in the world." Regardless of whether or not it comes back to me in my time. 

Yes, I fall, and I fail, but I can promise you that, if there is a God, He will have likely forgiven me and sat consoling me outside the pearly gates long before I will ever forgive myself.


----------



## Day trip

A lot of conversations going on here.


----------



## Day trip

bullethead said:


> Religion does not take away personal accountability.
> "It's somebody else's fault "  is a tired excuse.



Religion encourages personal accountability.  
 Isn't this what your doing?  "Nobody can "prove" God to me so its not my problem"?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Day trip said:


> Religion encourages personal accountability.
> Isn't this what your doing?  "Nobody can "prove" God to me so its not my problem"?



Is that a product of it being changed from merit based tickets to heaven to grace based tickets to heaven?


----------



## bullethead

Day trip said:


> Religion encourages personal accountability.
> Isn't this what your doing?  "Nobody can "prove" God to me so its not my problem"?



Heck no.
I do not have a savior sacrificing himself for me so I can act however I want..but as long as I believe...still get into a heaven.
I do not allow whatever is to be will be because some god has a plan so there is nothing I can do to change it.

No sir.
My actions and deeds speak for ME. I am responsible.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Day trip said:


> I believe in God.  He is not mine.  There are no other gods.  People may worship false idols and may worship God differently, even incorrectly but God is Love, Truth.  Set your goal on truth, make love your plan of action and you will find yourself following the path of Jesus.  By sending his only Son, God gave a map, a pathway to follow to righteousness.  Followers are meant to spread the word so that people in every corner of the world can walk in truth.  It is a d@mn shame, so many claim full possession of Gods truth with no discipline or humility.  It closes the door on dialogue, masquerades and *******izes truth and turns people away.  God does not fail, humans fail.



Do you understand the basic concept that man can not live a righteous lifestyle no matter how hard we try? Jesus said, why call me good, there is none good but God.
The basic Christian concept is that man can't save himself by living a certain way. One must repent from the belief that he can and turn to Jesus for salvation. The repentance is a change of mind. One finally realizes he has a problem and needs help/salvation. The repentance is this change. Repent and turn to Jesus isn't about quitting sin as we can't do that even if we try.
Now after this repentance/change one is given the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is when one can finally start following the path of Jesus. This is when he can redeem his actions and become a better person. It requires the Holy Spirit. Then one can start loving, helping, and living as Jesus.
Before this repentance/change, one is too depraved to turn from sin.
This basic concept is what makes Christianity so different from "works" based religions that focus on the person changing on his on.
While it doesn't relieve us of responsibility, it does take the burden off of our shoulders. Jesus removes the yoke of sin.


----------



## Day trip

bullethead said:


> Heck no.
> I do not have a savior sacrificing himself for me so I can act however I want..but as long as I believe...still get into a heaven.
> I do not allow whatever is to be will be because some god has a plan so there is nothing I can do to change it.
> 
> No sir.
> My actions and deeds speak for ME. I am responsible.



Excellent


----------



## Artfuldodger

Religion can take away personal responsibility. One could say that Satan made them sin. In Christianity one could say Jesus has replaced some responsibility. If someone believed in Election instead of free will then that could relieve some responsibility. Being totally depraved relieves responsibility. Having the Holy Spirit to bear fruit could relieve responsibility. One could say the Holy Spirit hasn't produced the fruit of overcoming drunkenness as of yet but one day he will.

I've always said believers are good for God and Atheist are good for nothing. 

Although some believers insist all of their goodness is from 
God which must relieve them of some responsibility.


----------



## Day trip

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you understand the basic concept that man can not live a righteous lifestyle no matter how hard we try? Jesus said, why call me good, there is none good but God.
> The basic Christian concept is that man can't save himself by living a certain way. One must repent from the belief that he can and turn to Jesus for salvation. The repentance is a change of mind. One finally realizes he has a problem and needs help/salvation. The repentance is this change. Repent and turn to Jesus isn't about quitting sin as we can't do that even if we try.
> Now after this repentance/change one is given the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is when one can finally start following the path of Jesus. This is when he can redeem his actions and become a better person. It requires the Holy Spirit. Then one can start loving, helping, and living as Jesus.
> Before this repentance/change, one is too depraved to turn from sin.
> This basic concept is what makes Christianity so different from "works" based religions that focus on the person changing on his on.
> While it doesn't relieve us of responsibility, it does take the burden off of our shoulders. Jesus removes the yoke of sin.[/
> 
> This is exactly what I do not agree with.  That Jesus did all the work and we can all just sit back and punch our tickets to heaven because we can't stop sinning anyway.   But only if we make a vague statement about being born again.
> I say we are responsible for our actions.  Why would Jesus give us the Sermon on the Mount, tell us that the ones who listen to and follow his teaching are like the wise man who built his house on stone?  Because We do have a responsibility.  The source of all peace is to study his teachings until we get it.  Until we no longer need to follow rules because we understand. We GET IT!  We think as Christ did.  Then when we act, we act as Christ did.  Naturally.  No interpretations, no guessing.  We act as LOVE.
> Like a kid playing these new video games, they can push fifty different buttons at once without thinking.  And that's how we want to become as followers of Christ.  Not just in words but in thoughts and deeds.


----------



## Day trip

Hope you can read this,  its a picture if a page if it shows up


----------



## Artfuldodger

Day trip said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the basic concept that man can not live a righteous lifestyle no matter how hard we try? Jesus said, why call me good, there is none good but God.
> The basic Christian concept is that man can't save himself by living a certain way. One must repent from the belief that he can and turn to Jesus for salvation. The repentance is a change of mind. One finally realizes he has a problem and needs help/salvation. The repentance is this change. Repent and turn to Jesus isn't about quitting sin as we can't do that even if we try.
> Now after this repentance/change one is given the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is when one can finally start following the path of Jesus. This is when he can redeem his actions and become a better person. It requires the Holy Spirit. Then one can start loving, helping, and living as Jesus.
> Before this repentance/change, one is too depraved to turn from sin.
> This basic concept is what makes Christianity so different from "works" based religions that focus on the person changing on his on.
> While it doesn't relieve us of responsibility, it does take the burden off of our shoulders. Jesus removes the yoke of sin.[/
> 
> This is exactly what I do not agree with.  That Jesus did all the work and we can all just sit back and punch our tickets to heaven because we can't stop sinning anyway.   But only if we make a vague statement about being born again.
> I say we are responsible for our actions.  Why would Jesus give us the Sermon on the Mount, tell us that the ones who listen to and follow his teaching are like the wise man who built his house on stone?  Because We do have a responsibility.  The source of all peace is to study his teachings until we get it.  Until we no longer need to follow rules because we understand. We GET IT!  We think as Christ did.  Then when we act, we act as Christ did.  Naturally.  No interpretations, no guessing.  We act as LOVE.
> Like a kid playing these new video games, they can push fifty different buttons at once without thinking.  And that's how we want to become as followers of Christ.  Not just in words but in thoughts and deeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you were indoctrinated as I was. I finally repented about a year ago. I don't miss the yoke.
Click to expand...


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Day trip said:


> Hope you can read this,  its a picture if a page if it shows up



Now explain, please, how you have a relationship with someone that you can't prove you've ever met, and is only explained in the book that your post just told us to take as loosely as we can? 

I don't mean to sound insulting, but I have to use another creature of dubious existence in order to make my point, but if I told you that I had a personal relationship, communicative relationship no less, with Bigfoot, or a Jackalope, would you believe that to be possible?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now explain, please, how you have a relationship with someone that you can't prove you've ever met, and is only explained in the book that your post just told us to take as loosely as we can?
> 
> I don't mean to sound insulting, but I have to use another creature of dubious existence in order to make my point, but if I told you that I had a personal relationship, communicative relationship no less, with Bigfoot, or a Jackalope, would you believe that to be possible?



....of which there is better evidence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> ....of which there is better evidence.



I disagree, at least on the Jackalope. 

There is at least evidence of Bigfoot, but I would not say "better". So much of it comes down to personal experience of what the shaky video, or out of focus photo, is showing. No hair has been attributed, and all we have that is incontrovertible are some footprints of extreme size. Who, or what, made them is far from settled.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Surely you aren't classifying the near extermination of all living things a "glimpse"?
> And while the Bible doesn't end there it doesn't get erased either.
> It feels good to you to glorify Christianity. But to do that you have to ignore much of its own history.
> And that's not a jab at you, we all do it to a certain extent with the things that are important to us.



Yes, just a glimpse, because as you said the Bible doesn't end at the first chapter.

Please, I honestly don't try to glorify Christianity if you mean Christianity in the Religious sense.  I try to understand it and provide truthful explanations of some doctrines, but I'm the first to admit that much has been done in the name of Christianity that wasn't Christian and to which I'm much ashamed.  

I do and will readily admit to glorifying Christianity defined as a personal relationship with Christ.  Those are two distinct and unfortunately often conflicting definitions of the same word.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It should be a serious decision, I applaud you for that, not that you need my approval.
> 
> Right or wrong, I think that there are a good many people who fall into the category of believing because that's all they've known their entire lives and are going along to get along, or because they'd rather believe and be wrong, than be skeptical and be wrong.
> 
> However, it's this last part that I'm confused, well not necessarily confused because I get what you're trying to say, it's just that it comes back to the "holes" in the linear logic between the antipodes of No God and God.
> 
> If we could trace a line between those two points that didn't have holes that relied on faith, or that which can't be seen, then I'd be a Christian still. I would suggest that faith is an emotion, or at least causes an emotion, since it's been observed that prayer, or thinking of God, has produced changes in fMRI scans of test subjects similar to them seeing a beautiful person, or thinking of another happy memory.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you have to at least acknowledge that, if there were a coldly logical path between no belief and God that there would be very few people on this board discussing such things with you, as we'd all be on the same side, and that would be a very boring discussion indeed. The fact that this isn't the case corroborates the "holes" between the opposing viewpoints that faith, and emotion, occupy.



Oh absolutely.  100% agree.  C.S Lewis(I think) said something to the effect that God put enough of himself into creation(and us) to make belief in him completely logical, but left enough out to cause doubt.

That being said, if we could empirically prove God either 1) he wouldn't be God or 2) we would be God.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I disagree, at least on the Jackalope.
> 
> There is at least evidence of Bigfoot, but I would not say "better". So much of it comes down to personal experience of what the shaky video, or out of focus photo, is showing. No hair has been attributed, and all we have that is incontrovertible are some footprints of extreme size. Who, or what, made them is far from settled.



No video, footprints or photos of god...

At least all can agree that in the videos and photos that there was "something" there. No such evidence with god...


----------



## 660griz

Some reasons why belief in God is unreasonable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> No video, footprints or photos of god...
> 
> At least all can agree that in the videos and photos that there was "something" there. No such evidence with god...



Other than the people being moved by their experiences that no one else can witness. Seems like that's pretty common amongst jackalope and Bigfoot "witnesses" too. 

I'm not taking sides, just being fair to both arguments, even though I do believe that Bigfoot _could_ exist.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Other than the people being moved by their experiences that no one else can witness. Seems like that's pretty common amongst jackalope and Bigfoot "witnesses" too.
> 
> I'm not taking sides, just being fair to both arguments, even though I do believe that Bigfoot _could_ exist.



There's some physical evidence of Bigfoot in the videos, photos and castings.  They may be fake but there's nothing remotely similar to evidence of god besides "Look how complicated that eyeball is!".

Being fair would be to recognize that there's been physical evidence put forth to support Bigfoot and none for god.

There used to be a guy on here that said he used the power of Christ to rebuke a tornado.  I wonder if he got it on video?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> There's some physical evidence of Bigfoot in the videos, photos and castings.  They may be fake but there's nothing remotely similar to evidence of god besides "Look how complicated that eyeball is!".
> 
> Being fair would be to recognize that there's been physical evidence put forth to support Bigfoot and none for god.
> 
> There used to be a guy on here that said he used the power of Christ to rebuke a tornado.  I wonder if he got it on video?



No, there's been suggested proof, and offered proof, of bigfoot, but there's been absolutely 0 that irrefutably shows that Bigfoot is real. 

There have been unidentifiable hair samples, and some odd footprints, but if you can fake crop circles, how hard is it really to fake some elongated foot prints with an extended stride? Not very. 

Every purported body of a bigfoot has been debunked, and even the best videos don't show much of any substance. 

That is unless you're holding out on us or can cite something else.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, there's been suggested proof, and offered proof, of bigfoot, but there's been absolutely 0 that irrefutably shows that Bigfoot is real.
> 
> There have been unidentifiable hair samples, and some odd footprints, but if you can fake crop circles, how hard is it really to fake some elongated foot prints with an extended stride? Not very.
> 
> Every purported body of a bigfoot has been debunked, and even the best videos don't show much of any substance.
> 
> That is unless you're holding out on us or can cite something else.



The authenticity of the Patterson film is still largely debated.  That one piece alone as well as the "unidentified hair samples" makes belief in Bigfoot more justifiable than belief in god.

It would be incorrect to say there is an equal amount of physical evidence for Bigfoot as for god.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> The authenticity of the Patterson film is still largely debated.  That one piece alone as well as the "unidentified hair samples" makes belief in Bigfoot more justifiable than belief in god.
> 
> It would be incorrect to say there is an equal amount of physical evidence for Bigfoot as for god.



Depending on how you want to take it, or justify it as it were, there's actually more for God than Bigfoot. If you subscribe to the notion that God created everything, that is. 

Still, the point is that there's never been an irrefutable account of Bigfoot, just like there has never been an irrefutable account of God. There's been purported evidence that can't be fully explained away, and there's been myriad evidence that has been, or can be, explained away. Just like God. 

I believe in the possibility of bigfoot just like I believe in the possibility of God. I do acknowledge that we are far more likely to answer the question of bigfoot's existence before we can answer the same for God.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I believe in the possibility of bigfoot just like I believe in the possibility of God. I do acknowledge that we are far more likely to answer the question of bigfoot's existence before we can answer the same for God.



Supposedly, God wants us to find him and bigfoot, I assume, does not want us to find him/her. 
That should tell us something.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Supposedly, God wants us to find him and bigfoot, I assume, does not want us to find him/her.
> That should tell us something.



That the Pacific NW is a lot easier to reach than Heaven?


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That the Pacific NW is a lot easier to reach than Heaven?



Hmmm
So God is not with us always? The bible says he is with us.
Some folks have actually talked to him. 
Is he confined to heaven? I helped create my kids but, I go visit them from time to time.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Depending on how you want to take it, or justify it as it were, there's actually more for God than Bigfoot. If you subscribe to the notion that God created everything, that is.
> 
> Still, the point is that there's never been an irrefutable account of Bigfoot, just like there has never been an irrefutable account of God. There's been purported evidence that can't be fully explained away, and there's been myriad evidence that has been, or can be, explained away. Just like God.
> 
> I believe in the possibility of bigfoot just like I believe in the possibility of God. I do acknowledge that we are far more likely to answer the question of bigfoot's existence before we can answer the same for God.



If by the part in blue you mean personal testimony then I agree there is a lot of evidence but it differs from the evidence for Bigfoot in that most testimony usually doesn't include "I saw the face of Jesus", though some of it does.  Strangely enough, he often said to have blonde hair and beautiful blue eyes.  Similarly, people who claim alien abduction often say that the aliens use Medieval type probes and needles are particularly interested in human anus.  Very curious.....

If you mean there is alot of evidence for god in the complexity of the Universe then that's "God of the gaps" and we all know that doesn't work.  People find a seeming "shelter" or curiously arranged structure of logs and they assume Bigfoot.  People see what they want to see.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Hmmm
> So God is not with us always? The bible says he is with us.
> Some folks have actually talked to him.
> Is he confined to heaven? I helped create my kids but, I go visit them from time to time.



Dunno, I was joking. 



ambush80 said:


> If by the part in blue you mean personal testimony then I agree there is a lot of evidence but it differs from the evidence for Bigfoot in that most testimony usually doesn't include "I saw the face of Jesus", though some of it does.  Strangely enough, he often said to have blonde hair and beautiful blue eyes.  Similarly, people who claim alien abduction often say that the aliens use Medieval type probes and needles are particularly interested in human anus.  Very curious.....
> 
> If you mean there is alot of evidence for god in the complexity of the Universe then that's "God of the gaps" and we all know that doesn't work.  People find a seeming "shelter" or curiously arranged structure of logs and they assume Bigfoot.  People see what they want to see.



I always thought the fair skinned and light hair/eyed Jesus was interesting considering he was born of olive skinned people, ethnically, with dark hair and dark eyes. Unless the body types have changed drastically in 2000 years, that is. But I digress. 

I'm not really switching sides, I'm flipping to illustrate the same inability to prove, but vast capacity to speculate, on the existence of both. Some argue that if we can get a shot of X celebrity on a beach then, with as many squatch hunters as their are, we should have seen a clear picture/video by now of BF. After all, deer are elusive animals as well, and yet there's a few of them being recorded as having sniffed a trail cam directly. We caught the giant squid, we've seen Florida Panthers, so on and so forth. Still, we can't seem to photograph Nessie, or BF, with any clarity at all. 

Yes, videos exist that purport to see bigfoot. Videos, and pictures, also exist that purport to see angels in the clouds, or statues of Mary weeping blood/oil/tears. 

That doesn't mean that they are real or exist, though.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

It always baffles me when people make the statement there's no evidence of God.  Here's why.

It seems to me to be denying the obvious.  

One says that there's no evidence of God.  I say, " Well what about the Universe."  That's evidence.  Your interpretation of the evidence may differ and that's fine, but to say there's no evidence is an absurd statement in that it doesn't deny God, only the universe and everything in it.

The statement has to be refined a bit not to be absurd.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Dunno, I was joking.


Dang StripeRR. I feel a lot better knowing that but, you gotta post some smileys every once in a while. 

You really had me worried.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> One says that there's no evidence of God.  I say, " Well what about the Universe."  That's evidence.



How do you know?



> Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God. -- Martin Luther


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> It always baffles me when people make the statement there's no evidence of God.  Here's why.
> 
> It seems to me to be denying the obvious.
> 
> One says that there's no evidence of God.  I say, " Well what about the Universe."  That's evidence.  Your interpretation of the evidence may differ and that's fine, but to say there's no evidence is an absurd statement in that it doesn't deny God, only the universe and everything in it.
> 
> The statement has to be refined a bit not to be absurd.



That's why I qualify it to say "Incontrovertible" evidence. 



660griz said:


> Dang StripeRR. I feel a lot better knowing that but, you gotta post some smileys every once in a while.
> 
> You really had me worried.



Just keepin' ya on your toes, Griz.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

660griz said:


> Some reasons why belief in God is unreasonable.



I like the quote by Hitchens.  I just wonder that given the fact that we now live in a digital age, will 1/3 to 1/2 the worlds population 2000 years from now be able to instantly associate it with him.

Hmmmmm?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's why I qualify it to say "Incontrovertible" evidence.



I gotta ask?


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> It always baffles me when people make the statement there's no evidence of God.  Here's why.
> 
> It seems to me to be denying the obvious.
> 
> One says that there's no evidence of God.  I say, " Well what about the Universe."  That's evidence.  Your interpretation of the evidence may differ and that's fine, but to say there's no evidence is an absurd statement in that it doesn't deny God, only the universe and everything in it.
> 
> The statement has to be refined a bit not to be absurd.


I agree. The objection is unintelligible.


----------



## 660griz

> And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:


 
Why does the lesser light, that is supposed to rule the night,  spend a lot of time moving around in the daylight?
Actually, it is not really a light but, a reflector of the Sun.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> It always baffles me when people make the statement there's no evidence of God.  Here's why.
> 
> It seems to me to be denying the obvious.
> 
> One says that there's no evidence of God.  I say, " Well what about the Universe."  That's evidence.  Your interpretation of the evidence may differ and that's fine, but to say there's no evidence is an absurd statement in that it doesn't deny God, only the universe and everything in it.
> 
> The statement has to be refined a bit not to be absurd.


There are multiple creation stories attributed to multiple gods.
Do you agree that this "evidence" applies to all of them until it is PROVEN to apply to only one of them?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> I gotta ask?



Fire away.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Why does the lesser light, that is supposed to rule the night,  spend a lot of time moving around in the daylight?



Do you think the fella who put that in writing was not aware of this?


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> There are multiple creation stories attributed to multiple gods.
> Do you agree that this "evidence" applies to all of them until it is PROVEN to apply to only one of them?


Would you agree that one of them can believe in something that is correct, factually, without sufficient evidence for the belief? Even accidentally?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Fire away.



What you mean by "incontrovertible evidence."


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> There are multiple creation stories attributed to multiple gods.
> Do you agree that this "evidence" applies to all of them until it is PROVEN to apply to only one of them?



Yes.  The evidence is what it is.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Do you think the fella who put that in writing was not aware of this?



I do.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Would you agree that one of them can believe in something that is correct, factually, without sufficient evidence for the belief? Even accidentally?


Absolutely.
For example, that old game show where you picked door #1, 2 or 3. Folks picked a door based on no evidence at all. Sometimes they were, in fact, right.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> What you mean by "incontrovertible evidence."



I mean what Webster's means. Namely,



> in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
> ËŒinkäntrÉ™ËˆvÉ™rdÉ™b(É™)l/
> adjective
> adjective: incontrovertible
> 
> not able to be denied or disputed.



I'll believe in God, or a God, when there's no explanation otherwise for what I'm witnessing. Just like I would about Bigfoot. I believe there's a chance that they exist, but I don't believe that they do and that's an important distinction. When someone can drop a body off that can't be traced to any other species, then I'll fully "believe" in it, which is tantamount to knowledge of. 

In other words, there's not much that I "believe" in that can't be demonstrated to someone else. I can even justify my belief in the possibility of BF existing by citing the other species that belonged to cryptozoology not so long ago. 

However, there's not been one thing I've witnessed in my life that could ONLY have come from God, but I have seen plenty that have shown me that there is either A) no God, or B) He's way more cruel than believers give him credit for in modern times.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  The evidence is what it is.


That's the basis of many of our arguments. Because evidence also isn't what it isn't.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  The evidence is what it is.



My question is, if you weren't a believer, would you automatically attribute the universe to God?


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> It always baffles me when people make the statement there's no evidence of God.  Here's why.
> 
> It seems to me to be denying the obvious.
> 
> One says that there's no evidence of God.  I say, " Well what about the Universe."  That's evidence.  Your interpretation of the evidence may differ and that's fine, but to say there's no evidence is an absurd statement in that it doesn't deny God, only the universe and everything in it.
> 
> The statement has to be refined a bit not to be absurd.



The Universe is certain evidence of what exactly?  That the Universe exists?  I absolutely agree.  Evidence of god?  Lets do the regression exercise again for those that just joined in.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> The Universe is certain evidence of what exactly?  That the Universe exists?  I absolutely agree.  Evidence of god?  Lets do the regression exercise again for those that just joined in.



Precisely


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> The Universe is certain evidence of what exactly?  That the Universe exists?  I absolutely agree.  Evidence of god?  Lets do the regression exercise again for those that just joined in.


But to be fair if the claim is that God made the universe and the universe exists, it is evidence that the claim may be true. Of course the value of that evidence diminishes greatly when there are multiple claims of the same.
I didn't see the word certain in his post which is why Im saying this. He even agreed with me that its also evidence for all of the claims not just his god of choice.
Did I just defend SFD?  
Maybe there is such a thing as miracles


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> But to be fair if the claim is that God made the universe and the universe exists, it is evidence that the claim may be true. Of course the value of that evidence diminishes greatly when there are multiple claims of the same.
> I didn't see the word certain in his post which is why Im saying this. He even agreed with me that its also evidence for all of the claims not just his god of choice.
> Did I just defend SFD?
> Maybe there is such a thing as miracles



It's of no more value than the claim that nothing made the Universe.  

I can without reservation an with complete honesty say that god may have made the Universe.  Will they be equally intellectually honest and say that the Universe might not have been made by anybody?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> It's of no more value than the claim that nothing made the Universe.
> 
> I can without reservation an with complete honesty say that god may have made the Universe.  Will they be equally intellectually honest and say that the Universe might not have been made by anybody?





> It's of no more value than the claim that nothing made the Universe.


Agreed its of no more value. Im just saying I don't think the value is 0.  Maybe 0.1


> Will they be equally intellectually honest and say that the Universe might not have been made by anybody?


That I cant answer. I would say its no problem for us to say it because we don't believe our after life depends on it.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Agreed its of no more value. I'm just saying I don't think the value is 0.  Maybe 0.1
> 
> That I cant answer. I would say its no problem for us to say it because we don't believe our after life depends on it.




Where does the .1 come from?

Wouldn't you say that the inability to admit that "no one" might have caused the Universe is an indication of some rational deficiency?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Where does the .1 come from?
> 
> Wouldn't you say that the inability to admit that "no one" might have caused the Universe is an indication of some rational deficiency?


The .1 comes from that the claim is that God made the universe. And the universe does in fact exist. So it is evidence (not any kind of proof) the claim may be true because we don't actually know for a fact what if anything made the universe. That you own a fishing pole is evidence that you are a fisherman even if we don't know if you actually use the pole to go fishing.
Oh I forgot rational deficiency part.
1.Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2.Consistent with or based on reason or good judgment; logical or sensible.
I think I would be forced to say ..... maybe. Because that you don't use ration or logic on one subject doesn't mean you are deficient in logic or ration. You might have an abundance of logic and not just use it on this one subject.

And I may not be using ration properly but you know what I mean. Now I have those delicious C rations stuck in my head. Ah good memories.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> The .1 comes from that the claim is that God made the universe. And the universe does in fact exist. So it is evidence (not any kind of proof) the claim may be true because we don't actually know for a fact what if anything made the universe. That you own a fishing pole is evidence that you are a fisherman even if we don't know if you actually use the pole to go fishing.
> Oh I forgot rational deficiency part.
> 1.Having or exercising the ability to reason.
> 2.Consistent with or based on reason or good judgment; logical or sensible.
> I think I would be forced to say ..... maybe. Because that you don't use ration or logic on one subject doesn't mean you are deficient in logic or ration. You might have an abundance of logic and not just use it on this one subject.
> 
> And I may not be using ration properly but you know what I mean. Now I have those delicious C rations stuck in my head. Ah good memories.




I don't know how many times I've gone to someones house, seen a fly rod, asked them if they fished and they said "Naw.  It was my dad's/uncle's/bought it at the flea market because it looks cool."  That's why it's important to ask the question.  In this case it would be "Could this have happened without god?"  The honest answer would be "Maybe".


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I don't know how many times I've gone to someones house, seen a fly rod, asked them if they fished and they said "Naw.  It was my dad's/uncle's/bought it at the flea market because it looks cool."  That's why it's important to ask the question.  In this case it would be "Could this have happened without god?"  The honest answer would be "Maybe".


I'm not sure now what we are discussing because I definitely agree with you here -


> That's why it's important to ask the question.  In this case it would be "Could this have happened without god?"  The honest answer would be "Maybe"


I thought we were discussing whether the universe is evidence that God created the world/universe as the story goes.
Maybe we just need to go fishing


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not sure now what we are discussing because I definitely agree with you here -
> 
> I thought we were discussing whether the universe is evidence that God created the world/universe as the story goes.
> Maybe we just need to go fishing



I was talking about how you said that seeing a fishing pole is evidence of a fisherman the same way that people seeing apparent design assume a designer.

But we should go fishing also.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I was talking about how you said that seeing a fishing pole is evidence of a fisherman the same way that people seeing apparent design assume a designer.
> 
> But we should go fishing also.


Ok I think I see now. But I still think they are nearly the same. You saw the fly rod and assumed fisherman because you are knowledgeable about fishing.
Christians see the universe and assume God because that is what their knowledge is.
Both are maybe until you ask the question and get the answer. Difference being there is no answer yet about the universe so we agree maybe is the honest answer.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Ok I think I see now. But I still think they are nearly the same. You saw the fly rod and assumed fisherman because you are knowledgeable about fishing.
> Christians see the universe and assume God because that is what their knowledge is.
> Both are maybe until you ask the question and get the answer. Difference being there is no answer yet about the universe so we agree maybe is the honest answer.



Then why are they they so hardheadedly convinced?

The fishing rod is as bad an analogy as the "Wristwatch in the Tornado".


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Then why are they they so hardheadedly convinced?
> 
> The fishing rod is as bad an analogy as the "Wristwatch in the Tornado".





> Then why are they they so hardheadedly convinced?


Indoctrination, fear, hope, desire for it to be true........
I can understand it in a way. I was indoctrinated as a Marine. There wasn't a thing you could tell me to get me not to believe we weren't the toughest, most bad arse killers on the face of the planet.
Navy Seals - wimps
Green Berets - wimps
British SAS - wimps
Army Rangers - wimps
Of course none of them were even close to being wimps.
And in fact were AT LEAST as tough/well trained as we were.
But you couldn't tell us that. Indoctrination is a powerful thing. Certainly surpasses common sense.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> "Could this have happened without god?"  The honest answer would be "Maybe".



Except for me. My honest answer is, "Of course it happened without god." "We just aren't sure how." 
Just like with all the other stuff we didn't know until we knew it. 
Until I see evidence of a God, I can wait for a real answer.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> I was indoctrinated as a Marine.



Now this is truly fascinating. I have always had the theory that the same folks that made a good Marine, made a good /insert religion/. You have broken my hypothetical mold. 

I truly mean no offense by the above.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe we just need to go fishing





			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> But we should go fishing also.



Agreed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Indoctrination, fear, hope, desire for it to be true........
> I can understand it in a way. I was indoctrinated as a Marine. There wasn't a thing you could tell me to get me not to believe we weren't the toughest, most bad arse killers on the face of the planet.
> Navy Seals - wimps
> Green Berets - wimps
> British SAS - wimps
> Army Rangers - wimps
> Of course none of them were even close to being wimps.
> And in fact were AT LEAST as tough/well trained as we were.
> But you couldn't tell us that. Indoctrination is a powerful thing. Certainly surpasses common sense.



Couldn't some of this indoctrination be considered brainwashing? I'm not saying it's a bad concept as it might keep individuals brave. A Marine who thinks he is on a mission for his God and Country might be a little more brave knowing he is being protected by God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Couldn't some of this indoctrination be considered brainwashing? I'm not saying it's a bad concept as it might keep individuals brave. A Marine who thinks he is on a mission for his God and Country might be a little more brave knowing he is being protected by God.



Until he gets shot.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Agreed.




If I ever get my jon boat going again I'll show you guys a cool way to catch trout.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

What's wrong with it?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> If I ever get my jon boat going again I'll show you guys a cool way to catch trout.



Sounds cool!  I wish I had a yak, watched some folks doing it that way this summer, and it looked fun too.  May need to shop for some used ones......


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Sounds cool!  I wish I had a yak, watched some folks doing it that way this summer, and it looked fun too.  May need to shop for some used ones......



I am purchasing a canoe soon.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> I am purchasing a canoe soon.



I think Walt is the AAA Kayak expert, maybe he can give us some good advice......


----------



## JB0704

Sorry for draggin' it off topic.......


----------



## StriperrHunterr

http://kwgn.com/2015/01/22/mother-outraged-after-spotting-satanic-symbol-in-school-bus-brake-lights/

Now, faithful people, why would she say this if God is so loving that we're all daft if we read the Bible and get something other than loving God?



> “Anyone who fears a God, if not God and Jesus Christ, should be outraged,” said the mother, who was not identified because she is reportedly receiving death threats after sharing the photo on social media.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What's wrong with it?



Trailer needs some work.  Haven't had tags or numbers on it in a while.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Trailer needs some work.  Haven't had tags or numbers on it in a while.



Ah. I'm not much help, but I can turn a wrench, or a screw, and I'm a fair hand at laying vinyl decals. 

If you're up near my neck of the woods, give me a holler.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ah. I'm not much help, but I can turn a wrench, or a screw, and I'm a fair hand at laying vinyl decals.
> 
> If you're up near my neck of the woods, give me a holler.



Thanks, man!  I appreciate the offer.  I'll get off my can one of these days and quit letting life get in the way of a good time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Thanks, man!  I appreciate the offer.  I'll get off my can one of these days and quit letting life get in the way of a good time.



I hear that. I procrastinated last week, then decided this week was looking good to take the boat out, then had to rush the install of my rod holder system in two nights. Thankfully I had been contemplating how to do it while I was lounging with my good friend Larceny, so I had the plan in place, but I don't ever want to have to mount one of these things, at least the way I designed my own solution, again.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Now this is truly fascinating. I have always had the theory that the same folks that made a good Marine, made a good /insert religion/. You have broken my hypothetical mold.
> 
> I truly mean no offense by the above.


You mean because of the "don't question" type mindset?
The concept is the same. And my indoctrination started early too. My father had all his medals in a nice frame hung over my crib when I was a baby.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I hear that. I procrastinated last week, then decided this week was looking good to take the boat out, then had to rush the install of my rod holder system in two nights. Thankfully I had been contemplating how to do it while I was lounging with my good friend Larceny, so I had the plan in place, but I don't ever want to have to mount one of these things, at least the way I designed my own solution, again.



Did you find the crappies?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> You mean because of the "don't question" type mindset?
> The concept is the same. And my indoctrination started early too. My father had all his medals in a nice frame hung over my crib when I was a baby.



My favorite is "You can't understand it with your natural mind."  What good is it then?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Did you find the crappies?



Not yet, or at least I can tell you they're not in my office. 

My trip is tomorrow. I'm hoping between learning about trolling crappie, and the striper bite at least appearing solid right now, that we'll get into _something_ tomorrow. 

I wouldn't mind a cooler full of specs to go on some catheads.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Couldn't some of this indoctrination be considered brainwashing? I'm not saying it's a bad concept as it might keep individuals brave. A Marine who thinks he is on a mission for his God and Country might be a little more brave knowing he is being protected by God.


Indoctrination, brain washing, reprogramming, all would be accurate descriptions.
When you WANT to be something its done pretty easily.
You welcome the brain washing because it turns you into what you want to be.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I think Walt is the AAA Kayak expert, maybe he can give us some good advice......


I'm no expert but picking a kayak isn't a very complicated process. Its kind of like picking a rifle. The majority of them will get the job done it just depends on how "fancy" you want to get.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> You mean because of the "don't question" type mindset?



Exactly.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> I'm no expert but picking a kayak isn't a very complicated process. Its kind of like picking a rifle. The majority of them will get the job done it just depends on how "fancy" you want to get.



No kayak for me...yet. I want one but, my current needs rule out a kayak.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> No kayak for me...yet. I want one but, my current needs rule out a kayak.


Big advantage of a canoe is you can pack lots of "stuff" including people. Also has some downsides too.
I have a friend who only uses a canoe. He does everything we do in/on our kayaks.


----------



## WaltL1

Griz, my buddy using his canoe. We also camped out and with his canoe we were able to bring lots of comfort items including a massive cooler.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Indoctrination, brain washing, reprogramming, all would be accurate descriptions.
> When you WANT to be something its done pretty easily.
> You welcome the brain washing because it turns you into what you want to be.




Best way to get someone to do something is to ask them to do something they already secretly want to do.  I learned to do this with my buddies then quickly became the scapegoat and the object of hate of many a wife; "He made me do it!"


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Griz, my buddy using his canoe. We also camped out and with his canoe we were able to bring lots of comfort items including a massive cooler.



WHOOOOOO!!!!! HOT DOG!!! 

Now that's a good time!!!

Did you fry some of those fish at camp?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> WHOOOOOO!!!!! HOT DOG!!!
> 
> Now that's a good time!!!
> 
> Did you fry some of those fish at camp?


Actually no. That big cooler was packed with steaks so we threw the fish back so we could catch them again this year. But we have eaten the fish on other trips.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Big advantage of a canoe is you can pack lots of "stuff" including people.



Exactly my purpose. Multiday/multi-people float trips.
Funny you show Ocmulgee. My old stompin grounds and my goal this year is to float from just south of Macon down, to Altamaha and the coast. Oh, and catch and fry some big ol flatheads along the way.

Great video.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Exactly my purpose. Multiday/multi-people float trips.
> Funny you show Ocmulgee. My old stompin grounds and my goal this year is to float from just south of Macon down, to Altamaha and the coast. Oh, and catch and fry some big ol flatheads along the way.
> 
> Great video.


Yeah we do the Ocmulgee more than any other place. Great river.
We do the Flint a lot too in the Thomaston area. With that Outdoor Center there that has the shuttle service it makes the logistics really easy.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah we do the Ocmulgee more than any other place. Great river.
> We do the Flint a lot too in the Thomaston area. With that Outdoor Center there that has the shuttle service it makes the logistics really easy.



Yep. I want to do the Flint too. My son lives in Molena, so I cross it a lot. Looks like there may be some portages. Was that true for yall?

Oh. To stay on topic, God got started as a fig newton of man's imagination.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Yep. I want to do the Flint too. My son lives in Molena, so I cross it a lot. Looks like there may be some portages. Was that true for yall?
> 
> Oh. To stay on topic, God got started as a fig newton of man's imagination.


Not portages but if the river is low you will do some maybe a lot of dragging (get out and drag your yak/canoe).
We take the shuttle upriver and come back down to the Flint River Outdoor Center but if you go downriver past the Outdoor Center there is a place called Yellow Jacket shoals or something like that that has eaten many a canoe. Killed a few people too I think. That may be a good place to portage

I don't like fig newtons.


----------



## WaltL1

Griz here is one from the Flint. River was up and muddy so the fishing sucked but nice scenery.
And you will hear my friend thank the Lord at one point so we are still on topic I think


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Trailer needs some work.  Haven't had tags or numbers on it in a while.


That's one of the things I love about the kayak is the simplicity of it all. No motors to break down, batteries to go dead, trailers with flat tires etc etc.  Throw it on top of the car or in the truck and go. 
Cant count how many times I would be floating around fishing listening to guys at the boat ramp cussing their $30,000 bass boat because it wont start for whatever reason.
Not that I would turn down a bass boat....


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> My favorite is "You can't understand it with your natural mind."  What good is it then?


I think that is to steer you away from all the questions there are no answers to that make any sense.
If it doesn't make sense its because you cant understand it not that its because it just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> http://kwgn.com/2015/01/22/mother-outraged-after-spotting-satanic-symbol-in-school-bus-brake-lights/
> 
> Now, faithful people, why would she say this if God is so loving that we're all daft if we read the Bible and get something other than loving God?



I'm still waiting on someone to step up to the plate on this question.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Griz here is one from the Flint. River was up and muddy so the fishing sucked but nice scenery.
> And you will hear my friend thank the Lord at one point so we are still on topic I think



Very nice. Funny when your friend got out and went almost up to his neck.

Nice 'trailer' you got on your yak.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm still waiting on someone to step up to the plate on this question.


No way of knowing for sure without more info. If you are referring to fear of God, there are many relevant scriptures.


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah we do the Ocmulgee more than any other place. Great river.
> We do the Flint a lot too in the Thomaston area. With that Outdoor Center there that has the shuttle service it makes the logistics really easy.



I grew up on the flint right there. (Hence the screen name)
I have great memories of wade fishing and bank fishing that stretch. Canoed it and did it once in a john boat, but never kayaked.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Griz, my buddy using his canoe. We also camped out and with his canoe we were able to bring lots of comfort items including a massive cooler.



Great video, Walt.  That looks like a blast!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I mean what Webster's means. Namely,
> 
> 
> 
> I'll believe in God, or a God, when there's no explanation otherwise for what I'm witnessing. Just like I would about Bigfoot. I believe there's a chance that they exist, but I don't believe that they do and that's an important distinction. When someone can drop a body off that can't be traced to any other species, then I'll fully "believe" in it, which is tantamount to knowledge of.
> 
> In other words, there's not much that I "believe" in that can't be demonstrated to someone else. I can even justify my belief in the possibility of BF existing by citing the other species that belonged to cryptozoology not so long ago.
> 
> However, there's not been one thing I've witnessed in my life that could ONLY have come from God, but I have seen plenty that have shown me that there is either A) no God, or B) He's way more cruel than believers give him credit for in modern times.



OK.  Got it.  

I would point to terra firma and say that's incontrovertible evidence.  It's solid.  You can put your hands on it.  You and I are living proof.  We are part of the evidence also.

My point is this.  I think that you aren't looking for incontrovertible "evidence", but an incontrovertible "explanation." for the evidence.



Would you say that's fair?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> But to be fair if the claim is that God made the universe and the universe exists, it is evidence that the claim may be true.



And that is exactly the point and only point, I'm making.  The evidence is there.  It's incontrovertible.  To says there's no evidence for God is to deny the existence of everything.

You can say I don't buy the theistic explanation for the evidence and that's fine, but to deny the evidence is a bit of a folly.  If there's no evidence for God, there's none for any other explanation either.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My question is, if you weren't a believer, would you automatically attribute the universe to God?



No, but denying God and denying the evidence are two separate issues entirely.

p.s.  Trying to answer these in the order they were replied to.  I apologize if there's overlap.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> No way of knowing for sure without more info. If you are referring to fear of God, there are many relevant scriptures.



Therein lies the point. You say there's plenty of relevant scripture for being fearful of God, Day Trip says that anyone who reads it and gets something other than "God loves you unconditionally" is daft. 

Sure, my parents love me, but were wrathful when I misbehaved, but they never grounded me to Hades forever when I did. 



Israel said:


> That's, to me, backwards.
> Believers are those who are in the process of being personified.



That, to me, makes 0 sense. You are a person who has emotions and actions. You have a personality. God, well, that's up for debate. 



SemperFiDawg said:


> OK.  Got it.
> 
> I would point to terra firma and say that's incontrovertible evidence.  It's solid.  You can put your hands on it.  You and I are living proof.  We are part of the evidence also.
> 
> My point is this.  I think that you aren't looking for incontrovertible "evidence", but an incontrovertible "explanation." for the evidence.
> 
> Would you say that's fair?



I get the distinction you're trying to draw, but I don't agree with it. Yes, the earth is incontrovertible evidence, but of what? The only thing we can say for certain is geologic activity, and extrapolate from other observable solar systems how that might have got going. 

But I do mean incontrovertible evidence, especially of God, since He's supposed to be the source of life, morality, and whole host of other things. Something so supernatural that it could only have come from divine intervention is the only thing that I will believe, being honest about my skepticism, as evidence of God. 

Maybe it's arrogant of me to place such high demands on God, but I'm just being honest to the way I was built, and, if the stories are true, then he knew me from before I was born and altering my behaviors or thoughts is arrogant in and of itself, no? 

But, that's no higher demand than I make of anything else I subscribe to, and any assertion of existence is met with the same skepticism no matter the creature until evidence, or lack thereof, has been utterly exhausted. In other words, until we know 100% of the surface of the planet, then there's no way to show that BF doesn't exist. They may not be as populous as humans, almost certainly aren't, but we can't say they don't with certainty because we don't have full knowledge of our own continent, let alone the whole universe. 

I attribute the commonality of theology to be resultant from the commonality of humans. Some believers attribute the commonality to the universal nature of God. Other believers think that the other religions are wrong, and their one faith is the true answer. Now answer me this, who is the more arrogant?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> The Universe is certain evidence of what exactly?  That the Universe exists?  I absolutely agree.  Evidence of god?  Lets do the regression exercise again for those that just joined in.



Not ignoring you or Bullet, but I think my conversation with Stripe and Walt covers this.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Griz, my buddy using his canoe. We also camped out and with his canoe we were able to bring lots of comfort items including a massive cooler.



Thanks Walt.  Just made me break No.  10.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Therein lies the point. You say there's plenty of relevant scripture for being fearful of God, Day Trip says that anyone who reads it and gets something other than "God loves you unconditionally" is daft.
> 
> Sure, my parents love me, but were wrathful when I misbehaved, but they never grounded me to Hades forever when I did.
> 
> 
> 
> That, to me, makes 0 sense. You are a person who has emotions and actions. You have a personality. God, well, that's up for debate.
> 
> 
> 
> I get the distinction you're trying to draw, but I don't agree with it. Yes, the earth is incontrovertible evidence, but of what? The only thing we can say for certain is geologic activity, and extrapolate from other observable solar systems how that might have got going.
> 
> But I do mean incontrovertible evidence, especially of God, since He's supposed to be the source of life, morality, and whole host of other things. Something so supernatural that it could only have come from divine intervention is the only thing that I will believe, being honest about my skepticism, as evidence of God.
> 
> Maybe it's arrogant of me to place such high demands on God, but I'm just being honest to the way I was built, and, if the stories are true, then he knew me from before I was born and altering my behaviors or thoughts is arrogant in and of itself, no?
> 
> But, that's no higher demand than I make of anything else I subscribe to, and any assertion of existence is met with the same skepticism no matter the creature until evidence, or lack thereof, has been utterly exhausted. In other words, until we know 100% of the surface of the planet, then there's no way to show that BF doesn't exist. They may not be as populous as humans, almost certainly aren't, but we can't say they don't with certainty because we don't have full knowledge of our own continent, let alone the whole universe.
> 
> I attribute the commonality of theology to be resultant from the commonality of humans. Some believers attribute the commonality to the universal nature of God. Other believers think that the other religions are wrong, and their one faith is the true answer. Now answer me this, who is the more arrogant?



My first thought was from the hip and pretty bad, but I'll share it, while I peck out a better reply.  

If I can't present you with direct evidence of God would you accept my ex wife as incontrovertible proof of God's antithesis, Satan.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> My first thought was from the hip and pretty bad, but I'll share it, while I peck out a better reply.
> 
> If I can't present you with direct evidence of God would you accept my ex wife as incontrovertible proof of God's antithesis, Satan.



She'd have to out-compete my ex, the Succubus.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> And that is exactly the point and only point, I'm making.  The evidence is there.  It's incontrovertible.  To says there's no evidence for God is to deny the existence of everything.
> 
> You can say I don't buy the theistic explanation for the evidence and that's fine, but to deny the evidence is a bit of a folly.  If there's no evidence for God, there's none for any other explanation either.



The evidence you are giving us is evidence of how our planet was created...not by any means WHO created it. 
We can take it all the way back to the Big Bang and how matter formed and how gravity attracted all that matter into what we call Earth (and every other star,planet,  meteor and asteroid) but there is no more evidence for one God more than another or that the flying spaghetti monster is more responsible for creation than The Great Bigfoot that resides on the Highest Mountain in the sky.
Yes you have evidence but it is by no means evidence for who or what. There is much that goes into explaining how our planet got to it's current form. Because you see dirt does not default to a god let alone a specific god.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Therein lies the point. You say there's plenty of relevant scripture for being fearful of God, Day Trip says that anyone who reads it and gets something other than "God loves you unconditionally" is daft.


I can agree with Day Trip, depending upon who he is addressing with "God loves you unconditionally". If he is applying it to the objects of God's love, he is correct. If he is applying it to the objects of God's wrath, he is incorrect.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Sure, my parents love me, but were wrathful when I misbehaved, but they never grounded me to Hades forever when I did.


Your illustration shows that your parents established an appropriate punishment for you wrongdoings. My parents may have dealt more severely with me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> I can agree with Day Trip, depending upon who he is addressing with "God loves you unconditionally". If he is applying it to the objects of God's love, he is correct. If he is applying it to the objects of God's wrath, he is incorrect.
> 
> Your illustration shows that your parents established an appropriate punishment for you wrongdoings. My parents may have dealt more severely with me.



In both cases, his words apply to "people". Any people, and all people. 

Or less severely. There's no way for either of us to know until we lay out all of our cards, which I'm not willing to do.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In both cases, his words apply to "people". Any people, and all people.


I take your word for it. I haven't had the time to read every post.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or less severely.


Of course.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Yes, I am the fool you do not want to be.
> And you needn't.


Need carries a man to peculiar places.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Therein lies the point. You say there's plenty of relevant scripture for being fearful of God, Day Trip says that anyone who reads it and gets something other than "God loves you unconditionally" is daft.
> 
> Sure, my parents love me, but were wrathful when I misbehaved, but they never grounded me to Hades forever when I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, to me, makes 0 sense. You are a person who has emotions and actions. You have a personality. God, well, that's up for debate.
> 
> 
> 
> I get the distinction you're trying to draw, but I don't agree with it. Yes, the earth is incontrovertible evidence, but of what? The only thing we can say for certain is geologic activity, and extrapolate from other observable solar systems how that might have got going.
> 
> But I do mean incontrovertible evidence, especially of God, since He's supposed to be the source of life, morality, and whole host of other things. Something so supernatural that it could only have come from divine intervention is the only thing that I will believe, being honest about my skepticism, as evidence of God.
> 
> Maybe it's arrogant of me to place such high demands on God, but I'm just being honest to the way I was built, and, if the stories are true, then he knew me from before I was born and altering my behaviors or thoughts is arrogant in and of itself, no?
> 
> But, that's no higher demand than I make of anything else I subscribe to, and any assertion of existence is met with the same skepticism no matter the creature until evidence, or lack thereof, has been utterly exhausted. In other words, until we know 100% of the surface of the planet, then there's no way to show that BF doesn't exist. They may not be as populous as humans, almost certainly aren't, but we can't say they don't with certainty because we don't have full knowledge of our own continent, let alone the whole universe.
> 
> I attribute the commonality of theology to be resultant from the commonality of humans. Some believers attribute the commonality to the universal nature of God. Other believers think that the other religions are wrong, and their one faith is the true answer. Now answer me this, who is the more arrogant?




I guess the bottom line is there's probably not a lot I can say to that.  People's reasons for not believing are as varied as the individual.  I've pretty much given up conversing with those who cant be intellectually honest and subject their own views to the same rigors as those of others, so I appreciate your being honest across the board so-to-speak by applying your critiques equally to all truth claims.

I hope you get your evidence one day.  I really do.

Off subject, but I was curious.  Have you ever read the Bible cover to cover?  If it is truly as it claims (and I believe) the word of God, and you are investigating truth claims, I just think one cannot voice a informed opinion of its content without reading it.  To be fair, that applies to those calling themselves Christians also.  You would be surprised how many believers have never even read it, which I find baffling and more than a little disquieting.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> I guess the bottom line is there's probably not a lot I can say to that.  People's reasons for not believing are as varied as the individual.  I've pretty much given up conversing with those who cant be intellectually honest and subject their own views to the same rigors as those of others, so I appreciate your being honest across the board so-to-speak by applying your critiques equally to all truth claims.
> 
> I hope you get your evidence one day.  I really do.
> 
> Off subject, but I was curious.  Have you ever read the Bible cover to cover?  If it is truly as it claims (and I believe) the word of God, and you are investigating truth claims, I just think one cannot voice a informed opinion of its content without reading it.  To be fair, that applies to those calling themselves Christians also.  You would be surprised how many believers have never even read it, which I find baffling and more than a little disquieting.



Yes, I've read the Bible, but it has been a while, so I can't quote it off the cuff. 

In addition to the Bible, I've also studied other religions from around the world. Not only large scale codified ones like Christianity or Islam, but also tribal and ancient religions. I'm far from an expert, shoot, to be honest I'm far from a novice, when it comes to knowing all facets of every one of them. 

What I do see is a common ancestry amongst a great many of them, and more importantly, a common parentage. Namely, humans. Even those who claim to have physical evidence never want it scrutinized. Looking at those facts from other perspectives, it would be like you parents saying that Santa at some of the cookies, and drank the milk, but wouldn't let you see it for ourselves. Still, the only thing you would see is a bite mark, or some crumbs, so what does that really prove? 

The same goes with faith and religion. No one doubts that the earth, or universe, exists. Not without indulging huge existentialism by which everything, literally everything, gets called into question. The fact that the earth exists, or the universe exists, is no more evidence of any one particular God, and I'm speaking religiously here since the differences between the messages of Buddha are so different than that of "God" that I doubt seriously they could be talking, specifically about one deity that either of them could fully understand, than the cookie is evidence of Santa. 

You can see the cookie, like you can see the earth. My question is, and always has been, would you look at the cookie and see Santa, or the Earth and see "The one true God" if no one had told you about either beforehand? 

That's what I'm asking you to do when I ask you to step outside of your own perspective and embrace a larger, unbiased view. I'm not telling you that the answer is to believe that randomness governs the universe like I do, or even what implications that should, or could, have on you. All I'm asking you to do is to examine the awesome, powerful, simplicity of the question I posed to you. 

You wake up one morning to find that there are wrapped boxes under the tree you had decorated in the living room earlier in the winter season. You also notice that the plate of cookies, and cup of milk, you accidentally left out had been partially consumed after you left them. What would you think caused that? 

If you didn't have God to attribute the existence of everything to, imagine that no one told you about Him, would you still come to the Christian answer of the one, true God? Then examine how they found out about Him in order to have told you? It was probably their parents, and they probably started from the same age yours started with you. 

Now, I do acknowledge that there are others who that doesn't apply to. I believe in the bell curve of humanity. It's not an exact predictor of human behavior or results, but it allows you to gauge which are the most probable of outcomes. 

Look at the bell curve for the genesis of the faithful, and how they came to be. You'd have a few that came from spontaneous curiosity, you'd have a few others who fall into the "just in case" category. But the vast majority have had these stories, and I use that word not to be denigrating but as shorthand for parables, proverbs, and the like; the vast majority of them have had these stories told to them, wrapped in blankets of love, with threats of wrath if they take it off, since they were children. The reasons, and justifications, for continued belief are as varied as the people that believe, but the genesis of their faith is fairly consistent. 

This is pure speculation on my part, but if we were pass a law, which I'm not advocating or even suggesting (this is purely rhetorical), that forbade the education of children in matters of faith or religion until their 18th birthday, I doubt if we'd have even 10% of the faithful population in this country as we do today. Whether that's good, bad, or indifferent is irrelevant. The point being is that it's far more likely to be faithful if you're brought up in it than it is if you're left to discover it for yourself. And I think that's very telling, personally.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Therein lies the point. You say there's plenty of relevant scripture for being fearful of God, Day Trip says that anyone who reads it and gets something other than "God loves you unconditionally" is daft.
> 
> Sure, my parents love me, but were wrathful when I misbehaved, but they never grounded me to Hades forever when I did.
> 
> 
> 
> That, to me, makes 0 sense. You are a person who has emotions and actions. You have a personality. God, well, that's up for debate.
> 
> 
> 
> I get the distinction you're trying to draw, but I don't agree with it. Yes, the earth is incontrovertible evidence, but of what? The only thing we can say for certain is geologic activity, and extrapolate from other observable solar systems how that might have got going.
> 
> But I do mean incontrovertible evidence, especially of God, since He's supposed to be the source of life, morality, and whole host of other things. Something so supernatural that it could only have come from divine intervention is the only thing that I will believe, being honest about my skepticism, as evidence of God.
> 
> Maybe it's arrogant of me to place such high demands on God, but I'm just being honest to the way I was built, and, if the stories are true, then he knew me from before I was born and altering my behaviors or thoughts is arrogant in and of itself, no?
> 
> But, that's no higher demand than I make of anything else I subscribe to, and any assertion of existence is met with the same skepticism no matter the creature until evidence, or lack thereof, has been utterly exhausted. In other words, until we know 100% of the surface of the planet, then there's no way to show that BF doesn't exist. They may not be as populous as humans, almost certainly aren't, but we can't say they don't with certainty because we don't have full knowledge of our own continent, let alone the whole universe.
> 
> I attribute the commonality of theology to be resultant from the commonality of humans. Some believers attribute the commonality to the universal nature of God. Other believers think that the other religions are wrong, and their one faith is the true answer. Now answer me this, who is the more arrogant?





> Sure, my parents love me, but were wrathful when I misbehaved, but they never grounded me to Hades forever when I did.


To me that is such an important point. 
When there is no lesson to be learned that applies to FUTURE behavior then that changes from teaching a lesson to a whole other ball game.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm still waiting on someone to step up to the plate on this question.



I'm not touching that one.  Guilt by association with someone who sees satanic pentagrams in school bus lights isn't exactly my idea of starting on a level playing field. But thanks for the offer just the same.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, I've read the Bible, but it has been a while, so I can't quote it off the cuff.
> 
> In addition to the Bible, I've also studied other religions from around the world. Not only large scale codified ones like Christianity or Islam, but also tribal and ancient religions. I'm far from an expert, shoot, to be honest I'm far from a novice, when it comes to knowing all facets of every one of them.
> 
> What I do see is a common ancestry amongst a great many of them, and more importantly, a common parentage. Namely, humans. Even those who claim to have physical evidence never want it scrutinized. Looking at those facts from other perspectives, it would be like you parents saying that Santa at some of the cookies, and drank the milk, but wouldn't let you see it for ourselves. Still, the only thing you would see is a bite mark, or some crumbs, so what does that really prove?
> 
> The same goes with faith and religion. No one doubts that the earth, or universe, exists. Not without indulging huge existentialism by which everything, literally everything, gets called into question. The fact that the earth exists, or the universe exists, is no more evidence of any one particular God, and I'm speaking religiously here since the differences between the messages of Buddha are so different than that of "God" that I doubt seriously they could be talking, specifically about one deity that either of them could fully understand, than the cookie is evidence of Santa.
> 
> You can see the cookie, like you can see the earth. My question is, and always has been, would you look at the cookie and see Santa, or the Earth and see "The one true God" if no one had told you about either beforehand?
> 
> That's what I'm asking you to do when I ask you to step outside of your own perspective and embrace a larger, unbiased view. I'm not telling you that the answer is to believe that randomness governs the universe like I do, or even what implications that should, or could, have on you. All I'm asking you to do is to examine the awesome, powerful, simplicity of the question I posed to you.
> 
> You wake up one morning to find that there are wrapped boxes under the tree you had decorated in the living room earlier in the winter season. You also notice that the plate of cookies, and cup of milk, you accidentally left out had been partially consumed after you left them. What would you think caused that?
> 
> If you didn't have God to attribute the existence of everything to, imagine that no one told you about Him, would you still come to the Christian answer of the one, true God? Then examine how they found out about Him in order to have told you? It was probably their parents, and they probably started from the same age yours started with you.
> 
> Now, I do acknowledge that there are others who that doesn't apply to. I believe in the bell curve of humanity. It's not an exact predictor of human behavior or results, but it allows you to gauge which are the most probable of outcomes.
> 
> Look at the bell curve for the genesis of the faithful, and how they came to be. You'd have a few that came from spontaneous curiosity, you'd have a few others who fall into the "just in case" category. But the vast majority have had these stories, and I use that word not to be denigrating but as shorthand for parables, proverbs, and the like; the vast majority of them have had these stories told to them, wrapped in blankets of love, with threats of wrath if they take it off, since they were children. The reasons, and justifications, for continued belief are as varied as the people that believe, but the genesis of their faith is fairly consistent.
> 
> This is pure speculation on my part, but if we were pass a law, which I'm not advocating or even suggesting (this is purely rhetorical), that forbade the education of children in matters of faith or religion until their 18th birthday, I doubt if we'd have even 10% of the faithful population in this country as we do today. Whether that's good, bad, or indifferent is irrelevant. The point being is that it's far more likely to be faithful if you're brought up in it than it is if you're left to discover it for yourself. And I think that's very telling, personally.





> The point being is that it's far more likely to be faithful if you're brought up in it than it is if you're left to discover it for yourself. And I think that's very telling, personally.



 Agreed, but statistics don't help one iota when trying to discern the truth.  They may or may not point in the right direction.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> Agreed, but statistics don't help one iota when trying to discern the truth.  They may or may not point in the right direction.



Nothing about stepping outside of your perspective, though? 

Statistics may not hold up against the individual, meaning they may be a deviation from the normal parameters, but they do a pretty good job at predicting results. Far better than the batting averages of even great baseball players, and meteorologists.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> The evidence you are giving us is evidence of how our planet was created...not by any means WHO created it.
> We can take it all the way back to the Big Bang and how matter formed and how gravity attracted all that matter into what we call Earth (and every other star,planet,  meteor and asteroid) but there is no more evidence for one God more than another or that the flying spaghetti monster is more responsible for creation than The Great Bigfoot that resides on the Highest Mountain in the sky.
> Yes you have evidence but it is by no means evidence for who or what. There is much that goes into explaining how our planet got to it's current form. Because you see dirt does not default to a god let alone a specific god.



I agree to a point, taking exception to this



> but there is no more evidence for one God more than another or that the flying spaghetti monster is more responsible for creation than The Great Bigfoot that resides on the Highest Mountain in the sky.



And maybe this



> Yes you have evidence but it is by no means evidence for who or what.



But if you will, let's kick the can as far back as it will go.

I think you have stated "energy" created the universe whereas I say God.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

If I'm correct on your postulation for "energy" , how do you square that with the apparent infinitesimally fine tuning of the universe for life......any life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not touching that one.  Guilt by association with someone who sees satanic pentagrams in school bus lights isn't exactly my idea of starting on a level playing field. But thanks for the offer just the same.



I don't know where you're getting that I'm implying guilt for anyone. I posted that article because it specifically mentioned a vengeful, and wrathful, God that had been previously, and resounding, refuted earlier in this very thread. EDIT: Follow where I quoted myself and you'll see, in that OP, that I grabbed a section of the article that I was specifically referring to. 

"If you read the Bible and get something other than a loving God, then you're doing it wrong," to paraphrase the OP. 

That's the part that I'm asking someone to take a swing at. Not the seeing pentagrams in brake lights. I'll be paintings of the devil cause her to lose sleep.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Nothing about stepping outside of your perspective, though?
> 
> Statistics may not hold up against the individual, meaning they may be a deviation from the normal parameters, but they do a pretty good job at predicting results. Far better than the batting averages of even great baseball players, and meteorologists.



The ONLY Christian that I have ever heard say "I could be wrong" is my mother.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> The ONLY Christian that I have ever say "I could be wrong" is my mother.



I'm not even looking for that, or even _an_ answer, other than to say they performed the exercise. 

If they do and it doesn't change their perspective then so be it. If they don't want to do it, then tell me. If they want to tell me they did it, but didn't really, then so be it. 

Like I've always said, my goal here isn't to talk people out of their faith. I just want people to look at it in the harsh light of day, and not just under romantic candlelight, proverbially speaking.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree to a point, taking exception to this
> 
> 
> 
> And maybe this
> 
> 
> 
> But if you will, let's kick the can as far back as it will go.
> 
> I think you have stated "energy" created the universe whereas I say God.  Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> If I'm correct on your postulation for "energy" , how do you square that with the apparent infinitesimally fine tuning of the universe for life......any life.


I stated and continue to state that I have absolutely no idea what got this current Universe started. Being that an enormous amount of energy was suddenly released and energy is known to be neither created nor destroyed but will change forms then I am more likely to believe that Energy had something to do with the creation of the Universe.

I in no way think that the Universe was or is specifically designed for life nor is it "fine tuned" for life.
I think that life was inevitable based on the available components and location. We are not here because some creator had a plan. ..we are here because conditions allowed it.
This article states it better than i can.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not even looking for that, or even _an_ answer, other than to say they performed the exercise.
> 
> If they do and it doesn't change their perspective then so be it. If they don't want to do it, then tell me. If they want to tell me they did it, but didn't really, then so be it.
> 
> Like I've always said, my goal here isn't to talk people out of their faith. I just want people to look at it in the harsh light of day, and not just under romantic candlelight, proverbially speaking.



A statement like that of my mother confirms that the exercise was conducted. She still believes.  Watch what happens when someone insists beyond a shadow of a doubt that they KNOW that the god they believe in is 100% absolutely true.


----------



## bullethead

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html
SFD, even the brightest minds still do not have anywhere near all of the answers but they do have enough answers to rule certain things in or out.
The components that make up life are available everywhere in the Universe. The conditions vary.
Stanley Miller grew amino acids back in the 1950's by putting some of the basic elements in a test tube and added an electric charge. Now I cannot even begin to try to even pretend to understand how amino acids get more complex and turn into a cell AND I certainly do not want to come across to you as me having all the answers. What I do know and have confidence in is that life in current forms as we know them were not poofed into existence. There is nothing that suggests that the stories of creation as stated in the Bible happened that way. I just do not....cannot... go along with any organized religions versions of creation because available evidence does not allow me to.
Was man made from dirt....yes I guess in a way that has some truth to it.  Was it done as stated in Genesis? No.
I have no idea if there is a god.
I have no idea if an intelligent being had any hand in creation.
I am convinced the god as described by Christians,Jews, and Muslims not only had nothing to do with creation but does not exist. If anything those versions are just a way to make sense of the things that are not and cannot be understood.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Well, alrighty then.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, alrighty then.



I am wondering if anyone read the articles from the links I posted?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> I am wondering if anyone read the articles from the links I posted?



Dunno.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Nothing about stepping outside of your perspective, though?
> 
> Statistics may not hold up against the individual, meaning they may be a deviation from the normal parameters, but they do a pretty good job at predicting results. Far better than the batting averages of even great baseball players, and meteorologists.



I've read just as many, if not more books by skeptics over the last year, than by believers.  Think it's safe to say I don't mind stepping outside the box.  However I won't claim to be unbiased, and don't kid yourself into believing that you are anyone else is either.  We have our preconceived lenses in which we view the world.  Pretty near impossible to lay them aside.  

As far as statistical predictive value goes I will just say this.  Approximately 1/3 of the world reads the Bible and comes away with the impression that the God of Christianity is a loving merciful God.  Less than 6% of the population in the U.S. are Atheist of whom only a fraction of which would agree that the God of the Bible is presented as a tyrannical, maniacal, evil, racist, genocidal,
Being.  

Given your faith in the predictive value of statistics, which one is the most probable accurate depiction?

Not trying to be confrontational, but I hear this or another similar portraits bandied about here quiet often, and I just gotta ask, "In all honesty is it a fair one?"


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I stated and continue to state that I have absolutely no idea what got this current Universe started. Being that an enormous amount of energy was suddenly released and energy is known to be neither created nor destroyed but will change forms then I am more likely to believe that Energy had something to do with the creation of the Universe.
> 
> I in no way think that the Universe was or is specifically designed for life nor is it "fine tuned" for life.
> I think that life was inevitable based on the available components and location. We are not here because some creator had a plan. ..we are here because conditions allowed it.
> This article states it better than i can.
> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god



Roger Penrose calculated the chance of the early universe meeting the conditions for life.  He came up with the number of 1 in 10 to the 123 power.  Simple put there's  not 10 to the 123 power particles in the universe, and that just looking at the fine tuning at a macro level.  It doesn't even take into account what's needed on the level of an individual solar system level.
   It's a pretty much foregone conclusion that the universe appears to have been very fine tuned (even Dawkins admits there is an appearance of design ).

I understand you are denying God as an explanation for this, so I am simply asking for your explanation.  The evidence is what it is.  Give me another explanation.

Please don't just post a link without providing an excerpt ,comment or both.  I'm pretty limited time wise as to what I can read.  It's gotta be pretty short and to the point or I'm not gonna be able to read and reply.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've read just as many, if not more books by skeptics over the last year, than by believers.  Think it's safe to say I don't mind stepping outside the box.  However I won't claim to be unbiased, and don't kid yourself into believing that you are anyone else is either.  We have our preconceived lenses in which we view the world.  Pretty near impossible to lay them aside.
> 
> As far as statistical predictive value goes I will just say this.  Approximately 1/3 of the world reads the Bible and comes away with the impression that the God of Christianity is a loving merciful God.  Less than 6% of the population in the U.S. are Atheist of whom only a fraction of which would agree that the God of the Bible is presented as a tyrannical, maniacal, evil, racist, genocidal,
> Being.
> 
> Given your faith in the predictive value of statistics, which one is the most probable accurate depiction?
> 
> Not trying to be confrontational, but I hear this or another similar portraits bandied about here quiet often, and I just gotta ask, "In all honesty is it a fair one?"



Trying to use statistics about belief to justify a God is specious and attempting to conflate the issue. I'm not trying to be confrontational either, but I asked a very simple question and have yet to have anyone take an honest swing at it. Well, either of them actually. 

You say that 20% of the world reads the bible and comes away with 1 particular message, and that God is loving and merciful. Well, 20% of 6.5 billion is around 1.2 to 1.3 billion people. That's the entire Christian population according to the latest census figures, and I just showed you where that's not true. 

I'm well aware of my own biases. I'm also quite adept at looking beyond them to understand the viewpoints of others. 

Please back up your claims about atheists and their beliefs. Call me crazy, but since I just punched holes in your previous attempt at the statistics of belief, within your own subset, I doubt you accurately represent those of people outside of it. 

I didn't say I had absolute faith in statistics, or their predictive qualities. If you re-read what I said you'll see that I said that they give good estimates of what's likely to happen, and that there are frequently outlying data points. It would be wise to remember, and I don't say that insultingly, that I believe in very few absolutes in the universe. Mainly because the universe is rarely black and white, and the cases where it is are clearly outlined. Human behavior and belief are not such an instance. 

The two questions I asked were, A) If no one told you about Santa, or God, what is the likelihood that you would attribute anything you currently associate with their actions to them? And B) if the loving, merciful God is the only right message, and all others are daft, is the woman represented in the article a "true" Christian or not? 

How many times is wrath mentioned in the NT? 

According to this;
https://bible.org/article/wrath-god-new-testament-never-against-his-new-covenant-community

quite a bit, and some are direct quotes from the Bible. 

So if he's such a loving, merciful God, then why so many mentions of his wrath, potential or otherwise, especially in the NT since we were then saved by grace, rather than merit? And how is it wrong to see him as a wrathful being, especially to those outside the fold and flock. I'm sure the "favorite" kid in a 2 child household doesn't feel like their parents are wrathful, either. Ask the other one, and the story changes, doesn't it?


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Roger Penrose calculated the chance of the early universe meeting the conditions for life.  He came up with the number of 1 in 10 to the 123 power.  Simple put there's  not 10 to the 123 power particles in the universe, and that just looking at the fine tuning at a macro level.  It doesn't even take into account what's needed on the level of an individual solar system level.
> It's a pretty much foregone conclusion that the universe appears to have been very fine tuned (even Dawkins admits there is an appearance of design ).
> 
> I understand you are denying God as an explanation for this, so I am simply asking for your explanation.  The evidence is what it is.  Give me another explanation.
> 
> Please don't just post a link without providing an excerpt ,comment or both.  I'm pretty limited time wise as to what I can read.  It's gotta be pretty short and to the point or I'm not gonna be able to read and reply.




Penrose is talking about one trial.  

It's like saying the chances of me being here typing now were dependent on my father forgetting his keys and so he was late and he missed his bus but he got on the next one and he met my mom and if there hadn't been a snowstorm and a black out that Winter night I might not have been conceived.  And even further back to a Homonid ancestor who if he had not bent down to pick up a berry he would have been decapitated by a sabre tooth tiger and on and on and on down the line of things that had to happen for me to be here typing.  

It's astounding.  

But think of how many people are typing right now all over the world and those who have come and gone.  Is it still that big a deal?  That's the REAL math.

Imagine how many independent trials were going on in a primordial puddle?  Imagine how many were going on in the oceans?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Roger Penrose calculated the chance of the early universe meeting the conditions for life.  He came up with the number of 1 in 10 to the 123 power.  Simple put there's  not 10 to the 123 power particles in the universe, and that just looking at the fine tuning at a macro level.  It doesn't even take into account what's needed on the level of an individual solar system level.
> It's a pretty much foregone conclusion that the universe appears to have been very fine tuned (even Dawkins admits there is an appearance of design ).
> 
> I understand you are denying God as an explanation for this, so I am simply asking for your explanation.  The evidence is what it is.  Give me another explanation.
> 
> Please don't just post a link without providing an excerpt ,comment or both.  I'm pretty limited time wise as to what I can read.  It's gotta be pretty short and to the point or I'm not gonna be able to read and reply.



The stats Penrose calculated are beyond astronomical. ..but they have been addressed many times over on here. They are based off of a One Time try.
The great thing about odds are that they rarely are hit on the last number. It could happen at any point from 1 to 10^123. Check the casinos or lottery to see what I mean. Every pull of the handle is progressive towards the next. ONE person with ONE Quarter playing ONE time on ONE machine that has never been played before is up against some serious odds. Now take that same machine that has been on the floor for a month without a jackpot being hit .. every time the handle is pulled the odds increase in your favor. Take a wall of machines that are linked to walls of machines in other casinos and all those tries going on increase the odds of the jackpot being hit for someone. In early Earths primordial pool there was more than one try going on and survival of the fittest increased each try from the next.
I/you/we have gone over this evidence and explanation merry go round many times.
As I have said before...the lack of evidence for a god is all the evidence I need.

As far as the links I would not bombard every post with a link just to waste time.
The ones I provided are worth the time to read as a whole in order to get the entire picture.  Providing and commenting on a small excerpt would not do the article the justice it deserves. They deal directly with what we have been discussing and in ways better than I can explain it


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I don't want to call anyone out, but there's a sigline by a member here who I think is very relevant to the point I was trying to make about a wrathful God. 



> Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.



Did this member get the wrong message?


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't want to call anyone out, but there's a sigline by a member here who I think is very relevant to the point I was trying to make about a wrathful God.
> 
> 
> 
> Did this member get the wrong message?


Not according to the Bible.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31)


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> Not according to the Bible.
> 
> "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31)



Okay, so that's two that believe that God should be feared, instead of looked at as a loving figure. Unless I read something into this that wasn't there, gem.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, so that's two that believe that God should be feared, instead of looked at as a loving figure. Unless I read something into this that wasn't there, gem.


According to the Bible, God possesses both love and wrath. Some just despise that God hurts people and will torture them forever. I praise Him for it.

But then again, I believe what God reveals about Himself in the Bible.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> According to the Bible, God possesses both love and wrath. Some just despise that God hurts people and will torture them forever. I praise Him for it.
> 
> But then again, I believe what God reveals about Himself in the Bible.



Okay, I didn't want to misrepresent your beliefs because they seemingly agreed with my premise.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> I understand you are denying God as an explanation for this, so I am simply asking for your explanation.  The evidence is what it is.  Give me another explanation.



I'll give you an explanation, straight and to the point. Since the beginning of religion, all religions included, we have been told lies related to the natural world and God was the explanation. Now that science has dispelled a lot of those explanations, religion keeps moving the goal post until they reach a point where we just don't know. Then, there is an 'ah ha!' moment for religion. Well, since other stuff that was credited to God has been discovered/explained, and the bible's account of the earth's relationship to the universe discounted, there is nothing wrong with saying, "WE DON'T KNOW."

It is certainly a better answer than you can get from a book written by prehistoric man. 
The same men that thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The same men who also thought it was more plausible that the laws of nature were suspended for awhile rather than a woman lie about how she got pregnant. Yea, those guys.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> The stats Penrose calculated are beyond astronomical. ..but they have been addressed many times over on here. They are based off of a One Time try.
> The great thing about odds are that they rarely are hit on the last number. It could happen at any point from 1 to 10^123. Check the casinos or lottery to see what I mean. Every pull of the handle is progressive towards the next. ONE person with ONE Quarter playing ONE time on ONE machine that has never been played before is up against some serious odds. Now take that same machine that has been on the floor for a month without a jackpot being hit .. every time the handle is pulled the odds increase in your favor. Take a wall of machines that are linked to walls of machines in other casinos and all those tries going on increase the odds of the jackpot being hit for someone. In early Earths primordial pool there was more than one try going on and survival of the fittest increased each try from the next.
> I/you/we have gone over this evidence and explanation merry go round many times.
> As I have said before...the lack of evidence for a god is all the evidence I need.
> 
> As far as the links I would not bombard every post with a link just to waste time.
> The ones I provided are worth the time to read as a whole in order to get the entire picture.  Providing and commenting on a small excerpt would not do the article the justice it deserves. They deal directly with what we have been discussing and in ways better than I can explain it



Imagine one hundred billion billion slot machines being pulled simultaneously every hour for a billion years.  

Do you see the difference in this and what Penrose is talking about SFD?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Imagine one hundred billion billion slot machines being pulled simultaneously every hour for a billion years.
> 
> Do you see the difference in this and what Penrose is talking about SFD?


Under those conditions life was not impossible but inevitable.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Imagine one hundred billion billion slot machines being pulled simultaneously every hour for a billion years.
> 
> Do you see the difference in this and what Penrose is talking about SFD?


I see a lot of imagining. I also see the foolishness of both.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Under those conditions life was not impossible but inevitable.



It would seem that way.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> I see a lot of imagining. I also see the foolishness of both.




They're analogies.  Maybe I'm not giving enough credit but when someone posts a thing like Penrose it leads me to believe that they might not actually understand how things work.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> They're analogies.  Maybe I'm not giving enough credit but when someone posts a thing like Penrose it leads me to believe that they might not actually understand how things work.



Are there not three choices for the analogy?

1. Pulling the handle.
2. Fabrication of the machine.
3. Development of the plans and specifications for the machine.

Which is most appropriate for the calculation being discussed?


----------



## bullethead

http://news.yahoo.com/evolution-deniers-believe-smorgasbord-science-195335841.html
Well-educated religious people are just as scientifically literate as their more secular counterparts — yet most still overwhelmingly reject theories of human evolution and the Big Bang, new research finds.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Are there not three choices for the analogy?
> 
> 1. Pulling the handle.
> 2. Fabrication of the machine.
> 3. Development of the plans and specifications for the machine.
> 
> Which is most appropriate for the calculation being discussed?



I can certainly see the argument for design.  How does what the Bible say happened compare to current scientific information?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I can certainly see the argument for design.  How does what the Bible say happened compare to current scientific information?



I’m afraid that simply identifying either side of your question, what the Bible says or what is current scientific information, would be difficult and is beyond the scope of my query, which concerns an appropriate analogy for Penrose’s calculation.

I don’t know anything about his methodology, which would determine the implications of his conclusion, so I thought that a response to my question would help me decide if I was interested enough to investigate.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Imagine.
> Imagine a thing not knowing itself.
> Giving birth to a thing that imagines it does.
> And is able to imagine a thing not knowing itself.
> And calling it daddy.



Try 1 every four hours instead of 4 every hour.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> By your own admission and at least one other you state yourself to be a former christian, another of once having been a believer admitting to no further convincing as having "been there, done that".
> You are, or at least, had been, not reluctant to deride a posting you felt interfered with what you said
> _"We finally have a believer willing to go step by step in detailed discussion to tell us how HE came to his beliefs and you are taking it as an opportunity to jump in and get a few more unsubstantiated claims in. Day Trip is willing to take the time to walk us through how he got to his conclusions."
> _


Ok......


Israel said:


> Yet, as you claim to have once been a Christian, why do you not have this testimony within yourself?


Because what you call Truth I find to be Untrue



Israel said:


> Why act so nonplussed as though you are going to hear something you claim to have had...but now act as though someone is ready to give you a most precious and previously unknown formula of being a "christian"?


Believing was the act. Reality stopped the act



Israel said:


> You either were, or weren't, and since all believers have the testimony of Jesus Christ within themselves perhaps you weren't.


Here we go....This is the part where you confuse fact with assertion in order to have it make sense to you. You absolutely CANNOT fathom that someone is different than you regarding the God you worship. You somehow think YOU have it all right and what you convince yourself of is the way it works for everyone else.



Israel said:


> Or, perhaps like the other speaker the "been there, done that" and "you (therefore) cannot convince us" is really what you are about and less the "I am open" to being shown", as you state.


All we have to go by is anothers honesty within themselves. I know what my mission is. Check your own.




Israel said:


> For, in the first case, the never having been and admitting so, is far better to your soul than persisting in "I was, and am now not",


Psych 101 with Israel.
I sincerely do not agree with your assertion



Israel said:


> for the first at least may make one an unbleiver not yet touched, the latter, a heretic. It is better to discover "I was not what I thought I was, (and also therefore), not then who I think I am now..." than to be one taken captive of the devil at his will, and be not, as one might say "open to being shown"...but in reality one set for the offense _against_ the gospel.


This is starting to sound like a confession on your end.



Israel said:


> You may actually be free to parade under the banner of agnosticism if you can accept you never were a "christian", really, knowing nothing of the Christ within, knowing nothing of his testimony, and having been blind to being what you once thought you were. Blind...as the Lord has said, is easily healed, being convinced one sees, and has seen, and tells others there is nothing there, is another matter.


AHHHH, the "You were never a real Christian" accusation.



Israel said:


> One could be quite correct, for the seeing who see so well in their own eyes, have no use of healing. Of course no "other man" can convince them, for in the greatness of their seeing, they see all others as blind.


Seems as though your shoe size is the same as the sneakers you accuse me of wearing.



Israel said:


> Yet another says "our truth is the truth, game over". If it be a game...to him, or any other, that is if one may speak for more than one (and you have not been one reluctant, again, to use a "we" in your comments as leverage) and you can accept this as a "game"...you have quite a ways to go in understanding both yourself, and the Lord.


I do not see where you have to insert anything as a "game" except to help it make sense to you.



Israel said:


> The seeking with the whole heart is not a game, nor is the Lord for parade before merely inquisitive or curious eyes.


Nor is the Lord at all.


Israel said:


> I do not dismiss your experience with your mother in law as something less than exquisitely painful so make no mistake as to my finding that testimony anything but a sorrow. To deny it would mean, for me, to deny the Lord.


Luckily for everyone What you Do or Do Not dismiss has absolutely no bearing or impact on anyone but you. 



Israel said:


> Yes, storms do come for all, and the easiest way to incite a maelstrom is to imagine we are not all buffeted in true grief at times.
> I entreat you as brother, if not in faith, at least in commonness of flesh. This is no game, truth is not for childishly claiming triumph over another man in argument or debate. And if you find what I say ignorant, unworthy, and of no merit, then please, for the love of Christ, exceed me.


You have been "Exceeded" long ago. You are the only person in any of these posts that refer to any of this belief or non belief as a game. It is just another of the long line of examples of you asserting a word, phrase or statement that absolutely has no merit except to back up other assertions that you made. None of it actually explains anything.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> By your own admission and at least one other you state yourself to be a former christian, another of once having been a believer admitting to no further convincing as having "been there, done that".
> You are, or at least, had been, not reluctant to deride a posting you felt interfered with what you said
> _"We finally have a believer willing to go step by step in detailed discussion to tell us how HE came to his beliefs and you are taking it as an opportunity to jump in and get a few more unsubstantiated claims in. Day Trip is willing to take the time to walk us through how he got to his conclusions."
> _
> Yet, as you claim to have once been a Christian, why do you not have this testimony within yourself? Why act so nonplussed as though you are going to hear something you claim to have had...but now act as though someone is ready to give you a most precious and previously unknown formula of being a "christian"?
> You either were, or weren't, and since all believers have the testimony of Jesus Christ within themselves perhaps you weren't. Or, perhaps like the other speaker the "been there, done that" and "you (therefore) cannot convince us" is really what you are about and less the "I am open" to being shown", as you state.
> For, in the first case, the never having been and admitting so, is far better to your soul than persisting in "I was, and am now not", for the first at least may make one an unbleiver not yet touched, the latter, a heretic. It is better to discover "I was not what I thought I was, (and also therefore), not then who I think I am now..." than to be one taken captive of the devil at his will, and be not, as one might say "open to being shown"...but in reality one set for the offense _against_ the gospel.
> You may actually be free to parade under the banner of agnosticism if you can accept you never were a "christian", really, knowing nothing of the Christ within, knowing nothing of his testimony, and having been blind to being what you once thought you were. Blind...as the Lord has said, is easily healed, being convinced one sees, and has seen, and tells others there is nothing there, is another matter.
> One could be quite correct, for the seeing who see so well in their own eyes, have no use of healing. Of course no "other man" can convince them, for in the greatness of their seeing, they see all others as blind.
> Yet another says "our truth is the truth, game over". If it be a game...to him, or any other, that is if one may speak for more than one (and you have not been one reluctant, again, to use a "we" in your comments as leverage) and you can accept this as a "game"...you have quite a ways to go in understanding both yourself, and the Lord.
> The seeking with the whole heart is not a game, nor is the Lord for parade before merely inquisitive or curious eyes.
> I do not dismiss your experience with your mother in law as something less than exquisitely painful so make no mistake as to my finding that testimony anything but a sorrow. To deny it would mean, for me, to deny the Lord.
> Yes, storms do come for all, and the easiest way to incite a maelstrom is to imagine we are not all buffeted in true grief at times.
> I entreat you as brother, if not in faith, at least in commonness of flesh. This is no game, truth is not for childishly claiming triumph over another man in argument or debate. And if you find what I say ignorant, unworthy, and of no merit, then please, for the love of Christ, exceed me.



The problem with all of this is that you cannot fathom that others have different experiences as you and that those experiences are just as true. You do not know one iota more about a God than any other person that has ever or will ever walk this planet. You just live to convince yourself otherwise.


----------



## WaltL1

> Or, perhaps like the other speaker the "been there, done that" and "you (therefore) cannot convince us" is really what you are about


That other speaker was me. Seems like a pretty honest statement. I was convinced once through indoctrination, pressure etc. by "man". Wont happen again. 
Could I be convinced? Sure but not by man and neither will I convince myself. The End.
Pretty simple really.
Is that what I really am about? Yep on this subject it is.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> That other speaker was me. Seems like a pretty honest statement. I was convinced once through indoctrination, pressure etc. by "man". Wont happen again.
> Could I be convinced? Sure but not by man and neither will I convince myself. The End.
> Pretty simple really.
> Is that what I really am about? Yep on this subject it is.


Well said Walt.
Any God worth his union card knows how to get in touch with us in no uncertain way.
It is that simple.


----------



## Huntinfool

Anybody ever tried to talk to a person who has his ears plugged and is yellling "LALALALALALALALALALA" at the top of his voice so that he can't hear what you're trying to tell him?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Anybody ever tried to talk to a person who has his ears plugged and is yellling "LALALALALALALALALALA" at the top of his voice so that he can't hear what you're trying to tell him?



Daily occurrence in here.


----------



## Huntinfool

It was in response to the irony of this quote:



> Any God worth his union card knows how to get in touch with us in no uncertain way.



Volitional attachment to an idea does not make it true (that goes for both sides of these discussions).

Made me think of these guys...


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> It was in response to the irony of this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Volitional attachment to an idea does not make it true (that goes for both sides of these discussions).
> 
> Made me think of these guys...



While I don't disagree with the assertion that a God who truly wanted us to believe would find a way to reveal himself to us in ways that would make that easier, I also don't disagree with your position and that closed minds make for very poor discussions.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Anybody ever tried to talk to a person who has his ears plugged and is yellling "LALALALALALALALALALA" at the top of his voice so that he can't hear what you're trying to tell him?


Why do you ask?


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> It was in response to the irony of this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Volitional attachment to an idea does not make it true (that goes for both sides of these discussions).
> 
> Made me think of these



Well I have tried everything else and I have opened myself up to any God that wants to make genuine contact with me.
A cloud that loosely resembles a lamb is not sign to me.
Is an open invitation to the God you worship too much to ask?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> By your own admission and at least one other you state yourself to be a former christian, another of once having been a believer admitting to no further convincing as having "been there, done that".
> You are, or at least, had been, not reluctant to deride a posting you felt interfered with what you said
> _"We finally have a believer willing to go step by step in detailed discussion to tell us how HE came to his beliefs and you are taking it as an opportunity to jump in and get a few more unsubstantiated claims in. Day Trip is willing to take the time to walk us through how he got to his conclusions."
> _
> Yet, as you claim to have once been a Christian, why do you not have this testimony within yourself? Why act so nonplussed as though you are going to hear something you claim to have had...but now act as though someone is ready to give you a most precious and previously unknown formula of being a "christian"?
> You either were, or weren't, and since all believers have the testimony of Jesus Christ within themselves perhaps you weren't. Or, perhaps like the other speaker the "been there, done that" and "you (therefore) cannot convince us" is really what you are about and less the "I am open" to being shown", as you state.
> For, in the first case, the never having been and admitting so, is far better to your soul than persisting in "I was, and am now not", for the first at least may make one an unbleiver not yet touched, the latter, a heretic. It is better to discover "I was not what I thought I was, (and also therefore), not then who I think I am now..." than to be one taken captive of the devil at his will, and be not, as one might say "open to being shown"...but in reality one set for the offense _against_ the gospel.
> You may actually be free to parade under the banner of agnosticism if you can accept you never were a "christian", really, knowing nothing of the Christ within, knowing nothing of his testimony, and having been blind to being what you once thought you were. Blind...as the Lord has said, is easily healed, being convinced one sees, and has seen, and tells others there is nothing there, is another matter.
> One could be quite correct, for the seeing who see so well in their own eyes, have no use of healing. Of course no "other man" can convince them, for in the greatness of their seeing, they see all others as blind.
> Yet another says "our truth is the truth, game over". If it be a game...to him, or any other, that is if one may speak for more than one (and you have not been one reluctant, again, to use a "we" in your comments as leverage) and you can accept this as a "game"...you have quite a ways to go in understanding both yourself, and the Lord.
> The seeking with the whole heart is not a game, nor is the Lord for parade before merely inquisitive or curious eyes.
> I do not dismiss your experience with your mother in law as something less than exquisitely painful so make no mistake as to my finding that testimony anything but a sorrow. To deny it would mean, for me, to deny the Lord.
> Yes, storms do come for all, and the easiest way to incite a maelstrom is to imagine we are not all buffeted in true grief at times.
> I entreat you as brother, if not in faith, at least in commonness of flesh. This is no game, truth is not for childishly claiming triumph over another man in argument or debate. And if you find what I say ignorant, unworthy, and of no merit, then please, for the love of Christ, exceed me.





bullethead said:


> Well I have tried everything else and I have opened myself up to any God that wants to make genuine contact with me.
> A cloud that loosely resembles a lamb is not sign to me.




I'm interested in the workings of the mind and how it can lead to belief.  I'm also interested in any possible benefits might come from living a "spiritual" life.  

Honestly Isreal,  you seem as confused if not more so than anyone.  I'm not (at this time) blaming your book.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I'm interested in the workings of the mind and how it can lead to belief.  I'm also interested in any possible benefits might come from living a "spiritual" life.
> 
> Honestly Isreal,  you seem as confused if not more so than anyone.  I'm not (at this time) blaming your book.


I try not to converse the way Israel and others do by just making blanket assertions based off of nothing other than personal opinion and beliefs.
I CAN look out at a sunrise or mountain and see why people think that is evidence of the god they believe in but I am not so close minded to see there are many other possibilities that are equally not understood but cannot be ruled out. I just don't assert what I want or need to be true. I go with the evidence and rule out the things without evidence. I hold evidence to higher standards.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> Well I have tried everything else and I have opened myself up to any God that wants to make genuine contact with me.
> A cloud that loosely resembles a lamb is not sign to me.
> Is an open invitation to the God you worship too much to ask?



Curious....what exactly would qualify for you as genuine contact?


----------



## Huntinfool

> I just don't assert what I want or need to be true. I go with the evidence and rule out the things without evidence.



So (forgive me for showing up late to the party), you don't assert that your belief that there is no god is true?




> I hold evidence to higher standards.



No blanket assertions, huh?


----------



## welderguy

It takes faith to believe.If you have it,it was given to you by God.People who have been given faith are able to see and understand things that people without faith simply cannot.Everything that was created was created by God.Its obvious to everyone.Those that deny it,though they see it with natural eyes,cannot "see" it because they lack faith.Its Gods perfect mystery.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> It takes faith to believe.If you have it,it was given to you by God.People who have been given faith are able to see and understand things that people without faith simply cannot.Everything that was created was created by God.Its obvious to everyone.Those that deny it,though they see it with natural eyes,cannot "see" it because they lack faith.Its Gods perfect mystery.



Well, aren't you special?

Behold heathens.  A chosen one.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> Well, aren't you special?
> 
> Behold heathens.  A chosen one.



Once again, so much for free will.

"If you have it,it was given to you by God."

I wonder how do you know which God, out of the 1000 or so, gave you the faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Once again, so much for free will.
> 
> "If you have it,it was given to you by God."
> 
> I wonder how do you know which God, out of the 1000 or so, gave you the faith.



And why He denied the rest of us.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Well, aren't you special?
> 
> Behold heathens.  A chosen one.



He made me special.He chose me.I'm forever indebted to Him because what He did for me.I really couldn't have said it any better.(although I wouldn't have called anyone a heathen) I was a "heathen" at one time and in darkness,but He called me out of darkness into His marvelous light.He's AWESOME ain't He?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> It takes faith to believe.If you have it,it was given to you by God.People who have been given faith are able to see and understand things that people without faith simply cannot.Everything that was created was created by God.Its obvious to everyone.Those that deny it,though they see it with natural eyes,cannot "see" it because they lack faith.Its Gods perfect mystery.


Actually your post is a perfect mystery. 
Read it back to yourself. It contradicts itself from beginning to end.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And why He denied the rest of us.



You're still breathing so theres still hope.Don't give up.He may have plans for you too.He's the potter,and we are the clay.He makes some vessels to honour and some for destruction.It's all for His own pleasure.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> You're still breathing so theres still hope.Don't give up.He may have plans for you too.He's the potter,and we are the clay.He makes some vessels to honour and some for destruction.It's all for His own pleasure.



Well, I'm agnostic, so I didn't phrase it correctly when I made it sound like the door was forever closed to those of us not blessed with it since birth. I should have added something about not yet having it. 

Still, there comes a day when we can no longer "get right" before our time comes and then we're a pearly gates convert if we're shown to be wrong, which makes the whole exercise even more futile, IMO. But that's a different topic. 

You've come in with a tone that suggests absolutes, so I'll ask you the same thing as I do everyone else who does the same. Do you have any objective proof that the person who imbued you with faith is a specific God, or that God exists? Or is this another projection of personally powerful anecdotes? 

I leave open the possibility of a Creator, I'll even look for them, but hope, well, that might be a bridge too far since hope is predicated on a promise and I can't believe in the promise without believing in the "person."


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Sounds like Michael Jackson in a day care center.



That made me laugh.Thanks! I needed that one. I wasn't referring to that kind of pleasure though.(mind=gutter)


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> That made me laugh.Thanks! I needed that one. I wasn't referring to that kind of pleasure though.(mind=gutter)



Great. I deleted it thinking it may offend. Glad it didn't.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, I'm agnostic, so I didn't phrase it correctly when I made it sound like the door was forever closed to those of us not blessed with it since birth. I should have added something about not yet having it.
> 
> Still, there comes a day when we can no longer "get right" before our time comes and then we're a pearly gates convert if we're shown to be wrong, which makes the whole exercise even more futile, IMO. But that's a different topic.
> 
> You've come in with a tone that suggests absolutes, so I'll ask you the same thing as I do everyone else who does the same. Do you have any objective proof that the person who imbued you with faith is a specific God, or that God exists? Or is this another projection of personally powerful anecdotes?
> 
> I leave open the possibility of a Creator, I'll even look for them, but hope, well, that might be a bridge too far since hope is predicated on a promise and I can't believe in the promise without believing in the "person."



Believe me when I say I totally understand where you're at right now.I was there too.But one day,something happened.It's very hard to explain to people that haven't experienced it.One day God(the one and ONLY true God)changed me on the inside.I saw things differently.I loved people I had hated before.I hated those horrible things I had been doing....So hard to explain...


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Believe me when I say I totally understand where you're at right now.I was there too.But one day,something happened.It's very hard to explain to people that haven't experienced it.One day God(the one and ONLY true God)changed me on the inside.I saw things differently.I loved people I had hated before.I hated those horrible things I had been doing....So hard to explain...



Who is the one and Only true God? Which ones are false? How was that communicated to you?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Who is the one and Only true God? Which ones are false? How was that communicated to you?



He is the one who made the stars and planets and sun and holds them all in perfect alignment and precise rotation.
He is the one who created the human mind that has capability to store more information than all the computers in the world.
He is the one who causes someone with nothing but hate in his heart to love and want to help others without hidden motives.
He is the one who inspired a book to be written that has survived through time and countless attempts at erradication.His book contains prophecy after prophecy that has come true in detailed accuracy.

I could go on and on.
Time would fail me to state all the proofs of this amazing creator we have.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Curious....what exactly would qualify for you as genuine contact?




Talking Donkey
Burning Bush talking to me
One on One face to face meeting.
An attention getting Drop Kick from JC himself.

Maybe I don't even know....but a God should know exactly what would be needed to be done in order to reach me.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> So (forgive me for showing up late to the party), you don't assert that your belief that there is no god is true?


No.
I truly do not know if a God of any sort exists.
I am confident that the God, as described in the Bible and other Gods that organized religions describe in detail, does not exist as described. 






Huntinfool said:


> No blanket assertions, huh?


That is not a blanket assertion by any means.
It is flat out fact that I require more evidence than most.

I do not think you are familiar with the definition of an assertion.
n. noun

    The act of asserting.

    Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> He is the one who made the stars and planets and sun and holds them all in perfect alignment and precise rotation.
> He is the one who created the human mind that has capability to store more information than all the computers in the world.
> He is the one who causes someone with nothing but hate in his heart to love and want to help others without hidden motives.
> He is the one who inspired a book to be written that has survived through time and countless attempts at erradication.His book contains prophecy after prophecy that has come true in detailed accuracy.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> Time would fail me to state all the proofs of this amazing creator we have.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Who is the one and Only true God? Which ones are false? How was that communicated to you?




I ask again since you failed to address the specific questions, although I did ask for proof earlier so it's not entirely unwarranted or unexpected. 

If I showed you an apple you'd see that God created it. I'd see that the tree created it. 

But let's slow this one waaaaaaay down for a second. 

Who is the One, True God? Specifically.


----------



## welderguy

Huntinfool said:


> Curious....what exactly would qualify for you as genuine contact?



Titus 3 explains in simple language what happens when God regenerates a person.I love vs 5 !


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I ask again since you failed to address the specific questions, although I did ask for proof earlier so it's not entirely unwarranted or unexpected.
> 
> If I showed you an apple you'd see that God created it. I'd see that the tree created it.
> 
> But let's slow this one waaaaaaay down for a second.
> 
> Who is the One, True God? Specifically.



Who do you think created the tree that produced the apple?
To slow it down even further....who created the atoms that make up the molecules that make up the tree that produced the apple? God did.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Believe me when I say I totally understand where you're at right now.I was there too.But one day,something happened.It's very hard to explain to people that haven't experienced it.One day God(the one and ONLY true God)changed me on the inside.I saw things differently.I loved people I had hated before.I hated those horrible things I had been doing....So hard to explain...



What is your opinion to people who have been where you are now, experienced what you have experienced,saw things differently, looked at everything and could find God's handiwork in it, people who were not leading a bad life whatsoever and who did not do terrible things and did nothing to warrant or need a change........but now are convinced they were wrong about what they once believed?
How did God let those people get away?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Who do you think created the tree that produced the apple?
> To slow it down even further....who created the atoms that make up the molecules that make up the tree that produced the apple? God did.



Proof? And you still haven't answered which God is right, which ones are wrong, and how all of this was so clearly communicated to you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Who do you think created the tree that produced the apple?


I don't know.



welderguy said:


> To slow it down even further....who created the atoms that make up the molecules that make up the tree that produced the apple? God did.


You state God did. Which God? How did this God communicate it all to you?
Is there any genuine proof you can show us other than us just taking your word for it?
Can you offer any actual proof that backs up what you claim?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> It takes faith to believe.If you have it,it was given to you by God.People who have been given faith are able to see and understand things that people without faith simply cannot.Everything that was created was created by God.Its obvious to everyone.Those that deny it,though they see it with natural eyes,cannot "see" it because they lack faith.Its Gods perfect mystery.



Does the one true God elect Hindus? They believe God is the creator but I'm not sure God has elected them to believe Jesus died for their sins.    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        God choosing Israel to be the downfall of his Son so that God could save the Gentile is one great mystery that has now been revealed.
I'm wondering if another mystery might be God electing the Hindu. 

Perhaps unity for all the Gentiles will be revealed. God will open many eyes.

Romans 8:19
For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are.


----------



## welderguy

These are all very good, understandable questions.And I could try to explain them til Im blue in the face, but there MUST be faith in order to understand them.They are spiritually discerned.That's what Jesus said.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> These are all very good, understandable questions.And I could try to explain them til Im blue in the face, but there MUST be faith in order to understand them.They are spiritually discerned.That's what Jesus said.



So that's a no on the proof of your claims? Right? 

I sincerely hoped we had one who could do it this time.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> These are all very good, understandable questions.And I could try to explain them til Im blue in the face, but there MUST be faith in order to understand them.They are spiritually discerned.That's what Jesus said.



So Jesus actually told you that?

Or are you basing it off of stories written by people 70+ years later that did not ever actually see Jesus, let alone follow Jesus around and write down his conversations as they happened, let alone accurately record conversations when the story CLEARLY states that Jesus and ONE other person were the only ones present?


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So that's a no on the proof of your claims? Right?
> 
> I sincerely hoped we had one who could do it this time.



While everyone is welcome in here...the new guys should spend some time catching up before they enter.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> While everyone is welcome in here...the new guys should spend some time catching up before they enter.



It would be to their benefit. At least then we might get the possibility of some new material. 

I had high hopes for him, I really did. I still respect the person, as much as I can from this distance, but the argument has fallen flat like so many before it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It would be to their benefit. At least then we might get the possibility of some new material.
> 
> I had high hopes for him, I really did. I still respect the person, as much as I can from this distance, but the argument has fallen flat like so many before it.



And I should add like so many atheist claims, as well.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> While everyone is welcome in here...the new guys should spend some time catching up before they enter.



I say let them keep coming.  It can only do good.  

Paraphrasing what Sam Harris said "If Jesus comes out of the clouds and conducts some miracle, it should only take a few minutes, then Christianity will become a science.  The Science of Christianity."


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, I'm agnostic, so I didn't phrase it correctly when I made it sound like the door was forever closed to those of us not blessed with it since birth. I should have added something about not yet having it.
> 
> Still, there comes a day when we can no longer "get right" before our time comes and then we're a pearly gates convert if we're shown to be wrong, which makes the whole exercise even more futile, IMO. But that's a different topic.
> 
> You've come in with a tone that suggests absolutes, so I'll ask you the same thing as I do everyone else who does the same. Do you have any objective proof that the person who imbued you with faith is a specific God, or that God exists? Or is this another projection of personally powerful anecdotes?
> 
> I leave open the possibility of a Creator, I'll even look for them, but hope, well, that might be a bridge too far since hope is predicated on a promise and I can't believe in the promise without believing in the "person."



Dawkins has stated that he is 99.9999% sure that he is right, given the evidence, that there is no god.  Does that make him agnostic too?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I say let them keep coming.  It can only do good.
> 
> Paraphrasing what Sam Harris said "If Jesus comes out of the clouds and conducts some miracle, it should only take a few minutes, then Christianity will become a science.  The Science of Christianity."



Presuming that the miracle was universally witnessed, and no other source can be attributed to it.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Presuming that the miracle was universally witnessed, and no other source can be attributed to it.



Wouldn't be too hard to do for the creator of the Universe...

Should just take a few minutes.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Wouldn't be too hard to do for the creator of the Universe...



That's what you'd think. But then people being born today wouldn't have witnessed it, let alone people born tomorrow, or 2000 years from now. 

It's better just to say that people should have faith that these incredible things happened, and that you'll be blessed for believing in them, because once you open Pandora's Box of Proof up, well, then everyone will demand proof and there won't be time for anything else to be done. 

I'm just  all around now. No insults intended in either direction.


----------



## welderguy

I have to go to work (nightshift), but I will leave yall with this last thing before I go: read John 9:39-41 and tell me what you think.I'll be back.dont worry.This is a good discussion.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It would be to their benefit. At least then we might get the possibility of some new material.
> 
> I had high hopes for him, I really did. I still respect the person, as much as I can from this distance, but the argument has fallen flat like so many before it.



I respect the person and their beliefs but I really,truly, sincerely and genuinely look forward to the day that someone actually provides something concrete other than what they believe or hope or need to be true.
Their faith is commendable.
Their claims....not so much.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I have to go to work (nightshift), but I will leave yall with this last thing before I go: read John 9:39-41 and tell me what you think.I'll be back.dont worry.This is a good discussion.



I think they are wise words that make a great story.
None of it divine or god-like.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I have to go to work (nightshift), but I will leave yall with this last thing before I go: read John 9:39-41 and tell me what you think.I'll be back.dont worry.This is a good discussion.



"Claim to see" would apply to false faithful, IMO, or people in receipt of certain knowledge, knowingly, and yet rejecting it. This is without reading any Cliff's Notes or editorials on it, and just my opinion on the one passage you asked about. 

Seeing as how false faith isn't really a problem in here, I presume you mean that to imply that we're all in receipt of that knowledge, because we all at least know of Jesus and God, and yet choose to reject, or be skeptical of, Him/Them. 

I don't think it applies here, specifically because, if any of us skeptics were in possession of such knowledge, and knowing my compatriots on here as I do, I can promise you 2 things would happen. 

1) Someone from this side of the peanut gallery would come in and start evangelizing about their latest discovery and their own faith. 

2) They would share that knowledge with us and expect it to pass through the same crucible you found yourself in today, and prepare themselves to defend against it. 

I can promise you those things because in order for the first to happen, the second would have had to happen within themselves and these guys are a pretty honest bunch. 

No one confuses sight for hearing, or for taste, keeping with the parable chosen in the passage. Therefore, evidence of the same knowledge would be as inarguable as someone actually seeing something for themselves. We may disagree on the color of the sky, for example, as one person may see aquamarine and another person see azure, but the inarguable part of it is that they are both looking at the sky. 

Is the Bible worthy of being "sighted"? If you step out of the Christian-centric perspective of the US, it's highly unlikely given its place in the sheer number of religious and philosophical texts that abound. 

So it's unable to be treated with the same credence that a person who already believes in it, or at least desires to, would. 

The end result is that, at least, I don't feel that I can genuinely say that I can see anything without bearing false witness, and therein lies the crux. If I can't see it, then I can't have sinned, so the promise of punishment for that sin also carries no weight.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's what you'd think. But then people being born today wouldn't have witnessed it, let alone people born tomorrow, or 2000 years from now.
> 
> It's better just to say that people should have faith that these incredible things happened, and that you'll be blessed for believing in them, because once you open Pandora's Box of Proof up, well, then everyone will demand proof and there won't be time for anything else to be done.
> 
> I'm just  all around now. No insults intended in either direction.



Anybody got that graph showing how miracles dropped off in number after the invention of photography and then more so after the invention of video?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> I respect the person and their beliefs but I really,truly, sincerely and genuinely look forward to the day that someone actually provides something concrete other than what they believe or hope or need to be true.
> Their faith is commendable.
> Their claims....not so much.



In full disclosure, your tone doesn't always suggest that. I'm not criticizing, just expounding on an original thought I was going to post in saying that to see you type this surprises me. Not the part about respecting the person. I've never seen you disrespect a person intentionally. 

But the tone you've taken to their arguments, from time to time, suggests a very closed off mind to being proven wrong. 

I'm fairly certain that I'm guilty of sounding the same way, though.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Anybody got that graph showing how miracles dropped off in number after the invention of photography and then more so after the invention of video?



It's somewhere around the boards.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In full disclosure, your tone doesn't always suggest that. I'm not criticizing, just expounding on an original thought I was going to post in saying that to see you type this surprises me. Not the part about respecting the person. I've never seen you disrespect a person intentionally.
> 
> But the tone you've taken to their arguments, from time to time, suggests a very closed off mind to being proven wrong.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that I'm guilty of sounding the same way, though.



Some beliefs don't deserve respect.  In fact, to not publicly denounce certain beliefs is immoral.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Some beliefs don't deserve respect.  In fact, to not publicly denounce certain beliefs is immoral.



I think the relativity of morality has been well established, don't you?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think the relativity of morality has been well established, don't you?



I think I know what you hold as the high standard.  It's to do no harm to those who are doing the same.  Peaceful, honest people should be left alone.  I can't see how someone motivated by rationality and honesty wouldn't agree. To reduce suffering and increase joy is bonus points.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In full disclosure, your tone doesn't always suggest that. I'm not criticizing, just expounding on an original thought I was going to post in saying that to see you type this surprises me. Not the part about respecting the person. I've never seen you disrespect a person intentionally.
> 
> But the tone you've taken to their arguments, from time to time, suggests a very closed off mind to being proven wrong.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that I'm guilty of sounding the same way, though.



That is a downfall of not being able to converse face to face. Sometimes wishing someone a happy birthday or Merry Xmas can come across not as meant and have it taken wrong.
But I will freely admit that after a few years of conversing with the same bunch I think we all cut to the chase at times...whether it is from knowing where the conversation is headed, individuals tendencies, short tempered from a bad day elsewhere , predisposed(albeit probably wrong) notion about another individual and definitely having,hearing and making the same arguments over and over and over ..has me without question coming off as you described. It think it has to do with the familiarity that the regulars have with each other without ever meeting each other.
I won't  lie...when a newbie chimes in with a "god did it" "read the Bible" " proof of god is everywhere" or uses verses as proof.....my tolerance is tested right off the bat.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> That is a downfall of not being able to converse face to face. Sometimes wishing someone a happy birthday or Merry Xmas can come across not as meant and have it taken wrong.
> But I will freely admit that after a few years of conversing with the same bunch I think we all cut to the chase at times...whether it is from knowing where the conversation is headed, individuals tendencies, short tempered from a bad day elsewhere , predisposed(albeit probably wrong) notion about another individual and definitely having,hearing and making the same arguments over and over and over ..has me without question coming off as you described. It think it has to do with the familiarity that the regulars have with each other without ever meeting each other.
> I won't  lie...when a newbie chimes in with a "god did it" "read the Bible" " proof of god is everywhere" or uses verses as proof.....my tolerance is tested right off the bat.



But that's what they do and aren't you glad for it? I am.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> But that's what they do and aren't you glad for it? I am.



Yep.
I do not want to be misunderstood in that I did not start out to disprove the God of the Bible. I want to prove him or any God......I just can't and I have not found anyone that could.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I have to go to work (nightshift), but I will leave yall with this last thing before I go: read John 9:39-41 and tell me what you think.I'll be back.dont worry.This is a good discussion.



Interesting read. Perhaps you can respond to my thread one forum up  about the "One True God."
I wonder if the Hindu is guilty because of his blindness. If so, will God show him the light and elect the Hindu?


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> That is not a blanket assertion by any means.
> It is flat out fact that I require more evidence than most.
> 
> I do not think you are familiar with the definition of an assertion.
> n. noun
> 
> The act of asserting.
> 
> Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.



So, then if there is no support or proof required for an assertion, why is it somehow less acceptable to make a blanket assertion than a very specific one?


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Dawkins has stated that he is 99.9999% sure that he is right, given the evidence, that there is no god.  Does that make him agnostic too?



No...it only makes him an intellectually dishonest atheist.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> No...it only makes him an intellectually dishonest atheist.





No. It makes him an atheist.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Yep.
> I do not want to be misunderstood in that I did not start out to disprove the God of the Bible. I want to prove him or any God......I just can't and I have not found anyone that could.



A God would be fine. Just not any that man have created. 
God of the Bible, Quran, etc. A God should be worthy of worship...not demand it.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> Talking Donkey
> Burning Bush talking to me
> One on One face to face meeting.
> An attention getting Drop Kick from JC himself.
> 
> Maybe I don't even know....but a God should know exactly what would be needed to be done in order to reach me.



So, then I guess we agree....you DO require more evidence than most.  

The question is, I suppose, does setting a burden of proof so high as to require contact that (as far as we know) has only been granted to a single person in history (in the first 2 cases...and never in the third) brilliant or arrogant?


----------



## 660griz

Many chapters in the bible begin with The lord spoke to... or God said to.. etc. Folks read that without batting an eye. 
However, when this happens now, http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/index.html?iref=newssearch

Insanity. 
Why is that? How can some folks claim God spoke to them and get away with it while others are prosecuted? God has shown a tendency to order the murder of children before. How does anyone know when it is real or crazy?


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> No...it only makes him an intellectually dishonest atheist.





> Atheism is about belief, or specifically what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need not be.



Learn.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> A God should be worthy of worship...not demand it.



Based on what?  


Wouldn't one worthy or worship also, logically, have the claim to insist upon it (being the omniscient and all powerful creator and all)?


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Based on what?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't one worthy or worship also, logically, have the claim to insist upon it (being the omniscient and all powerful creator and all)?



Do you insist on respect or earn it?


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> So, then if there is no support or proof required for an assertion, why is it somehow less acceptable to make a blanket assertion than a very specific one?



It is not less acceptable.

I feel as if you are missing something here yet continue on as if you are not.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."
> 
> The caps are not mine, merely in the quote I pasted.
> Walt, if I am wrong, tell me...but doesn't "been there, done that" at least imply "I got a good sense of what it's all about?" All.
> One may have experienced "something of christianity" and even in that find many things to speak of and criticize... but christianity is, of itself, ineffective to producing the new creation.
> You, or any other may say "but there is NO new creation" to which the believer _might_ say, then, you have no knowledge of the Christ, and in your saying "I was once a christian, a believer" it becomes obvious ones experience was simply as one amongst some christians (perhaps).
> 
> I do believe this:
> For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is_ impossible to renew them again to repentance_, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.…
> 
> Some ask for proof, a "re-revealing", when a repentance is called for, a return. But of that, I know I am insufficient, I am already told it is impossible to me.
> But, by God's grace, what is impossible for man...
> 
> God knows whether you "were" or "weren't"...where you have been, and where you are, and what is proper now.





> Walt, if I am wrong, tell me...but doesn't "been there, done that" at least imply "I got a good sense of what it's all about?" All.


As your statement pertains to organized religion, yes.


> One may have experienced "something of christianity" and even in that find many things to speak of and criticize... but christianity is, of itself, ineffective to producing the new creation.



I would agree. That's what led me to remove it. Not only ineffective but for me and many others (see current trends) it is leading people AWAY from "God".


> But of that, I know I am insufficient, I am already told it is impossible to me.


Through no fault of your own. You may be highly successful on others.


> God knows whether you "were" or "weren't"...where you have been, and where you are, and what is proper now


Interestingly enough your last statement completely removes man from the equation which is exactly what I have done (including myself). However I went one step further. By removing man, in effect, that removes EVERY thing you believe or think you know about God.
If he exists and wants me to believe he exists, he knows where I'm at.


----------



## Huntinfool

WaltL1 said:


> Learn.



Boy Walt....you really burned me good on that one.

Athiests don't agree on what atheism is.  I'll give you that.  


"Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints."


So, there very well may be many definitions.  I was referring to Hawking and what he says.


"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist." - Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking does not 'believe' there is no god.  He puts it forth as a statement of truth.  Belief and truth are often times two very different things.

He makes the statement that there isn't a god...in all cases...and for all people.  That is not simply a belief.  It is a declaration of truth.

His definition (not mine) or 'atheist' is a person who is 100% positive that the truth is that a god does not exist.

To, then, say that he's 99.9999% (if he really did say that) convinced is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> Do you insist on respect or earn it?



Respect and worship are not the same concept.  But....in my house, the answer is both.

I insist that my children show respect (even if they don't feel like it) while, even at the same time, I am doing my very best to earn it.  If you have children, you are doing the exact same thing whether you care to admit it or not.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> So, then I guess we agree....you DO require more evidence than most.
> 
> The question is, I suppose, does setting a burden of proof so high as to require contact that (as far as we know) has only been granted to a single person in history (in the first 2 cases...and never in the third) brilliant or arrogant?



1. Neither brilliant nor arrogant but possibly necessary.
2. A God would know what is required so maybe my standard is not high or not high enough. 
3. I also stated that maybe I don't know what proof is required, but so far whatever has been given is clearly not enough.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> It is not less acceptable.
> 
> I feel as if you are missing something here yet continue on as if you are not.



Possibly.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I think I know what you hold as the high standard.  It's to do no harm to those who are doing the same.  Peaceful, honest people should be left alone.  I can't see how someone motivated by rationality and honesty wouldn't agree. To reduce suffering and increase joy is bonus points.



Suffering and joy are also relative. You're not wrong about the core of my morality, but you can no sooner stop someone from suffering than you can make them joyous, without them choosing that for themselves. 

You can lead the horse to water, but it has to choose to drink. 



bullethead said:


> That is a downfall of not being able to converse face to face. Sometimes wishing someone a happy birthday or Merry Xmas can come across not as meant and have it taken wrong.
> But I will freely admit that after a few years of conversing with the same bunch I think we all cut to the chase at times...whether it is from knowing where the conversation is headed, individuals tendencies, short tempered from a bad day elsewhere , predisposed(albeit probably wrong) notion about another individual and definitely having,hearing and making the same arguments over and over and over ..has me without question coming off as you described. It think it has to do with the familiarity that the regulars have with each other without ever meeting each other.
> I won't  lie...when a newbie chimes in with a "god did it" "read the Bible" " proof of god is everywhere" or uses verses as proof.....my tolerance is tested right off the bat.



I understand completely. I wasn't meaning that as a dig on you.


----------



## Huntinfool

> 2. A God would know what is required so maybe my standard is not high or not high enough.



So, then, if there is a god, he should be required to reveal himself in exactly the way that every person who has ever lived requires of him whether high or low standard?



> 3. I also stated that maybe I don't know what proof is required, but so far whatever has been given is clearly not enough.



Not enough..."for me"....correct?  My point is that you put out there a standard that you are well aware will very likely never be met based on history (let's just, for a moment assume that what's in the Bible is true).  If what's in the Bible is true, your standard has only been met a single time in history.  Why would that be the standard for revelation?  You don't see the absurdity in that?

What you're really doing with that is saying that there is no proof that would be suffficient...without saying it.

I'll check in with y'all later.  Have to actually do the thing they are paying me to do for a while.  It's good discussion though.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> Boy Walt....you really burned me good on that one.
> 
> Athiests don't agree on what atheism is.  I'll give you that.
> 
> 
> "Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints."
> 
> 
> So, there very well may be many definitions.  I was referring to Hawking and what he says.
> 
> 
> "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist." - Stephen Hawking
> 
> Stephen Hawking does not 'believe' there is no god.  He puts it forth as a statement of truth.  Belief and truth are often times two very different things.
> 
> He makes the statement that there isn't a god...in all cases...and for all people.  That is not simply a belief.  It is a declaration of truth.
> 
> His definition (not mine) or 'atheist' is a person who is 100% positive that the truth is that a god does not exist.
> 
> To, then, say that he's 99.9999% (if he really did say that) convinced is intellectually dishonest.





> Stephen Hawking does not 'believe' there is no god.  He puts it forth as a statement of truth.  Belief and truth are often times two very different things.
> He makes the statement that there isn't a god...in all cases...and for all people.  That is not simply a belief.  It is a declaration of truth.


Apply that exact same scenario to yourself.
Do you put forth God as a statement of truth? Do you put forth that there is a God, in all cases, for all people (the one true God)?
Are you being intellectually dishonest? If you aren't, neither is he.
Or are you both stating your beliefs?


> Athiests don't agree on what atheism is.  I'll give you that.


I would have to say Atheism doesn't have a lock on that when you consider the thousands of flavors of Christianity.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Possibly.



Most definitely.
You are asking about the difference between an assertion and blanket assertion as if I somewhere stated there was one. Yet I did not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Learn.



I disagree with an atheist and agnostic being able to coexist in the same body. Maybe I misread your quoted material, but that's what it seemed to be suggesting to me. 

I may have a flawed interpretation of the word atheist, but I'm looking at it from the genesis of the word itself. 

Let's use another example though. "Symptomatic"

Symptomatic means to exhibit symptoms. I.e. the positive position. 

Asymptomatic means exhibiting no symptoms. I.e. the negative position. Not an unsure position, a completely negative one. 

Therefore atheist would be 0 belief in any god or gods as a polar opposite to theists who believe in a god or many gods. It's kind of an all or nothing approach if you want to fall into these categories. Atheists are convinced there is no god as much as theists are convinced there is. 

At least that's how it appears to me from the etymology of it. Maybe the connotations have changed and can vary from person to person, like faith and morality do.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Boy Walt....you really burned me good on that one.
> 
> Athiests don't agree on what atheism is.  I'll give you that.
> 
> 
> "Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints."
> 
> 
> So, there very well may be many definitions.  I was referring to Hawking and what he says.
> 
> 
> "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist." - Stephen Hawking
> 
> Stephen Hawking does not 'believe' there is no god.  He puts it forth as a statement of truth.  Belief and truth are often times two very different things.
> 
> He makes the statement that there isn't a god...in all cases...and for all people.  That is not simply a belief.  It is a declaration of truth.
> 
> His definition (not mine) or 'atheist' is a person who is 100% positive that the truth is that a god does not exist.
> 
> To, then, say that he's 99.9999% (if he really did say that) convinced is intellectually dishonest.





ambush80 said:


> Dawkins has stated that he is 99.9999% sure that he is right, given the evidence, that there is no god.  Does that make him agnostic too?



Dawkins.  Richard Dawkins.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Dawkins.  Richard Dawkins.



crap....my fault.  Don't all atheists look the same?  Dangit Ambush!  


I guess I would just say that Dawkins is famous for claiming that the only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.  I read that as 100% certainty.

It's hard for me to understand why someone who coined the phrase "we go one god further" would say they are 99.9999% sure.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, if there is a god, he should be required to reveal himself in exactly the way that every person who has ever lived requires of him whether high or low standard?


Yes.
He has done that with EVERY single believer in him.

Has God revealed himself to you in a way that convinced you?????

I know for a fact there are dozens upon dozens of stories in here from believers that tell how they were filled with the Holy Spirit, how they hit rock bottom and God lifted them up and on and on and on with EACH one of those stories being different than the next.





Huntinfool said:


> Not enough..."for me"....correct?  My point is that you put out there a standard that you are well aware will very likely never be met based on history (let's just, for a moment assume that what's in the Bible is true).  If what's in the Bible is true, your standard has only been met a single time in history.  Why would that be the standard for revelation?  You don't see the absurdity in that?


I have to assume what the Bible said is true in order to converse with you because the absurdity is that you cannot see it any other way.
And again the light must be on but no one is home because you are only sticking to one of a few answers that I gave you regarding what it would take for me to believe.... I also stated that it is quite possible that I Do Not Know what level of proof I require but I am open to attempts. YOUR God, according to your Bible, should be capable of figuring it out.
He did for you so he should be able to for me. You obviously and I obviously require different proof. Am I right?



Huntinfool said:


> What you're really doing with that is saying that there is no proof that would be suffficient...without saying it.


No...YOU said that.
If I have been given any proof so far it has not been enough to set off my "hey God is calling" ring tone.
Maybe I need a certified letter?




Huntinfool said:


> I'll check in with y'all later.  Have to actually do the thing they are paying me to do for a while.  It's good discussion though.


Later


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Yes.
> He has done that with EVERY single believer in him.
> 
> Has God revealed himself to you in a way that convinced you?????
> 
> I know for a fact there are dozens upon dozens of stories in here from believers that tell how they were filled with the Holy Spirit, how they hit rock bottom and God lifted them up and on and on and on with EACH one of those stories being different than the next.



Very, very good point.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> crap....my fault.  Don't all atheists look the same?  Dangit Ambush!
> 
> 
> I guess I would just say that Dawkins is famous for claiming that the only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.  I read that as 100% certainty.
> 
> It's hard for me to understand why someone who coined the phrase "we go one god further" would say they are 99.9999% sure.




Because it's stupid to say that you know all about things that you can't possibly.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> crap....my fault.  Don't all atheists look the same?  Dangit Ambush!
> 
> 
> I guess I would just say that Dawkins is famous for claiming that the only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.  I read that as 100% certainty.
> 
> It's hard for me to understand why someone who coined the phrase "we go one god further" would say they are 99.9999% sure.



because he is actually being intellectually honest and leaving room for the possibility that he is wrong...no matter how minute.

Can you say you are only 99.9999% sure there that the God of the Bible exists as written?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I disagree with an atheist and agnostic being able to coexist in the same body. Maybe I misread your quoted material, but that's what it seemed to be suggesting to me.
> 
> I may have a flawed interpretation of the word atheist, but I'm looking at it from the genesis of the word itself.
> 
> Let's use another example though. "Symptomatic"
> 
> Symptomatic means to exhibit symptoms. I.e. the positive position.
> 
> Asymptomatic means exhibiting no symptoms. I.e. the negative position. Not an unsure position, a completely negative one.
> 
> Therefore atheist would be 0 belief in any god or gods as a polar opposite to theists who believe in a god or many gods. It's kind of an all or nothing approach if you want to fall into these categories. Atheists are convinced there is no god as much as theists are convinced there is.
> 
> At least that's how it appears to me from the etymology of it. Maybe the connotations have changed and can vary from person to person, like faith and morality do.





> I disagree with an atheist and agnostic being able to coexist in the same body.


I agree with it based on what I know about myself.
I don't KNOW there are no gods (makes me Agnostic) yet at the same time, because of that, I don't BELIEVE there are any gods (makes me Atheist).  
However I don't think all or nothing is accurate.
The Christian knows/believes in the Christian God yet rejects all other gods. Thats not all or nothing. 
Would Theist Agnostic be accurate?
I think, in part, the reason some of us ask so many questions is because we know, for example, putting a Christian in the Christian "box" isn't accurate and same same for A/As.
I never knew and not sure I know now what "box" I fit in and never claimed a "box" until I started coming here just so I would be able to in a round about way convey what I think without going into detailed discussions with every person along the way.
By the way here's the link if you want to check it out.
For me it broke it down pretty well. I make no claim as to its accuracy -
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm
EDIT - by the way note the Agnostic Atheist definition.


----------



## Huntinfool

> And again the light must be on but no one is home because you are only sticking to one of a few answers that I gave you regarding what it would take for me to believe.... I also stated that it is quite possible that I Do Not Know what level of proof I require but I am open to attempts. YOUR God, according to your Bible, should be capable of figuring it out.
> He did for you so he should be able to for me. You obviously and I obviously require different proof. Am I right?



First....let's try hard not to throw out insults while we have this discussion.  

I understand that you think I must have an IQ of about 40 to believe in a god.

He should be able to do it for you.  You are correct in that statement.  The question that needs answering, I suppose, is either "why hasn't he?" or "why don't you see it?".  One of the two needs to be answered.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Can you say you are only 99.9999% sure there that the God of the Bible exists as written?



No, I cannot.  Hawking and I are in the same boat...and one of us is wrong.  


Truth exists.  There is not my truth and your truth.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> First....let's try hard not to through out insults while we have this discussion.
> 
> I understand that you think I must have an IQ of about 40 to believe in a god.
> 
> He should be able to do it for you.  You are correct in that statement.  The question that needs answering, I suppose, is either "why hasn't he?" or "why don't you see it?".  One of the two needs to be answered.



1. you never gave me an honest answer to the rest of what I posted in my reply to you.

2. I think no less of you for believing in a God nor any more of myself for not believing in a God.
IQ has nothing to do with it. You are purposely only sticking to ONE of many answers that I gave to you and acting as if that is the only answer I had given you.
My apologies for the insult but I had hoped it would snap you out of the one track you were spinning your wheel in.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Because it's stupid to say that you know all about things that you can't possibly.



Did not make the claim that I know all about something.  I did make the claim that I'm 100% certain God exists (even though I've never seen him) just as I'm 100% certain that you exist (even though I've never seen you).

I have more experience with God than I do you, yet I believe you exist simply because I see written words on a computer screen.  You are 'self-evident' to me....just as God is.  We agree that it would be silly for me to make the claim that you don't exist simply because all I know of you is written word, wouldn't it?  It is evident that you exist.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Has God revealed himself to you in a way that convinced you?????
> 
> I know for a fact there are dozens upon dozens of stories in here from believers that tell how they were filled with the Holy Spirit, how they hit rock bottom and God lifted them up and on and on and on with EACH one of those stories being different than the next.



The answer to the question is yes, he has revealed himself in a way that convinced me.  He did not, however, perform a magic trick at my command.  

My belief is not simply an emotional or even volitional one as you've described it above.  It's a fine straw man that you tear down.  However, there are some of us who have actually examined the evidence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with it based on what I know about myself.
> I don't KNOW there are no gods (makes me Agnostic) yet at the same time, because of that, I don't BELIEVE there are any gods (makes me Atheist).
> However I don't think all or nothing is accurate.
> The Christian knows/believes in the Christian God yet rejects all other gods. Thats not all or nothing.
> Would Theist Agnostic be accurate?
> I think, in part, the reason some of us ask so many questions is because we know, for example, putting a Christian in the Christian "box" isn't accurate and same same for A/As.
> I never knew and not sure I know now what "box" I fit in and never claimed a "box" until I started coming here just so I would be able to in a round about way convey what I think without going into detailed discussions with every person along the way.
> By the way here's the link if you want to check it out.
> For me it broke it down pretty well. I make no claim as to its accuracy -
> http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm
> EDIT - by the way note the Agnostic Atheist definition.



Yeah, I saw that, but that's because they delineate the difference between belief and knowledge. I would argue that belief can not occur without at least a sliver of knowledge, even if that knowledge is unverifiable, where knowledge can occur without belief. People can know about the big bang without believing that it occurred, and people can believe in God without verifiable knowledge of any truth of the matter. 

It's easy to try to draw the line between the two, because then you can get someone to straddle the line, but I think that's more to do with comforting one's self, than to do with the hard definitions of the word or the person's belief. 

There's a taboo, and a social stigma, that's associate with the word atheist and it often conjures images of loud mouthed people decrying others for evangelizing their belief in God to government and society at large, while they engage in precisely the same thing. Agnostics, due to their flexible position in the center of both arguments, come off a little nicer than that, typically, because they allow room for both beliefs to be true to the person experiencing them, even if they don't subscribe to it themselves. So if you can call yourself an agnostic atheist, even though, based on the words themselves, they are antipodes, you can essentially wrap the proverbial baseball bat in a nice, non-threatening, fuzzy sleeve. Not saying that atheists are out to browbeat others out of their faith, but that's the misconception a lot of believers carry because those are the atheists that are in their faces and get the most press. 

But there is a big push in this country right now to try to label people, one way or the other, in absolute terms, despite the fact that belief today, in anything, is rarely the same as that belief is tomorrow. Most of us came from faith, through doubt, and landed somewhere between agnostic and atheist so we know that our belief systems are not fixed constructs, so I don't get the apprehension with calling a spade observed today, a spade. It may be something else tomorrow.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> No, I cannot.  Hawking and I are in the same boat...and one of us is wrong.
> 
> 
> Truth exists.  There is not my truth and your truth.



Actually, all 3 exist.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Actually, all 3 exist.



Is that true for you or for me....or for both?


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Did not make the claim that I know all about something.  I did make the claim that I'm 100% certain God exists (even though I've never seen him) just as I'm 100% certain that you exist (even though I've never seen you).



I wasn't talking about you.  I was talking about Richard Dawkins.  You asked:

"It's hard for me to understand why someone who coined the phrase "we go one god further" would say they are 99.9999% sure." 

and I answered 

"Because it's stupid to say that you know all about things that you can't possibly."



Huntinfool said:


> I have more experience with God than I do you, yet I believe you exist simply because I see written words on a computer screen.  You are 'self-evident' to me....just as God is.  We agree that it would be silly for me to make the claim that you don't exist simply because all I know of you is written word, wouldn't it?  It is evident that you exist.



I can come to your house if you want.  That I exist isn't a very extraordinary claim.  If I told you I had a dragon in my yard would you believe me?  Would you believe me if I wrote about it?  There are writings about dragons that are thousands of years old that cross over many many geographical and cultural differences.  How about if I showed you a photograph?  What would it take for you to believe in my dragon?


----------



## Huntinfool

You have a photograph of a dragon?


I would not believe that you have a dragon in your yard because all of human history gives me enough evidence to believe that dragons do not exist.

I have enough evidence that you exist because I've been interacting with you for many years and I've learned to recognize your style and tone behind the username.  I have enough evidence to believe it's you and not your dragon typing back to me today.

My point is that I don't need further evidence to believe you exist.  At some point, I have enough.  I don't need you to come to my house to prove it to me.  Neither do I need God to ring the doorbell in Social Circle and drop off a welcome basket.

Overwhelming evidence proves to me that you exist without physically seeing you.  Why is there a greater standard for a deity?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Is that true for you or for me....or for both?



Universally. 

There's the objective truth, what actually happened. 

There's your truth, colored by your experience with what occurred. 

There's my truth, colored by my experience with what occurred. 

That's how you get an accident report having 2 sides that don't fully line up, and evidence that backs up part of both stories, while disproving other aspects. 

There's a great example of how this can happen in Stephen Hawking's _Grand Design_ Tv series. 



Watch from 7:15 to 10:00. 

One objective event occurred: the ignition of the lighter. 4 additional truths resulted. 1 each for the guys at the ends of the car, 1 more for the guy who sparked it, and 1 for the lady on the outside. Each account is accurate to their experience, but discrepant with all others, in at least one way, the time it took for them to see the sparking of the lighter.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Universally.
> 
> There's the objective truth, what actually happened.
> 
> There's your truth, colored by your experience with what occurred.
> 
> There's my truth, colored by my experience with what occurred.
> 
> That's how you get an accident report having 2 sides that don't fully line up, and evidence that backs up part of both stories, while disproving other aspects.
> 
> There's a great example of how this can happen in Stephen Hawking's _Grand Design_ Tv series.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch from 7:15 to 10:00.
> 
> One objective event occurred: the ignition of the lighter. 4 additional truths resulted. 1 each for the guys at the ends of the car, 1 more for the guy who sparked it, and 1 for the lady on the outside. Each account is accurate to their experience, but discrepant with all others, in at least one way, the time it took for them to see the sparking of the lighter.



There are, potentially, multiple opinions or beliefs about what happened.  But there is only one truth about the length of time that the light took to hit each man.  It is objective and what happened happened. The light took a particular amount of time to hit man A and it took a particular time to hit man B.  That is true for all involved regardless of their perspective.

What you're missing is that there are not four variations of the same truth.  There are three distinct truths about when each say the light hit each man that are true for all four observers, not three variations of the same truth (this is a very important distinction):

1)  It is true for all of them that man A saw the light at time X.
2)  It is true for all of them that man B also saw the light at time X.
3)  It is true for all of them that the woman saw the light hit man A at time Y and man B at time Z.

Dawkins is not making the case for different variations of a truth in that video.  He is making that case the people largly base their beliefs on their perspective.  I can potentially accept that.

You are blurring the lines between belief and truth.  Truth is truth.  If a cop pulls you over and tells you that he's writing you a ticket because you were going 75 in a 55....are you going to respond "Well, that's only true for you officer.  You only think I was going 75 because your perspective was different than mine."?

You are making the claim that there are no absolute truths.  My response to you is simply "Is that absolutely true?".


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, I saw that, but that's because they delineate the difference between belief and knowledge. I would argue that belief can not occur without at least a sliver of knowledge, even if that knowledge is unverifiable, where knowledge can occur without belief. People can know about the big bang without believing that it occurred, and people can believe in God without verifiable knowledge of any truth of the matter.
> 
> It's easy to try to draw the line between the two, because then you can get someone to straddle the line, but I think that's more to do with comforting one's self, than to do with the hard definitions of the word or the person's belief.
> 
> There's a taboo, and a social stigma, that's associate with the word atheist and it often conjures images of loud mouthed people decrying others for evangelizing their belief in God to government and society at large, while they engage in precisely the same thing. Agnostics, due to their flexible position in the center of both arguments, come off a little nicer than that, typically, because they allow room for both beliefs to be true to the person experiencing them, even if they don't subscribe to it themselves. So if you can call yourself an agnostic atheist, even though, based on the words themselves, they are antipodes, you can essentially wrap the proverbial baseball bat in a nice, non-threatening, fuzzy sleeve. Not saying that atheists are out to browbeat others out of their faith, but that's the misconception a lot of believers carry because those are the atheists that are in their faces and get the most press.
> 
> But there is a big push in this country right now to try to label people, one way or the other, in absolute terms, despite the fact that belief today, in anything, is rarely the same as that belief is tomorrow. Most of us came from faith, through doubt, and landed somewhere between agnostic and atheist so we know that our belief systems are not fixed constructs, so I don't get the apprehension with calling a spade observed today, a spade. It may be something else tomorrow.


First, Im not debating/arguing with you but just a question that is meant to challenge you -
Any chance you are fighting the close and sometimes overlapping relationship between Agnosticism and Atheism due to wanting to separate yourself from the taboo and social stigma?
You want to be viewed as this way? -


> Agnostics, due to their flexible position in the center of both arguments, come off a little nicer than that, typically, because they allow room for both beliefs to be true to the person experiencing them, even if they don't subscribe to it themselves.


What you described is being "reasonable" towards another persons beliefs. Isnt that an individual quality that really has nothing to do with Atheism or Agnosticism?
Take Griz for example. Atheist. Ive only ever seen him debate/argue against a Christians argument/claims.
Not the person, not the belief, but their argument/claims.


> I would argue that belief can not occur without at least a sliver of knowledge, even if that knowledge is unverifiable


Im not sure knowledge is knowledge if its unverifiable. Wouldn't that make it belief?


> Not saying that atheists are out to browbeat others out of their faith, but that's the misconception a lot of believers carry because those are the atheists that are in their faces and get the most press.


Maybe off topic but that's one thing I find very valuable, probably the most valuable, that I get out of participating here. As you pointed out its the "extremists" (on both sides) that get all the press. Participating here keeps all those bad thoughts and assumptions one can easily get from that, in check.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, I saw that, but that's because they delineate the difference between belief and knowledge. I would argue that belief can not occur without at least a sliver of knowledge, even if that knowledge is unverifiable, where knowledge can occur without belief. People can know about the big bang without believing that it occurred, and people can believe in God without verifiable knowledge of any truth of the matter.
> 
> It's easy to try to draw the line between the two, because then you can get someone to straddle the line, but I think that's more to do with comforting one's self, than to do with the hard definitions of the word or the person's belief.
> 
> There's a taboo, and a social stigma, that's associate with the word atheist and it often conjures images of loud mouthed people decrying others for evangelizing their belief in God to government and society at large, while they engage in precisely the same thing. Agnostics, due to their flexible position in the center of both arguments, come off a little nicer than that, typically, because they allow room for both beliefs to be true to the person experiencing them, even if they don't subscribe to it themselves. So if you can call yourself an agnostic atheist, even though, based on the words themselves, they are antipodes, you can essentially wrap the proverbial baseball bat in a nice, non-threatening, fuzzy sleeve. Not saying that atheists are out to browbeat others out of their faith, but that's the misconception a lot of believers carry because those are the atheists that are in their faces and get the most press.
> 
> But there is a big push in this country right now to try to label people, one way or the other, in absolute terms, despite the fact that belief today, in anything, is rarely the same as that belief is tomorrow. Most of us came from faith, through doubt, and landed somewhere between agnostic and atheist so we know that our belief systems are not fixed constructs, so I don't get the apprehension with calling a spade observed today, a spade. It may be something else tomorrow.



Watch from 7:04-8:49 and  9:46-11:05 just cause it's interesting.  Warning: don't listen to the annoying lady in the beginning.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> First, Im not debating/arguing with you but just a question that is meant to challenge you -
> Any chance you are fighting the close and sometimes overlapping relationship between Agnosticism and Atheism due to wanting to separate yourself from the taboo and social stigma?
> You want to be viewed as this way? -
> 
> What you described is being "reasonable" towards another persons beliefs. Isnt that an individual quality that really has nothing to do with Atheism or Agnosticism?
> Take Griz for example. Atheist. Ive only ever seen him debate/argue against a Christians argument/claims.
> Not the person, not the belief, but their argument/claims.
> 
> Im not sure knowledge is knowledge if its unverifiable. Wouldn't that make it belief?
> 
> Maybe off topic but that's one thing I find very valuable, probably the most valuable, that I get out of participating here. As you pointed out its the "extremists" (on both sides) that get all the press. Participating here keeps all those bad thoughts and assumptions one can easily get from that, in check.



What if it's something that no one witnessed except for you?  Would you say that you had knowledge of such a thing even if you couldn't verify it?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> There are, potentially, multiple opinions or beliefs about what happened.  But there is only one truth about the length of time that the light took to hit each man.  It is objective and what happened happened. The light took a particular amount of time to hit man A and it took a particular time to hit man B.  That is true for all involved regardless of their perspective.
> 
> What you're missing is that there are not four variations of the same truth.  There are three distinct truths about when each say the light hit each man that are true for all four observers, not three variations of the same truth (this is a very important distinction):
> 
> 1)  It is true for all of them that man A saw the light at time X.
> 2)  It is true for all of them that man B also saw the light at time X.
> 3)  It is true for all of them that the woman saw the light hit man A at time Y and man B at time Z.
> 
> Dawkins is not making the case for different variations of a truth in that video.  He is making that case the people largly base their beliefs on their perspective.  I can potentially accept that.
> 
> You are blurring the lines between belief and truth.  Truth is truth.  If a cop pulls you over and tells you that he's writing you a ticket because you were going 75 in a 55....are you going to respond "Well, that's only true for you officer.  You only think I was going 75 because your perspective was different than mine."?
> 
> You are making the claim that there are no absolute truths.  My response to you is simply "Is that absolutely true?".



I never said there was no absolute truth. I said there was one absolute truth, I called it objective. I also said that there are truths based on perspective. 

Further, this was one example of a way that the same occurrence is flavored by individual experience with it. If you asked these people for their testimony, you'd get at least 4 different takes on it, provided you could slow light down to have beams observable by normal humans. 

It works better if you imagine a car accident like I said earlier, since that's macro scale and speed, rather than micro, but the example video was a parable for how one objective event can have 4 interpretations. 

Want a more mundane example? Go to Home Depot and ask your wife what color a certain paint chip is. White is no longer white, it's egg shell. Light blue is seafoam, and so on ad infinitum. 

Our consciousness and our perspective colors our experiences and that makes our experience deviate from the "absolute" or "objective" truth. Like your faith having no bearing on whether a God exists or doesn't. And my skepticism having the same. 



WaltL1 said:


> First, Im not debating/arguing with you but just a question that is meant to challenge you -
> Any chance you are fighting the close and sometimes overlapping relationship between Agnosticism and Atheism due to wanting to separate yourself from the taboo and social stigma?
> You want to be viewed as this way? -
> 
> What you described is being "reasonable" towards another persons beliefs. Isnt that an individual quality that really has nothing to do with Atheism or Agnosticism?
> Take Griz for example. Atheist. Ive only ever seen him debate/argue against a Christians argument/claims.
> Not the person, not the belief, but their argument/claims.
> 
> Im not sure knowledge is knowledge if its unverifiable. Wouldn't that make it belief?
> 
> Maybe off topic but that's one thing I find very valuable, probably the most valuable, that I get out of participating here. As you pointed out its the "extremists" (on both sides) that get all the press. Participating here keeps all those bad thoughts and assumptions one can easily get from that, in check.



I don't think I'm sitting on the agnostic side just to appear less unsavory than the hardline atheist. I'm sitting here because I've seen nothing that convinces me of either position's validity. 

I highly respect Griz, and other atheists, who can argue the points and not the person.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Watch from 7:04-8:49 or to 9:46 just cause it's interesting.  Warning: don't listen to the annoying lady in the beginning.



It is an interesting observation that I don't have to call myself aracist. 

But here we are, and the word is out there, and each has their typical belief structures, or lack thereof.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It is an interesting observation that I don't have to call myself aracist.
> 
> But here we are, and the word is out there, and each has their typical belief structures, or lack thereof.



He makes an interesting observation to 11:05 that's pertinent to what Walt said about Atheist being seen as grumpy.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> What if it's something that no one witnessed except for you?  Would you say that you had knowledge of such a thing even if you couldn't verify it?


This may be a matter of semantics but I think it matters what you try to do with it. 
Seeing God in my cereal may be knowledge to me or it may be something I believe I saw.
If I told you I know God lives in my Captain Crunch box I'm guess you would need a little more than that.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Want a more mundane example? Go to Home Depot and ask your wife what color a certain paint chip is. White is no longer white, it's egg shell. Light blue is seafoam, and so on ad infinitum.



Again, blurring true with belief.  That is my only point on this.  There is truth and it is the same truth for all people.

Belief can be true.  But not all beliefs are true.  Just like a rectangle can be a square, but not all are.

Too many people parade around with the life-statement "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."  They are all incorrect.

I am not making a case for a deity here.  Simply pointing out the obvious.  If something is true, it is true for all.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> Again, blurring true with belief.  That is my only point on this.  There is truth and it is the same truth for all people.
> 
> Belief can be true.  But not all beliefs are true.  Just like a rectangle can be a square, but not all are.
> 
> Too many people parade around with the life-statement "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."  They are all incorrect.
> 
> I am not making a case for a deity here.  Simply pointing out the obvious.  If something is true, it is true for all.


Brussels sprouts taste like crap.
Brussels sprouts are delicious.
Which one is true for all?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Again, blurring true with belief.  That is my only point on this.  There is truth and it is the same truth for all people.
> 
> Belief can be true.  But not all beliefs are true.  Just like a rectangle can be a square, but not all are.
> 
> Too many people parade around with the life-statement "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."  They are all incorrect.
> 
> I am not making a case for a deity here.  Simply pointing out the obvious.  If something is true, it is true for all.



And yet I've shown you many cases where that is not true. 

A rectangle can never be a square, because a square has 4 _equal_ sides with 4 90 degree angles, where a rectangle has 2 pairs of independently equal sides with 4 90 degree angles. 

Both are quadrilaterals, meaning 4 sided polygons, if that's what you meant, but they are not otherwise the same. 

Similarly, eye witness testimony about nearly everything will not be 100% identical to another witness to the same event, nor to the event itself. To you, the car may have appeared to be doing 35 mph, to me 45 mph, but to a radar gun 38mph. The experiences are real and truthful, but they are discrepant with reality. Without the objectivity of the radar gun there is no way to demonstrate to another observer that the car was in fact going 38. "Well, it looked 35, or 45, to me..."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Brussels sprouts taste like crap.
> Brussels sprouts are delicious.
> Which one is true for all?



Excellent question. We can explore the universal truth of their chemical makeup, and explore how that interacts with the tastebuds on the tongue, but how that actually tastes to the person experiencing it wildly varies.


----------



## Huntinfool

For all, it is true that person A thinks brussel sprouts taste like crap.

For all, it is true that person B thinks brussel sprouts taste delicious.


The two people have different opinions or beliefs about brussel sprouts.  But the two truths above are true for all people.


If something is true, it is true for all.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And yet I've shown you many cases where that is not true.
> 
> 
> Similarly, eye witness testimony about nearly everything will not be 100% identical to another witness to the same event, nor to the event itself. To you, the car may have appeared to be doing 35 mph, to me 45 mph, but to a radar gun 38mph. The experiences are real and truthful, but they are discrepant with reality. Without the objectivity of the radar gun there is no way to demonstrate to another observer that the car was in fact going 38. "Well, it looked 35, or 45, to me..."



Striperr, I'm sorry...you have not shown me any instances where something that is true for one is not true for all.  You are confusing perspective for truth.

Do you not see yourself typing words like "appear"?

The car is either going 35, 45 or 38....it is most certainly not going more than one of those speeds at any given time.  People may have different opinions about the appearance of speed.  But the speed is what the speed is.  If each of those people were holding a radar gun, it would say the same thing....every time....for every person, regardless of their individual opinions on the matter.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> For all, it is true that person A thinks brussel sprouts taste like crap.
> 
> For all, it is true that person B thinks brussel sprouts taste delicious.
> 
> 
> The two people have different opinions or beliefs about brussel sprouts.  But the two truths above are true for all people.
> 
> Walt...trust me....you will not be able to argue through this piece of it.  It is lock tight.
> 
> If something is true, it is true for all.



But which experience is the correct one? This does come into play with the deity because we can't observe them like the sprout. We don't know if it actually exists or not, we are only told what it tastes like.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I never said there was no absolute truth. I said there was one absolute truth, I called it objective. I also said that there are truths based on perspective.
> 
> Further, this was one example of a way that the same occurrence is flavored by individual experience with it. If you asked these people for their testimony, you'd get at least 4 different takes on it, provided you could slow light down to have beams observable by normal humans.
> 
> It works better if you imagine a car accident like I said earlier, since that's macro scale and speed, rather than micro, but the example video was a parable for how one objective event can have 4 interpretations.
> 
> Want a more mundane example? Go to Home Depot and ask your wife what color a certain paint chip is. White is no longer white, it's egg shell. Light blue is seafoam, and so on ad infinitum.
> 
> Our consciousness and our perspective colors our experiences and that makes our experience deviate from the "absolute" or "objective" truth. Like your faith having no bearing on whether a God exists or doesn't. And my skepticism having the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm sitting on the agnostic side just to appear less unsavory than the hardline atheist. I'm sitting here because I've seen nothing that convinces me of either position's validity.
> 
> I highly respect Griz, and other atheists, who can argue the points and not the person.





> I'm sitting here because I've seen nothing that convinces me of either position's validity.


So is it accurate that because you aren't convinced either way that -
1. you don't believe that there is
2. you don't know that there isnt


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But which experience is the correct one? This does come into play with the deity because we can't observe them like the sprout. We don't know if it actually exists or not, we are only told what it tastes like.



I would say not even that.  How many people say "I can't explain it.  You have to just experience it for yourself?"  Why is that?  Shouldn't that be a very strong indicator of the non-universality of the thing?


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But which experience is the correct one? This does come into play with the deity because we can't observe them like the sprout. We don't know if it actually exists or not, we are only told what it tastes like.



While experience can point us to the truth, it is not the determiner of it.

Go hypothetical with me for a minute.  Let's make the assumption that the giant spaghetti monster really does exist in the sky and he did create us and we are all under his cruel thumb.

Let's also make the assumption that he chooses to hide in the shadows and never give us any evidence of his existence at all....none.  But he did...just once....physically show himself to one dude named Jimmy John in PoDunk, IA.

Everyone's experience but Jimmy John's would tell them that there is no such thing as the giant spaghetti monster.....but that does not change the truth that there is.

It is true for all people that the giant spaghetti monster exists in the sky.  Jimmy John believes it.  Everybody else doesn't.  But it is still true for all.

It is also true for all that everyone but Jimmy John believes there is no spaghetti monster.  It is also true for all that Jimmy John is a believer.  Neither of those truths negates or contradicts the truth that the monster is actually there.  Truth, by definition, is non-contradictory.

"A" cannot be both "A" and "B" at the same time.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> How many people say "I can't explain it.  You have to just experience it for yourself?"



Too many.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Striperr, I'm sorry...you have not shown me any instances where something that is true for one is not true for all.  You are confusing perspective for truth.
> 
> Do you not see yourself typing words like "appear"?
> 
> The car is either going 35, 45 or 38....it is most certainly not going more than one of those speeds at any given time.  People may have different opinions about the appearance of speed.  But the speed is what the speed is.



I'm saying that all we have, as humans, is perspective and that flavors the truth. It makes it no less true for us that the reality is somewhat different than what we think it is, but that's the point and you've even come close to acknowledging it yourself. 

The sprout tasting both good and bad are both truths. The question is what does it really taste like, objectively? The third truth is that it contains X and Y values of certain chemicals that cause certain receptors to be triggered. That causes certain flavors to be experienced and for 3 truths to be set up. 1 is the taste itself, and the other 2 are whether that's good or bad. 

But let's go back to the deity, and the one "true" God. A) Your experience of said God flavors the truth, biases, it towards your experience. He may be benevolent to you, but my life has been exceedingly difficult, so I see him as vindictive and punitive, but for what I don't know. He may not exist at all, since you can't separate the experience from the entity, and that experience being attributed to him is entirely based on the faith, and initial knowledge, of that deity in the first place. 

I asked earlier about an example featuring Santa. I did this not to belittle the arguments or the believers on either side, but to be illustrative of the difference between experience and truth. 

If you came downstairs one morning to find presents under your ficus and notice that some of your milk and cookies were missing, but had never heard of Santa before, what would you think had happened? The only truth that you could be sure of is that something did happen in your house to make the presents appear and the desserts disappear. You have to have heard of Santa, and carry at least a sympathetic view towards him in the first place, to even attribute that occurrence to him. To someone else, who had never heard of Santa, you may be advised to get a security system as some sort of whack job broke into your home, at the very least. 

All 3 experiences are true, and real, to their beholder. The objective truth is that your parents, or someone else innocuous, could have done it and just not be telling you. 

Like it, hate it, disagree with it, and it doesn't matter. Truth is relative to the observer, flavored by their experiences and biases, and the "absolute" truth is something that humans must rely on non-human technology to even witness for themselves. 

It may be a universal truth that we have a universal creator. There are myriad stories about whom that might be, and they are all as true to those who believe them as yours is to you. The lack of any observational evidence to substantiate anyone's claim prevents us from knowing the universal truth for what it is, or might not be. Death seems to be the crucible for that test, and that's an interesting condition in and of itself. If Hindu's are right, we'll all be reincarnated. If Christians are right some, or all, will go to Heaven or Hades. If atheists are right then nothing happens. My life experience tells me that the latter is true, given that I died on an OR table according to my doctors, but because of the dispersion of such faith and stories I can't disavow it completely because I indulge the possibility that I was somewhere between mortal death and eternal life but can't prove anything either way, even to myself.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> For all, it is true that person A thinks brussel sprouts taste like crap.
> 
> For all, it is true that person B thinks brussel sprouts taste delicious.
> 
> 
> The two people have different opinions or beliefs about brussel sprouts.  But the two truths above are true for all people.
> 
> 
> If something is true, it is true for all.





> The two people have different opinions or beliefs about brussel sprouts.


No No. What you said is if something is true for one its true for all. That doesn't allow for different opinions or beliefs. All you did was change the parameters to something else to avoid the obvious answer.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> While experience can point us to the truth, it is not the determiner of it.
> 
> Go hypothetical with me for a minute.  Let's make the assumption that the giant spaghetti monster really does exist in the sky and he did create us and we are all under his cruel thumb.
> 
> Let's also make the assumption that he chooses to hide in the shadows and never give us any evidence of his existence at all....none.  But he did...just once....physically show himself to one dude named Jimmy John in PoDunk, IA.
> 
> Everyone's experience but Jimmy John's would tell them that there is no such thing as the giant spaghetti monster.....but that does not change the truth that there is.
> 
> It is true for all people that the giant spaghetti monster exists in the sky.  Jimmy John believes it.  Everybody else doesn't.  But it is still true for all.
> 
> It is also true for all that everyone but Jimmy John believes there is no spaghetti monster.  It is also true for all that Jimmy John is a believer.  Neither of those truths negates or contradicts the truth that the monster is actually there.  Truth, by definition, is non-contradictory.
> 
> "A" cannot be both "A" and "B" at the same time.



You're talking about different truths, yet holding them all out to be equal. Yes, it is true to everyone that Jimmy is a believer. It is true, objectively, that the monster is real, at least to Jimmy. However, it is also true that people who can't experience that truth will remain doubtful as to its validity and their lack of belief is just as true, to them, as is Jimmy's. 

But we're also not talking about something that is mortally observable. You can't point a skeptic to a rock that says "Made by God" and expect them to believe it is true. Why? Because you might have carved that to sell me on the idea. So while the truth is that the rock was carved by God, it is still true for the skeptic that God may not exist because that miracle was too mundane to be credible. 

You're telling me that I'm confusing perspective with truth, and I may be from a certain POV, but that is no less foul than a person claiming to "know the one true God" and having nothing but anecdotal evidence to corroborate it. If the faithful can assert perspective and experience as truth, then I'm just taking their same POV and applying it to the secular world, and ya know what? Mine has corroboration, and it's been shown to you repeatedly in this thread.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Truth is relative to the observer



All of that said.  The singular point that I'm trying to get you to see is that BELIEF is relative to the observer.  Truth is not.  We cannot continue in discussion of a deity if you are not willing to admit that.

If there is a god and there is only one god (as many religions claim), then all but one are wrong.



> the "absolute" truth is something that humans must rely on non-human technology to even witness for themselves.



Again....are you absolutely sure that this is a true statement?


----------



## Huntinfool

WaltL1 said:


> No No. What you said is if something is true for one its true for all. That doesn't allow for different opinions or beliefs. All you did was change the parameters to something else to avoid the obvious answer.



No sir.  What I did was make a distinction between truth and opinion or belief.  

It is true for all that I don't like brussel sprouts.  In other words, it is true for all that my opinion of brussel sprouts is not a high one.  There is no other truth about what I think.

If you believe that I actually do like brussel sprouts, then it is true for all of us that you believe I like them.  But it doesn't change the truth that I don't.

You're making it entirely more complicated than it is in order to hold onto a volitional belief that there can be different variations of a single truth.

"A" is "A".  It is not "B".


----------



## Huntinfool

> It is true, objectively, that the monster is real, at least to Jimmy.



No....It is true for all that the monster exists.  The fact that others don't have the same experience as Jimmy John does not make the truth of existence false.



> But we're also not talking about something that is mortally observable. You can't point a skeptic to a rock that says "Made by God" and expect them to believe it is true. Why? Because you might have carved that to sell me on the idea. So while the truth is that the rock was carved by God, it is still true for the skeptic that God may not exist because that miracle was too mundane to be credible.



I'm not, at this point, trying to convince you that God exists.  I'm simply trying to get us to the same starting point.  Truth is truth.  There are not flavors of it.  We agree that we all have experiences through which we view the world....that's called a world view.

I'm not trying to get you to say God made the rock.  I'm simply trying to get you to the point that you will say the rock is, indeed, a rock....and not a paper towel and that it is objectively true for all that it is a rock.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> No sir.  What I did was make a distinction between truth and opinion or belief.
> 
> It is true for all that I don't like brussel sprouts.  In other words, it is true for all that my opinion of brussel sprouts is not a high one.  There is no other truth about what I think.
> 
> If you believe that I actually do like brussel sprouts, then it is true for all of us that you believe I like them.  But it doesn't change the truth that I don't.
> 
> You're making it entirely more complicated than it is in order to hold onto a volitional belief that there can be different variations of a single truth.
> 
> "A" is "A".  It is not "B".


Forget about what I believe you believe they believe. THAT is where the complication comes in. 
Answer the question -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> Brussels sprouts taste like crap.
> Brussels sprouts are delicious.
> Which one is true for all?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> All of that said.  The singular point that I'm trying to get you to see is that BELIEF is relative to the observer.  Truth is not.  We cannot continue in discussion of a deity if you are not willing to admit that.
> 
> If there is a god and there is only one god (as many religions claim), then all but one are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Again....are you absolutely sure that this is a true statement?



Ahh, so we can't continue discussing something until I adopt YOUR point-of-view? 

If I did that, there wouldn't be anything to discuss, unless you just like the sound of echoes. 

I've shown you, as have others, myriad cases where truth is relative to the observer. What proof have you offered to support your claims? Even your example about the spaghetti monster proves my side of this discussion. A) The monster exists =truth. 
B) Jimmy John believes in it = truth, even to people who doubt A.
C) People who doubt A are just as true to their experiences, and their experiences true to them, because they haven't experienced said monster. 

Let's slow this one down. 

Here's the definition of true. 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true



> a (1) :  *being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> *(2) :  conformable to an essential reality (3) :  fully realized or fulfilled <dreams come true>



Actual state of affairs. That hinges on one thing. Experience. You have to experience the actual state of affairs to know them and for them to become true to you.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Too many.




Then what does it taste like?


----------



## Huntinfool

WaltL1 said:


> Forget about what I believe you believe they believe. THAT is where the complication comes in.
> Answer the question -



You're starting with an incorrect premise that only one of those two statements is true for all.


But I've already answered the question once.  I assume you are choosing to ignore it.  

Statement 1 (slightly re-worded to point out the object):
"Billy thinks that brussel sprouts taste like crap."
"Jane thinks that brussel sprouts are delicious."

Both are objectively true of the object (the taster).  It is always true for all people that Billy does not like them.  It is also always true for all people that Jane does.  If you want to go further....it is also true for all people that not all people have the same opinion of brussel sprouts (deducted from the two statements above).

If you give the same object to both statements, you can see how silly it is.  

"Billy thinks that brussel sprouts taste like crap."
"Billy thinks that brussel sprouts are delicious."

One of the statements is true and one of them is false.  But they cannot both be true at the same time.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Then what does it taste like?



Chicken?


----------



## Huntinfool

> Actual state of affairs. That hinges on one thing. Experience. You have to experience the actual state of affairs to know them and for them to become true to you.



StripeRR...perhaps you should go read the definition of the word "actual".


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Forget about what I believe you believe they believe. THAT is where the complication comes in.
> Answer the question -



I understand what he's saying.  He's saying that if he says that he likes brussels then for everyone concerned or not, the truth is that he likes them.  

I 'think' the point Striper is making is that no one concerned or not can REALLY know that Huntin' likes them because they can't experience what he does.

Am I close?


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> You're starting with an incorrect premise that one of those two statements is true for all.


I agree with you that the premise is incorrect.
However I disagree that its MY premise -


> Originally Posted by Huntinfool View Post
> Simply pointing out the obvious. If something is true, it is true for all.


You are mixing up that which is true because its a fact regardless of opinion or belief -  1 + 1 =2
And that which is true for someone individually based on their opinion or belief - Brussels sprouts are delicious or taste like crap.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Chicken?




Really?  That's the best you've got?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I understand what he's saying.  He's saying that if he says that he likes brussels then for everyone concerned or not, the truth is that he likes them.
> 
> I 'think' the point Striper is making is that no one concerned or not can REALLY know that Huntin' likes them because they can't experience what he does.
> 
> Am I close?



I agree with what you say about his view. That's why I also agree with him on it. There is A, ONE, truth in that he likes them. There is another truth that I don't like them. Each of us has a flavor profile we experience when we eat them.

I'm not trying to invalidate _his_ truth that he like them. I'm just saying that there are 3 truths involved. 

A) What the food chemically contains as flavors.
B) How that triggers his receptors to make him like them. 
C) How that triggers mine to make me hate them. 

All 3 are true, and all 3 are different from the others. But taste is highly subjective thing anyway, that's why my initial example was with the light experiment. We can argue forever on the color of the light, but we should all agree that the light impacts the objects at varying times relative to the observer. That makes each impact true to the observer, but different from other observers, and different from the action itself.


----------



## ambush80

OK.  HF,  I think I clearly understand your position about the truth.  Proceed with your apologetics.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Really?  That's the best you've got?



At the moment.  


You know my answer.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree with what you say about his view. That's why I also agree with him on it. There is A, ONE, truth in that he likes them. There is another truth that I don't like them. Each of us has a flavor profile we experience when we eat them.
> 
> I'm not trying to invalidate _his_ truth that he like them. I'm just saying that there are 3 truths involved.
> 
> A) What the food chemically contains as flavors.
> B) How that triggers his receptors to make him like them.
> C) How that triggers mine to make me hate them.
> 
> All 3 are true, and all 3 are different from the others. But taste is highly subjective thing anyway, that's why my initial example was with the light experiment. We can argue forever on the color of the light, but we should all agree that the light impacts the objects at varying times relative to the observer. That makes each impact true to the observer, but different from other observers, and different from the action itself.



I think what he's trying to express is that light travels at 186,000 Miles per second is true for everybody.  I think we can all agree to that.  I'd like to see where he goes next.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> OK.  HF,  I think I clearly understand your position about the truth.  Proceed with your apologetics.



Gracious Senior.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> At the moment.
> 
> 
> You know my answer.



Remind me.


----------



## welderguy

Well.....I just spent the better part of an hour reading most of this thread...whew!!...and,in my assessment,it basically boils down to one thing.Either you have faith or you don't.Those that don't have it will argue with those that do because they have NO ABILITY to understand things that require faith to understand.(in fact,even this statement will be argued for this same reason: no faith) Faith is out of our hands.If you have it,God gave it to you,and you have a limited understanding of Him.(still very hard to explain).If you don't have it,it's because He chose not to give it to you.(Don't ask me why).If you don't have faith,NOTHING anyone says will convince you to believe in God.In other words,it's above human logic,without faith.


----------



## Huntinfool

> And that which is true for someone individually



There is no such thing as the above.  Something is true or it isn't.  

You're confusing truth with world view.  They are entirely different concepts.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Remind me.



Chicken....I already told you!


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Chicken....I already told you!


...


----------



## Huntinfool

welderguy said:


> Well.....I just spent the better part of an hour reading most of this thread...whew!!...and,in my assessment,it basically boils down to one thing.Either you have faith or you don't.Those that don't have it will argue with those that do because they have NO ABILITY to understand things that require faith to understand.(in fact,even this statement will be argued for this same reason: no faith) Faith is out of our hands.If you have it,God gave it to you,and you have a limited understanding of Him.(still very hard to explain).If you don't have it,it's because He chose not to give it to you.(Don't ask me why).If you don't have faith,NOTHING anyone says will convince you to believe in God.In other words,it's above human logic,without faith.



Welder.....brother.....I love ya.  


But you just killed my whole morning's work!


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Well.....I just spent the better part of an hour reading most of this thread...whew!!...and,in my assessment,it basically boils down to one thing.Either you have faith or you don't.Those that don't have it will argue with those that do because they have NO ABILITY to understand things that require faith to understand.(in fact,even this statement will be argued for this same reason: no faith) Faith is out of our hands.If you have it,God gave it to you,and you have a limited understanding of Him.(still very hard to explain).If you don't have it,it's because He chose not to give it to you.(Don't ask me why).If you don't have faith,NOTHING anyone says will convince you to believe in God.In other words,it's above human logic,without faith.





> If you don't have it,it's because He chose not to give it to you.(Don't ask me why).


I wont ask you why he doesn't give it to some but I will ask your thoughts on why those he doesn't give it to gets punished for eternity for not having it? 
Ya know because he didn't give it to them.
Seems kind of twisted to me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Well.....I just spent the better part of an hour reading most of this thread...whew!!...and,in my assessment,it basically boils down to one thing.Either you have faith or you don't.Those that don't have it will argue with those that do because they have NO ABILITY to understand things that require faith to understand.(in fact,even this statement will be argued for this same reason: no faith) Faith is out of our hands.If you have it,God gave it to you,and you have a limited understanding of Him.(still very hard to explain).If you don't have it,it's because He chose not to give it to you.(Don't ask me why).If you don't have faith,NOTHING anyone says will convince you to believe in God.In other words,it's above human logic,without faith.



Essentially true. Without first knowledge, in this case faith and a willing mind, there can be no blind belief. 

Again, and not meant to insult, much the same way a kid believes in Santa Claus after first being told, and reinforcing anecdotal experiences. The kid has to be told of them, the kid has to want to believe, and who wouldn't (presents!), and then the presents have to come. 

For a faithful person they must first have that knowledge of what they are told is God, they have to want to believe in it and Him, and then they have to have reinforcing experiences like the chill you feel when you sing your favorite hymn (getting the spirit), or the happiness you feel in doing something good for someone else like Jesus did. 

If one of those breaks down, then you lose the whole thing. 



Huntinfool said:


> There is no such thing as the above.  Something is true or it isn't.
> 
> You're confusing truth with world view.  They are entirely different concepts.



Prove it. I've given you myriad examples to back up my position, all I've gotten from you was a Spaghetti Monster which only served to strengthen mine. 

I'm done trying to convince you. Show your cards, sir.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> StripeRR...perhaps you should go read the definition of the word "actual".



Perhaps you should as well. 

ac·tu·al
Ëˆak(t)SH(É™w)É™l/
adjective
adjective: actual

    1.
    existing in fact; typically as contrasted with what was intended, expected, or *believed.*
    "the estimate was much less than the actual cost"
    synonyms:	real, true, genuine, authentic, verified, attested, confirmed, definite, hard, plain, veritable; More
    existing, existent, manifest, substantial, factual, de facto, bona fide;
    informalhonest-to-goodness, real live
    "be honest—how much of this wild story is actual?"
    antonyms:	notional
        used to emphasize the important aspect of something.
        "the book could be condensed into half the space, but what of the actual content?"
    2.
    existing now; current.

How can you verify existence without experiencing it? You can't believe in a truth, you have to experience it. 

Lawyered.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> There is no such thing as the above.  Something is true or it isn't.
> 
> You're confusing truth with world view.  They are entirely different concepts.


So one person thinking Brussels sprouts are delicious is now a world view and not the truth to them as an individual???

I think we will be better off just leaving this where it is.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Well.....I just spent the better part of an hour reading most of this thread...whew!!...and,in my assessment,it basically boils down to one thing.Either you have faith or you don't.Those that don't have it will argue with those that do because they have NO ABILITY to understand things that require faith to understand.(in fact,even this statement will be argued for this same reason: no faith) Faith is out of our hands.If you have it,God gave it to you,and you have a limited understanding of Him.(still very hard to explain).If you don't have it,it's because He chose not to give it to you.(Don't ask me why).If you don't have faith,NOTHING anyone says will convince you to believe in God.In other words,it's above human logic,without faith.




I'm really happy for you that you read this whole discussion.  It's important stuff. 

If you maintain your assessment then I don't understand why you would cast pearls before swine or vessels of wrath or whatever we are.  For your own benefit, I encourage you to proceed with your supernatural mandate to engage the non-believers.

Please note the definition of Apologetics and understand that "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible" is 'cheating'.  

Welcome to the discussion.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I wont ask you why he doesn't give it to some but I will ask your thoughts on why those he doesn't give it to gets punished for eternity for not having it?
> Ya know because he didn't give it to them.
> Seems kind of twisted to me.



That's yer carnal noggin' filling you full of misunderstanding.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> That's yer carnal noggin' filling you full of misunderstanding.


Don't blame me I got carnal instead of faithful


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Essentially true. Without first knowledge, in this case faith and a willing mind, there can be no blind belief.
> 
> Again, and not meant to insult, much the same way a kid believes in Santa Claus after first being told, and reinforcing anecdotal experiences. The kid has to be told of them, the kid has to want to believe, and who wouldn't (presents!), and then the presents have to come.
> 
> For a faithful person they must first have that knowledge of what they are told is God, they have to want to believe in it and Him, and then they have to have reinforcing experiences like the chill you feel when you sing your favorite hymn (getting the spirit), or the happiness you feel in doing something good for someone else like Jesus did.
> 
> If one of those breaks down, then you lose the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it. I've given you myriad examples to back up my position, all I've gotten from you was a Spaghetti Monster which only served to strengthen mine.
> 
> I'm done trying to convince you. Show your cards, sir.



Hear Hear!!


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Don't blame me I got carnal instead of faithful



Me too......sigh

I had faithful but I lost it.  Must not have been holding my mouth right.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You can't believe in a truth, you have to experience it.
> 
> Lawyered.




Have you ever experienced being hit in the face by a Randy Johnson fastball?  You know the truth that it's painful....don't you?

By that definition, you would have to experience everything possible in order to verify whether it is true or not.  


What in the world does "lawyered" mean?  You charged me too much for a service you didn't justify with effort?  That's been my experience with lawyers.  I suppose that's the truth, right?  Since it's my experience.


----------



## Huntinfool

WaltL1 said:


> So one person thinking Brussels sprouts are delicious is now a world view and not the truth to them as an individual???
> 
> I think we will be better off just leaving this where it is.



You said it.....I don't think you'll find it in what I wrote.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> I think what he's trying to express is that light travels at 186,000 Miles per second is true for everybody.  I think we can all agree to that.  I'd like to see where he goes next.



You and me both!


This 'truth' that most of you are referring to is better understood a belief or opinion or perspective.  To go back to the Dawkins video.  It is true that light traveled at the same speed all the time and arrive at each of the two men when it actually arrived.  

The perspective of each person is different based on their interaction with the world.  But it does not impact the truth that the light arrived when it arrived.

If this were an ongoing apologetic discussion, I think you can naturally see where this leads.  I'm not of the opinion that I'm going to convince you guys to drop to your knees and accept Jesus today because I've convinced you beyond all doubt.  I'm not that good...not even close!

Let me ask one final question and then I REALLY have to get back to what I'm actually getting paid to do today.

September 11, 2001

A small group of men board four airplanes, hijack them and then fly them into three buildings and a field killing over 3000 people.  

Were the actions of those men evil or were they heroic?  

Because they believed (based on how they view the world) they were heroic, is it true?

Take it to a deeper level.  Nazi Germany killed something like 6,000,000 Jews if horrific ways.  True that those actions were evil?  Hitler believed that he was doing the human race a favor by eliminating the weaker races.  True?

If we cannot agree that it is objectively true that those men were evil and did evil things, then we need to move on to another thread and start a new argument altogether.  

I'm willing to grant that you are volitionally attached to the idea that truth is relative and move on.  I would hope, though, that you would continue to think through the logic.  Truth does not contradict itself or it would not be true.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Me too......sigh
> 
> I had faithful but I lost it.  Must not have been holding my mouth right.


He that giveth, taketh away.
Must be getting low on firewood down below.
I'll bring the hotdogs you bring the buns.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> He that giveth, taketh away.
> Must be getting low on firewood down below.
> I'll bring the hotdogs you bring the buns.



Dang!!!  Nothing like a campfire dog roasted on a stick.  As they say in the Outdoor Cafe "Craving Flung!!!!"


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> This 'truth' that most of you are referring to is better understood a belief or opinion or perspective.   Truth does not contradict itself or it would not be true.



Perhaps you are mixing truth and morality?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Have you ever experienced being hit in the face by a Randy Johnson fastball?  You know the truth that it's painful....don't you?
> 
> By that definition, you would have to experience everything possible in order to verify whether it is true or not.
> 
> 
> What in the world does "lawyered" mean?  You charged me too much for a service you didn't justify with effort?  That's been my experience with lawyers.  I suppose that's the truth, right?  Since it's my experience.



No, I can infer that it would be painful based on previous experiences with little league and the like. 

Knowledge is dependent on experience, as is truth.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I think what he's trying to express is that light travels at 186,000 Miles per second is true for everybody.  I think we can all agree to that.  I'd like to see where he goes next.



If you're speaking of light in a vacuum, yes.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Dang!!!  Nothing like a campfire dog roasted on a stick.  As they say in the Outdoor Cafe "Craving Flung!!!!"



No doubt......and, if I remember correctly, I always ended up eating like 5 or 6 dogs when we were cooking 'em that way.


----------



## JB0704

To get kind-a on topic......I agree with HF that truth must be universal in order to be truth, the best example is math (1+1 = 2 sorta stuff).  The earth is round, the sun is hotter than the earth, etc.

All sorts of things can be confirmed as true, and really, can't be denied.

If there is a God, then God exists.  If God exists, then his existence is truthful.  I believe he does.  Do I have "truth?"  I believe yes.  I cannot confirm it for any of you......so, the atheist/agnostic will declare this acceptance as untruthful.  And, I have difficulty seeing how the two sides can be reconciled.

And, just because somebody declares a truth don't make it so......for instance, me claiming there is a God, and an atheist declaring there is no God.  Each claims truth.  Same as any religious variance.  Why believe what you believe if you don't believe it's true?  We can all accept a possibility that somehow we have interpretted the data wrong, and what we believe to be true ain't so.........but, if God exists, then the truth we declare is, in fact, truth......and vice versa.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> Perhaps you are mixing truth and morality?



You're close.  One does point to the other though.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> The answer to the question is yes, he has revealed himself in a way that convinced me.  He did not, however, perform a magic trick at my command.


Because YOU required less.  



Huntinfool said:


> My belief is not simply an emotional or even volitional one as you've described it above.  It's a fine straw man that you tear down.  However, there are some of us who have actually examined the evidence.


Share the evidence


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> To get kind-a on topic......I agree with HF that truth must be universal in order to be truth, the best example is math (1+1 = 2 sorta stuff).  The earth is round, the sun is hotter than the earth, etc.
> 
> All sorts of things can be confirmed as true, and really, can't be denied.
> 
> If there is a God, then God exists.  If God exists, then his existence is truthful.  I believe he does.  Do I have "truth?"  I believe yes.  I cannot confirm it for any of you......so, the atheist/agnostic will declare this acceptance as untruthful.  And, I have difficulty seeing how the two sides can be reconciled.
> 
> And, just because somebody declares a truth don't make it so......for instance, me claiming there is a God, and an atheist declaring there is no God.  Each claims truth.  Same as any religious variance.  Why believe what you believe if you don't believe it's true?  We can all accept a possibility that somehow we have interpretted the data wrong, and what we believe to be true ain't so.........but, if God exists, then the truth we declare is, in fact, truth......and vice versa.



Can we?  You're the only one on your side that even remotely does that and you do it so......quietly.  Why is that?  I think it's an important question in that it will reveal how willing one is to critically examine their position and the nature of the 'information' by which they come to their conclusions.

I remember Gem conducting some exercise about finding dog DNA on a fire hydrant and calling it a dog.  It shouldn't be that hard to be able to say "this is a dog".  Why all the hullabaloo about matters of faith?


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Knowledge is dependent on experience, as is truth.




Relativism at its finest.  


Just to be clear, all truth is relative?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Share the evidence



Tastes like chicken.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> Share the evidence



The universe is expanding.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> The universe is expanding.



It's like Isreal with less words.

(Isreal, Love ya man.)


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Relativism at its finest.
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, all truth is relative?



Sorry, I should have said dependant. 

If we're going to start sniping each other, because I perceive snide attitude in your "Relativism at its finest," comment, then I'll choose to disengage from here on out. 

But I am still waiting on you to show your cards.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> The universe is expanding.



Is evidence of...


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Why is that?



It is often misinterpretted as doubt (it's not).  These are notions that I really don't care to debate.  Too much chest pounding goes on when we venture into this topic (on both sides of the debate), and I'm just not into that sorta-thing.   Thoughts, emotions, and feelings are impossible to prove.......faith is too.  That's why I won't debate whether or not I have faith with anybody.  It's mine, and I know what it is, and I really don't care if somebody else doubts that I believe it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Sorry, I should have said dependant.
> 
> If we're going to start sniping each other, because I perceive snide attitude in your "Relativism at its finest," comment, then I'll choose to disengage from here on out.
> 
> But I am still waiting on you to show your cards.



Actually, both usages of dependent/dependant are valid. 

I say that knowledge depends on experience because without experience you can't know it. Experience could be classroom explanation, it could be practical exercise, it could be OJT. 

Much like the fastball analogy you tried to paint, you can infer that X will be Y because of Z, but you can't be sure of it until it's experienced.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I will ask your thoughts on why those he doesn't give it to gets punished for eternity for not having it?



WaltL1,that is a very good question,but a better question is why He doesn't punish all of us.We all deserve eternal torment but His grace is given to only some.I don't know why,only that He's just in doing whatever He wants.We have no right to question that.He is sovereign.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> It is often misinterpretted as doubt (it's not).  These are notions that I really don't care to debate.  Too much chest pounding goes on when we venture into this topic (on both sides of the debate), and I'm just not into that sorta-thing.   Thoughts, emotions, and feelings are impossible to prove.......faith is too.  That's why I won't debate whether or not I have faith with anybody.  It's mine, and I know what it is, and I really don't care if somebody else doubts what that I believe it.



Bingo, it is true to you.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Is evidence of...



A starting point


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But let's go back to the deity, and the one "true" God. A) Your experience of said God flavors the truth, biases, it towards your experience. He may be benevolent to you, but my life has been exceedingly difficult, so I see him as vindictive and punitive, but for what I don't know. He may not exist at all, since you can't separate the experience from the entity, and that experience being attributed to him is entirely based on the faith, and initial knowledge, of that deity in the first place.
> 
> I asked earlier about an example featuring Santa. I did this not to belittle the arguments or the believers on either side, but to be illustrative of the difference between experience and truth.
> 
> If you came downstairs one morning to find presents under your ficus and notice that some of your milk and cookies were missing, but had never heard of Santa before, what would you think had happened? The only truth that you could be sure of is that something did happen in your house to make the presents appear and the desserts disappear. You have to have heard of Santa, and carry at least a sympathetic view towards him in the first place, to even attribute that occurrence to him. To someone else, who had never heard of Santa, you may be advised to get a security system as some sort of whack job broke into your home, at the very least.
> 
> All 3 experiences are true, and real, to their beholder. The objective truth is that your parents, or someone else innocuous, could have done it and just not be telling you.
> 
> Like it, hate it, disagree with it, and it doesn't matter. Truth is relative to the observer, flavored by their experiences and biases, and the "absolute" truth is something that humans must rely on non-human technology to even witness for themselves.
> 
> It may be a universal truth that we have a universal creator. There are myriad stories about whom that might be, and they are all as true to those who believe them as yours is to you. The lack of any observational evidence to substantiate anyone's claim prevents us from knowing the universal truth for what it is, or might not be. Death seems to be the crucible for that test, and that's an interesting condition in and of itself. If Hindu's are right, we'll all be reincarnated. If Christians are right some, or all, will go to Heaven or Hades. If atheists are right then nothing happens. My life experience tells me that the latter is true, given that I died on an OR table according to my doctors, but because of the dispersion of such faith and stories I can't disavow it completely because I indulge the possibility that I was somewhere between mortal death and eternal life but can't prove anything either way, even to myself.


And by the same token...if you came downstairs to find a bunch of presents under your ficus and some milk and cookies missing....THERE IS NO WAY that you are going to automatically think a Jolly Fat Man dressed in a Red Velvet Suit left these here and ate the food WITHOUT someone else first telling you about said Santa Clause.
Same goes for all the versions of God.
A scenic mountain view..prayer answered.. surviving a close call..meeting the woman of your dreams etc etc etc......NOBODY had that happen that did not hear of God and automatically piece together the entire Biblical story...ONLY after the stories have been told to you(general version of you...non specific), read to you, read by yourself and upbringing has explained these odd things as the doings of a God...does a person relate them to a God. You see evidence of YOUR God because that is the only explanation that makes sense instead of the Truth which is......I Don't Know.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> A starting point



Okay, we agree on at least that much.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Bingo, it is true to you.



I'm speaking more about a believer doubting another believer's faith.  It's just pointless.

If God created the universe, then there is no way to take a relative position on the matter.  He either did or he didn't.  I believe he did.  Some say he did not.  Somebody has to be wrong.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I'm speaking more about a believer doubting another believer's faith.  It's just pointless.
> 
> If God created the universe, then there is no way to take a relative position on the matter.  He either did or he didn't.  I believe he did.  Some say he did not.  Somebody has to be wrong.



I agree, someone has to be wrong. It could be both of you. It could be God, but not as you "know" him.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> The universe is expanding.



Explain to me that because the Universe is expanding how that equates to a God..


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> And by the same token...if you came downstairs to find a bunch of presents under your ficus and some milk and cookies missing....THERE IS NO WAY that you are going to automatically think a Jolly Fat Man dressed in a Red Velvet Suit left these here and ate the food WITHOUT someone else first telling you about said Santa Clause.
> Same goes for all the versions of God.
> A scenic mountain view..prayer answered.. surviving a close call..meeting the woman of your dreams etc etc etc......NOBODY had that happen that did not hear of God and automatically piece together the entire Biblical story...ONLY after the stories have been told to you(general version of you...non specific), read to you, read by yourself and upbringing has explained these odd things as the doings of a God...does a person relate them to a God. You see evidence of YOUR God because that is the only explanation that makes sense instead of the Truth which is......I Don't Know.



The thing that you're not seeing is this: God reveals Himself initially by His Spirit.He doesn't need any other means.That's how John the baptist was called in his mother's womb.If you don't believe this,like I said before,you lack the essential faith to be able to believe it.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> A starting point



I agree also...a starting point.

Now I see a Jolly Fat Man dressed in a Red Velvet Suit lighting a fuse to the singular point......
Can you prove that I am wrong?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The thing that you're not seeing is this: God reveals Himself initially by His Spirit.He doesn't need any other means.That's how John the baptist was called in his mother's womb.If you don't believe this,like I said before,you lack the essential faith to be able to believe it.



You seem to know a lot about God.
How?


----------



## Huntinfool

> If we're going to start sniping each other, because I perceive snide attitude in your "Relativism at its finest," comment, then I'll choose to disengage from here on out.



Not a snide attitude.  Just a belief that relativism is self-contradictory and not a valid lens through which to view the world.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I'm speaking more about a believer doubting another believer's faith.  It's just pointless.
> 
> If God created the universe, then there is no way to take a relative position on the matter.  He either did or he didn't.  I believe he did.  Some say he did not.  Somebody has to be wrong.



I didn't intend to get you in a debate with other believers.  I was hoping that someone could explain how they could be 100% sure about their belief.  I guess at some point it's a numbers game.  I'll ask my mom, who has stated to me that she could be wrong,  next time I talk to her what she thinks the % is that she could be wrong about a god and the god of the Bible.  I have a feeling that it will be that same number.

Maybe she's like Dawkins and is 99.9999% sure she is right.  That's plenty enough certainty to operate from.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> WaltL1,that is a very good question,but a better question is why He doesn't punish all of us.We all deserve eternal torment but His grace is given to only some.I don't know why,only that He's just in doing whatever He wants.We have no right to question that.He is sovereign.





> We have no right to question that.


That's where we disagree. For me, being sovereign doesn't guarantee my worshipping you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The thing that you're not seeing is this: God reveals Himself initially by His Spirit.He doesn't need any other means.That's how John the baptist was called in his mother's womb.If you don't believe this,like I said before,you lack the essential faith to be able to believe it.


You are exactly right....I am not seeing it.
Your reason for me not seeing it and my reason for not seeing it are two different reasons.

Explain what essential faith is.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That's where we disagree. For me, being sovereign doesn't guarantee my worshipping you.




It would appear that way.


----------



## Huntinfool

> THERE IS NO WAY that you are going to automatically think a Jolly Fat Man dressed in a Red Velvet Suit left these here and ate the food WITHOUT someone else first telling you about said Santa Clause.
> Same goes for all the versions of God.



What if there were hoof prints followed by runner marks in the snow on the roof and a selfie of old saint nick eating your cookies on instagram?  What if there were red fiber filaments lining the chimney?

Your argument above makes the incorrect assumption that the ONLY reason to believe in a god is because your parents told you so and that there is NO evidence that points to him in any way shape manner or form.

It's called a straw man.  Aren't they easy to tear down?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Not a snide attitude.  Just a belief that relativism is self-contradictory and not a valid lens through which to view the world.



I would contend that viewing it through the lens of a deity of dubious existence is less valid.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> What if there were hoof prints followed by runner marks in the snow on the roof and a selfie of old saint nick eating your cookies on instagram?  What if there were red fiber filaments lining the chimney?
> 
> Your argument above makes the incorrect assumption that the ONLY reason to believe in a god is because your parents told you so and that there is NO evidence that points to him in any way shape manner or form.
> 
> It's called a straw man.  Aren't they easy to tear down?



I can link anything to anything else if I insert "what ifs".

Show me the Red Fibers , Hoof Prints and Runner Marks....that is all I am asking.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's where we disagree. For me, being sovereign doesn't guarantee my worshipping you.



WaltL1,I can guarantee you this,because He is sovereign,you will either worship Him now or when He comes back."Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" same goes for you Ambush80.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I can link anything to anything else if I insert "what ifs".
> 
> Show me the Red Fibers , Hoof Prints and Runner Marks....that is all I am asking.





Wake me up when he offers something substantial.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I didn't intend to get you in a debate with other believers.



That's what generally happens with this particular topic, and is also why I only go there.....quietly 

Not sure if it's a #'s game or an acceptance that I have no concrete proof that you don't also have, and we interpret that data differently.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> WaltL1,I can guarantee you this,because He is sovereign,you will either worship Him now or when He comes back."Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" same goes for you Ambush80.



Or you'll burn, don't leave that part out.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> WaltL1,I can guarantee you this,because He is sovereign,you will either worship Him now or when He comes back."Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord"



Simply claiming things isn't gonna get it done.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> What if there were hoof prints followed by runner marks in the snow on the roof and a selfie of old saint nick eating your cookies on instagram?  What if there were red fiber filaments lining the chimney?
> 
> Your argument above makes the incorrect assumption that the ONLY reason to believe in a god is because your parents told you so and that there is NO evidence that points to him in any way shape manner or form.
> 
> It's called a straw man.  Aren't they easy to tear down?



As easy to tear down as the Big Straw Man in the sky.

Your family is Marooned on an island when you are an infant. By the age of 1 they all perish but you and you are raised by native island people who worship nothing or no one.
You look out into the ocean and up into the sky and at the colors on the parrots and at the tusks on the wild pigs and you ALMOST fall a cliff but land on a ledge only 5 feet down instead of 500ft down and the prettiest island girl is CooCoo for CoCo Puffs smitten with you etc etc etc.....

How do come to the conclusion the God of the Bible had ANYTHING to do with ANY of it?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> That's what generally happens with this particular topic, and is also why I only go there.....quietly
> 
> Not sure if it's a #'s game or an acceptance that I have no concrete proof that you don't also have, and we interpret that data differently.



Then I guess we do peer review of the the data and how they were collected and interpreted.  Ugh...


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or you'll burn, don't leave that part out.



THEN you'll burn....if you're not washed in the blood.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Wake me up when he offers something substantial.



Eternity is pretty long


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> THEN you'll burn....if you're not washed in the blood.



Is that in the organic section at Kroger?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> How do come to the conclusion the God of the Bible had ANYTHING to do with ANY of it?



....



bullethead said:


> As easy to tear down as the Big Straw Man in the sky.
> 
> Your family is Marooned on an island when you are an infant. By the age of 1 they all perish but you and you are raised by native island people who worship nothing or no one.
> You look out into the ocean and up into the sky and at the colors on the parrots and at the tusks on the wild pigs and you ALMOST fall a cliff but land on a ledge only 5 feet down instead of 500ft down and the prettiest island girl is CooCoo for CoCo Puffs smitten with you etc etc etc.....



It's got less to do with what happens, and more to do with what is.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> THEN you'll burn....if you're not washed in the blood.



Heyyyyy
Please don't skip over the hard questions.
I have asked you more than a few things in the last few pages of posts and you seem to conveniently not answer them.
How do YOU know all about this God so well?
Please explain what "essential faith" is to us.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Heyyyyy
> Please don't skip over the hard questions.
> I have asked you more than a few things in the last few pages of posts and you seem to conveniently not answer them.
> How do YOU know all about this God so well?
> Please explain what "essential faith" is to us.



Oh, that's easy. It's the gift that only some will get, and those that get it will be rewarded for it again in the afterlife, but those of us unfortunate enough to have either never been given it will be punished for it. 

We're doubly forsaken if you ask me.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> ....
> 
> 
> 
> It's got less to do with what happens, and more to do with what is.



Be specific.
Without ever hearing about the God as described in the Bible, our society, church, upbringing etc... how would a person know THAT God?

What Is?


----------



## welderguy

you guys are awesome! Blind as bats spiritually,but awesome nonetheless....My hope is God will open your eyes  and speak to your hearts with His still small voice so you can understand the unsearchable riches of His grace.  We could really have some good discussions then.There's such a barrier between us preventing it right now.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Oh, that's easy. It's the gift that only some will get, and those that get it will be rewarded for it again in the afterlife, but those of us unfortunate enough to have either never been given it will be punished for it.
> 
> We're doubly forsaken if you ask me.



Right...somehow SOME people just have the knack for it and anyone else that does not think and act and rationalize JUST as they do...well....everyone else just doesn't "get it".


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Be specific.
> Without ever hearing about the God as described in the Bible, our society, church, upbringing etc... how would a person know THAT God?



It's not a this God or that God proposition is it?  First, it's an origins question, from there we get the notion of God.  If God exists, he is God, if he doesn't then he is not God.

Would the islander settle on Christianity without being told specifically about it, doubtful.  Would they conclude there is a God?  Most likely.



bullethead said:


> What Is?



Me, the girl, the ocean, the parrot, the cliff, etc.  Nature and existence.  There is definitely a scripture reference for this I won't post.....but I think you know where I'm going.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Heyyyyy
> Please don't skip over the hard questions.
> I have asked you more than a few things in the last few pages of posts and you seem to conveniently not answer them.
> How do YOU know all about this God so well?
> Please explain what "essential faith" is to us.



I tried to answer this in post #654.It's revealed by His Spirit.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> you guys are awesome! Blind as bats spiritually,but awesome nonetheless....My hope is God will open your eyes  and speak to your hearts with His still small voice so you can understand the unsearchable riches of His grace.  We could really have some good discussions then.There's such a barrier between us preventing it right now.



The only barrier is you.

You can go a few floors up and talk all day with unprovable assertions as if you know all the answers, there are a pile of people that buy into that, but in here we require you back up what you say.
You have not and apparently cannot.

How do YOU know God so well?
Please explain to us what "essential faith" is.
3rd time asking...


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I tried to answer this in post #654.It's revealed by His Spirit.



How did you know it was His Spirit and not Buddha's?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Oh, that's easy. It's the gift that only some will get, and those that get it will be rewarded for it again in the afterlife, but those of us unfortunate enough to have either never been given it will be punished for it.
> 
> We're doubly forsaken if you ask me.



https://www.facebook.com/vesselsofwrath

We should be grateful.  What an honor to serve as an example of god's vengeance.



welderguy said:


> you guys are awesome! Blind as bats spiritually,but awesome nonetheless....My hope is God will open your eyes  and speak to your hearts with His still small voice so you can understand the unsearchable riches of His grace.  We could really have some good discussions then.There's such a barrier between us preventing it right now.



There's an "Amen, Hallelujah" section a couple floors up but they don't serve drinks like down here.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> WaltL1,I can guarantee you this,because He is sovereign,you will either worship Him now or when He comes back."Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" same goes for you Ambush80.


Again NO. 
Acknowledgement and worshipping is two very different things.
That's why the answers to those questions are important to me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> https://www.facebook.com/vesselsofwrath
> 
> We should be grateful.  What an honor to serve as an example of god's vengeance.



Forgive me for not rejoicing in the role that was chosen for me with no input on my part. A la cannon fodder for the Apocalypse and Rapture.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> Explain to me that because the Universe is expanding how that equates to a God..



The universe cannot be infinitely old and ever arrive at today.  It cannot be infinitely old and not be infinitely large (which it is not).  Since we agree on a beginning, I have to assume we also agree on these points.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> The universe cannot be infinitely old and ever arrive at today.  It cannot be infinitely old and not be infinitely large (which it is not).  Since we agree on a beginning, I have to assume we also agree on these points.



No, and how can you say cannot to any of those. Outside of the bible where is the evidence for that?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> It's not a this God or that God proposition is it?  First, it's an origins question, from there we get the notion of God.  If God exists, he is God, if he doesn't then he is not God.
> 
> Would the islander settle on Christianity without being told specifically about it, doubtful.  Would they conclude there is a God?  Most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> Me, the girl, the ocean, the parrot, the cliff, etc.  Nature and existence.  There is definitely a scripture reference for this I won't post.....but I think you know where I'm going.



Don't you mean "then there is no god"?

Is this the uncaused cause/irreducible complexity thing?


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I would contend that viewing it through the lens of a deity of dubious existence is less valid.



That's only true for you...


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> It's not a this God or that God proposition is it?  First, it's an origins question, from there we get the notion of God.  If God exists, he is God, if he doesn't then he is not God.


I do not agree and the first post I made in this entire thread has great explanations about How God Got Started...not if a God exists. The whole point and EVERY single post in this forums entirety has yet to prove the existence of a God ANY God or a SPECIFIC God.
Sure..."If Gods Exists" covers a lot.
I am asking does God exist



JB0704 said:


> Would the islander settle on Christianity without being told specifically about it, doubtful.  Would they conclude there is a God?  Most likely.


Go on.....I'd like to hear more about that.
How specifically





JB0704 said:


> Me, the girl, the ocean, the parrot, the cliff, etc.  Nature and existence.  There is definitely a scripture reference for this I won't post.....but I think you know where I'm going.


I am sure there is a handful of chicken bones thrown on the dirt in a circle of rocks that is a reference to this too...but I cannot interpret it.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, and how can you say cannot to any of those. Outside of the bible where is the evidence for that?



I'm not using the Bible for this.  It's just logic.

If the universe is infinitely old, we would never have arrived at today.  Think it through.

If it is infinitely old and expanding (which we established earlier), it is also necessarily required to be infinitely large...and it is not.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I do not agree and the first post I made in this entire thread has great explanations about How God Got Started...not if a God exists. The whole point and EVERY single post in this forums entirety has yet to prove the existence of a God ANY God or a SPECIFIC God.
> Sure..."If Gods Exists" covers a lot.
> I am asking does God exist
> 
> 
> Go on.....I'd like to hear more about that.
> How specifically
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure there is a handful of chicken bones thrown on the dirt in a circle of rocks that is a reference to this too...but I cannot interpret it.



Where's that article about the tribe with no god?  That was awesome.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> That's only true for you...



I see you're trying to hoist me by my own petard, but you're actually right. 

I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs, nor do I have problems when they keep it to themselves. 

Now, when they try to tell me that God is a universal truth, that they KNOW, well, then I ask for cards. So far no one has shown down and won the hand against me. 

I keep playing because I always indulge the possibility that I could be wrong, even on my truth theory. But the theory fits the observable universe and accurately predicts future actions, so I keep it around even though I'm willing to overwrite it with something better if it should come.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> The universe cannot be infinitely old and ever arrive at today.  It cannot be infinitely old and not be infinitely large (which it is not).


Who says it is not.
Where is the end of the Universe?
What is beyond where the finite Universe stops?



Huntinfool said:


> Since we agree on a beginning, I have to assume we also agree on these points.


I agree our current Universe started at the Big Bang.
I have NO IDEA what preceded it.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I am asking does God exist



Yes.



bullethead said:


> Go on.....I'd like to hear more about that.
> How specifically



Pretty much every culture that ever was has reached the same conclusion.  It is very difficult to look at existence and elliminate a beginning.  If there is a beginning, the we ask "from where/what."  If there is a beginning, then there must be an original cause.  



bullethead said:


> I am sure there is a handful of chicken bones thrown on the dirt in a circle of rocks that is a reference to this too....



Probably so.  But, looking at existence is how many are convinced God exists.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Where's that article about the tribe with no god?  That was awesome.



Pirahã People..
I'd post another link but the people that should read it won't. They do not want to rock their faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> I'm not using the Bible for this.  I'm using simple logic.
> 
> If the universe is infinitely old, we would never have arrived at today.  Think it through.
> 
> If it is infinitely old and expanding (which we established earlier), it is also necessarily required to be infinitely large...and it is not.



Okay, I agree with your infinitely old portion. Unless we are but one reverberation in a cycle of big bangs and big collapses. There's no evidence to support that, but a singularity prevents such things as well, so I'm agnostic about that, too. But I do concede that the universe seems to have a singular starting point, though that may be a limitation of the laws of nature rather than anything else. 

The universe can be currently finitely large, in that it has a specific volume at this current moment, and by definition, expansion means that it was smaller yesterday than today, so it would be larger tomorrow than today as well. It's not infinite in volume right now, it just has no bounds to the expansion that we're aware of yet. 

It's a misnomer, and an oft spread one. We have no evidence for the outer limits of the universe since we are blinded by the event horizon of the big bang. To see an outer limit, we would have to step outside, literally, of the universe that contains the rules and conditions for our own existence. i.e. impossible with out current understandings of physics and the limitations of human travel and the speed of light.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Don't you mean "then there is no god"?



Sure.  If God isn't God, then there is no God.  But, if God is God, then he is God.  



ambush80 said:


> [Is this the uncaused cause/irreducible complexity thing?



Uncaused cause, yes.  Think about it.....we both believe in one.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Pirahã People..
> I'd post another link but the people that should read it won't. They do not want to rock their faith.



That's not a very nice assumption about them. Maybe these guys are different.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Your argument above makes the incorrect assumption that the ONLY reason to believe in a god is because your parents told you so...



What about the other 999 gods?
Why did you pick the God your parents believed in?


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> I agree our current Universe started at the Big Bang.
> I have NO IDEA what preceded it.



So, do you follow the logic that something preceded it necessarily?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Yes.


Where?





JB0704 said:


> Pretty much every culture that ever was has reached the same conclusion.  It is very difficult to look at existence and elliminate a beginning.  If there is a beginning, the we ask "from where/what."  If there is a beginning, then there must be an original cause.


I get the thought process.
Where/who/what is the original cause? 





JB0704 said:


> Probably so.  But, looking at existence is how many are convinced God exists.



Ya lost me there


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How did you know it was His Spirit and not Buddha's?



Because He revealed it by His Spirit...focus...His Spirit leaves no doubt when He reveals Himself.It's plain,unmistakable.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's not a very nice assumption about them. Maybe these guys are different.



http://ffrf.org/publications/freeth...rahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god

This is not the original link I posted...can't find it quickly....but this is same article on a different link.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Where?



That I don't know.




bullethead said:


> I get the thought process.
> Where/who/what is the original cause?



Is there another option besides God or everything?



bullethead said:


> Ya lost me there



Ok, and I promise I'm not trying to be clever or cryptic.  Nature and existence seem to be the best testimony there is of an original cause.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Pretty much every culture that ever was has reached the same conclusion.  It is very difficult to look at existence and elliminate a beginning.  If there is a beginning, the we ask "from where/what."  If there is a beginning, then there must be an original cause.



This is one of the main reasons why I can't go full bore atheist. I believe that, on average, most people are intelligent creatures. The fact that so many people, so distant from each other, have such similar stories about their genesis suggests a kernel of truth. It could be the commonality of humanity amongst them resulting in commonly appealing stories. It could be the universality of GOD, not God, speaking to each in their own understandings and flavored by disparate cultures. 

If you collect all the data points it suggests that there is something out there that none of them got exactly right, but that none of them got exactly wrong, either. The sad fact is that there's no barometer by which to tell which side is actually correct.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> What about the other 999 gods?
> Why did you pick the God your parents believed in?



First, because my parents told me so.  That does not, though, lead to the conclusion that they believed without evidence.  The mere fact that there are millions of Christians in the world whose parents did not tell them so supports that.

Second, after I was older and had the capability to think for myself, because the overwhelming evidence that convinces me there IS a god most closely corresponds to the God of the Bible IMO.  






Different subject....but nobody has addressed my question about 9/11 and Nazi Germany.  I'm curious to hear responses to that, especially from the relativists.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> http://ffrf.org/publications/freeth...rahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god
> 
> This is not the original link I posted...can't find it quickly....but this is same article on a different link.



FYI, the reason I don't click on some of the links is because I do most of my GON forum surfin' at work.  Byt the time I get home, conversation has moved along, or I have forgotten to go back and read.  When the opportunity is available, I always click and read.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> So, do you follow the logic that something preceded it necessarily?



That is my guess but I do not know.
This has been covered to death in here.
You say nothing like a universe can exist forever but in the same breath you tell me your God has existed forever.
All it points to is something probably existed before the Big Bang.
There is ZERO information as to what/who.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Because He revealed it by His Spirit...focus...His Spirit leaves no doubt when He reveals Himself.It's plain,unmistakable.



Now, who is He? Christian God? Are you positive you would have recognized that if you were born into a Buddhist culture? 



bullethead said:


> http://ffrf.org/publications/freeth...rahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god
> 
> This is not the original link I posted...can't find it quickly....but this is same article on a different link.



I hope some do read it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> First, because my parents told me so.  That does not, though, lead to the conclusion that they believed without evidence.  The mere fact that there are millions of Christians in the world whose parents did not tell them so supports that.
> 
> Second, after I was older and had the capability to think for myself, because the overwhelming evidence that convinces me there IS a god most closely corresponds to the God of the Bible IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different subject....but nobody has addressed my question about 9/11 and Nazi Germany.  I'm curious to hear responses to that, especially from the relativists.



So God was chosen for you at a young age. Then you chose God for yourself at a later age. What evidence, specifically, supported that position? I'm not trying to snipe, or shoot holes in it, this is genuine curiosity because I've not heard anything phrased like this before. 

Which post? I didn't see anything about 9/11 or Nazis. I don't want you to think I'm avoiding it since you've made it clear you view me as a relativist.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

And, everyone, sincerely I'm enjoying myself in the current discussion.  to all for keeping it on the level and interesting.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> That I don't know.


I know you don't know.
Nobody does.
And because of that I do not see how anyone can suggest something they do not know, do not see, do not converse with, or has not been proven to exist anywhere ever except in a individuals mind.






JB0704 said:


> Is there another option besides God or everything?


I do not think there is another option besides everything.





JB0704 said:


> Ok, and I promise I'm not trying to be clever or cryptic.  Nature and existence seem to be the best testimony there is of an original cause.


I think they seem to be the best testimony of themselves. NOT what or who may or may not have created them.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> The mere fact that there are millions of Christians in the world whose parents did not tell them so supports that.


How did you come to that conclusion? So, they knew nothing of God and came to the Christian God on their own? I don't believe it. Especially since birth and war was the main cause of spread of Christianity.



> Second, after I was older and had the capability to think for myself, because the overwhelming evidence that convinces me there IS a god most closely corresponds to the God of the Bible IMO.


Was this overwhelming evidence only obvious to you? 



> Different subject....but nobody has addressed my question about 9/11 and Nazi Germany.  I'm curious to hear responses to that, especially from the relativists.


 A woman killed all her kids cause God told her too. She thought it was true. She was also found to be insane.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Different subject....but nobody has addressed my question about 9/11 and Nazi Germany.  I'm curious to hear responses to that, especially from the relativists.



9/11 terrorists and Nazi's were convinced they were doing God's Will too.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> That is my guess but I do not know.



Fair enough




> You say nothing like a universe can exist forever but in the same breath you tell me your God has existed forever.



Logic requires an unmoved mover as far as I can tell.  I don't see any logical way around that.  It's not metaphysical non-sense.  I do my best to think through things as logically as I can and seek out the logic of others.  I cannot see a way around a "first cause".  Science has yet to come close.  The best we've got is "well, it will eventually".




> All it points to is something probably existed before the Big Bang.



I agree.  Something had to cause it.  If every cause has a causer, then something had to have caused that and then we get into infinite regression.

Logically, time cannot have existed infinitely in the past and ever be here at 3:06 pm on 2/4/15.

I'm not making the case that my God is it.  Just that something is it.  Logic tells me that something has to be the first mover and that something, logically, was uncreated.

I move from there to, "ok, I'm convinced of the something.  Now, who or what is it?"  That, I suspect is where our trains will go in two different directions.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> 9/11 terrorists and Nazi's were convinced they were doing God's Will too.



I agree.  But you keep bringing this back to God.  That point was simply to establish that there are absolute truths and many of them are moral in nature.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now, who is He? Christian God? Are you positive you would have recognized that if you were born into a Buddhist culture?.



What part of "unmistakeable" or "plain" is giving you trouble? YES,I AM POSITIVE. If and when He reveals it to you,then you too will understand.Until then,you and Ray Charles have a lot in common.JK..hehe


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Fair enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic requires an unmoved mover as far as I can tell.  I don't see any logical way around that.  It's not metaphysical non-sense.  I do my best to think through things as logically as I can and seek out the logic of others.  I cannot see a way around a "first cause".  Science has yet to come close.  The best we've got is "well, it will eventually".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Something had to cause it.  If every cause has a causer, then something had to have caused that and then we get into infinite regression.
> 
> Logically, time cannot have existed infinitely in the past and ever be here at 3:06 pm on 2/4/15.
> 
> I'm not making the case that my God is it.  Just that something is it.  Logic tells me that something has to be the first mover and that something, logically, was uncreated.
> 
> I move from there to, "ok, I'm convinced of the something.  Now, who or what is it?"  That, I suspect is where our trains will go in two different directions.



Exactly right about our trains.

I just do not HAVE to put a name to it in order to be OK with it.
I am fine waiting around to see if it gets figured out in my lifetime and if it does not....well...lolol I can "not live" with that too.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> I agree.  But you keep bringing this back to God.  That point was simply to establish that there are absolute truths and many of them are moral in nature.



Maybe. 
Could you give an example of an absolute truth that is moral in nature?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> What part of "unmistakeable" or "plain" is giving you trouble? YES,I AM POSITIVE. If and when He reveals it to you,then you too will understand.Until then,you and Ray Charles have a lot in common.JK..hehe



You make the claims
You forget the proof
The claims are worthless without proof.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> How did you come to that conclusion? So, they knew nothing of God and came to the Christian God on their own? I don't believe it. Especially since birth and war was the main cause of spread of Christianity.



The main cause of the spread of Christianity has not been birth for many generations.  If it were left to simple replacement, we would be extinct at this point.  Christianity has not been spread by war for centuries.  Do better than that.

Is it possible that people convert because of evidence presented to them?




> Was this overwhelming evidence only obvious to you?



No.  Me and billions of others over the past couple thousand years.



> A woman killed all her kids cause God told her too. She thought it was true. She was also found to be insane.



She was insane.....and she was wrong (or evil) to do so.  Do we agree on that?  Absolutely true or just relative to her experience and ours?

Insanity requires an inability to distinguish truth from fiction.  What she did was objectively evil.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> What part of "unmistakeable" or "plain" is giving you trouble? YES,I AM POSITIVE. If and when He reveals it to you,then you too will understand.Until then,you and Ray Charles have a lot in common.JK..hehe



The fact that, if you put two Christians in the same room, they'll come out with two denominations of Christianity.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> The main cause of the spread of Christianity has not been birth for many generations.  If it were left to simple replacement, we would be extinct at this point.  Christianity has not been spread by war for centuries.  Do better than that.
> 
> Is it possible that people convert because of evidence presented to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Me and billions of others over the past couple thousand years.
> 
> 
> 
> She was insane.....and she was wrong (or evil) to do so.  Do we agree on that?  Absolutely true or just relative to her experience and ours?
> 
> Insanity requires an inability to distinguish truth from fiction.  What she did was objectively evil.



Christianity spreads due to the command to testify, witness, and evangelize to your brethren so they may see the light. 


Matthew 28:19-20 ESV 

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> Maybe.
> Could you give an example of an absolute truth that is moral in nature?



It is wrong to kill 6 million people to establish a super-race.

I would argue that is absolutely true.  Whether Hitler believed it or not does not change the truth of the statement.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> you guys are awesome! Blind as bats spiritually,but awesome nonetheless....My hope is God will open your eyes  and speak to your hearts with His still small voice so you can understand the unsearchable riches of His grace.  We could really have some good discussions then.There's such a barrier between us preventing it right now.


Maybe its not us?
Maybe you can only have discussions with those who believe the same as you?
We have lots of good discussions and on some things nobody agrees with nobody


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Christianity spreads due to the command to testify, witness, and evangelize to your brethren so they may see the light. (who is being snide now?)
> 
> 
> Matthew 28:19-20 ESV
> 
> Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”



I think I'm missing your point.

Surely you are not trying to make the case that somewhere in there is the command to never walk through any evidence other than blind faith and emotion.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> It is wrong to kill 6 million people to establish a super-race.
> 
> I would argue that is absolutely true.  Whether Hitler believed it or not does not change the truth of the statement.


How about drowning them? Same rules apply?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> I think I'm missing your point.
> 
> Surely you are not trying to make the case that somewhere in there is the command to never walk through any evidence other than blind faith and emotion.



I'm not being snide. I was being literal in reference to the Bible. Christianity spreads because Christians were requested to spread it. They're following Jesus' and God's words. 

I was making no editorialization on the validity of that command, or the information dispensed by it. Pure factual statement is all.

EDIT: wrong dis-


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You make the claims
> You forget the proof
> The claims are worthless without proof.



It's impossible for me to make you see any proof.The proof has to be revealed to you by God.I try but you still don't see it.You deny it,make fun of it,twist it,and either refuse to try to see it or simply cannot see it.It is in God's hands.I am only an instrument in His hand to be used as He wills.Sorry


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> It's impossible for me to make you see any proof.The proof has to be revealed to you by God.I try but you still don't see it.You deny it,make fun of it,twist it,and either refuse to try to see it or simply cannot see it.It is in God's hands.I am only an instrument in His hand to be used as He wills.Sorry



And again we come to the part where the fault with the evidence is us just not seeing it as such. 

Do you believe God to be all-powerful? If so, and given that he gave you your faith as a gift, according to one of your own posts, then why wouldn't he be able to speak to us all in the same manner, if not the same words, to convert us all? 

Why leave some out in the cold?


----------



## Huntinfool

WaltL1 said:


> How about drowning them? Same rules apply?



Yes.  Can you think of a time when 6 million people were drowned with the intent of establishing a super race?

Bet ya can't.





I stopped posting in here for a very long time for a reason and I'm starting to remember that reason after today.  For my own sake, I will do my best to limit my responses from here on.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Yes.  Can you think of a time when 6 million people were drowned with the intent of establishing a super race?
> 
> Bet ya can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped posting in here for a very long time for a reason and I'm starting to remember that reason after today.  For my own sake, I will do my best to limit my responses from here on.



Oops, you fell right into it. 

See "Great Flood, The."


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> Yes.  Can you think of a time when 6 million people were drowned with the intent of establishing a super race?
> 
> Bet ya can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped posting in here for a very long time for a reason and I'm starting to remember that reason after today.  For my own sake, I will do my best to limit my responses from here on.





> I stopped posting in here for a very long time for a reason and I'm starting to remember that reason after today.  For my own sake, I will do my best to limit my responses from here on.


Did I strike a chord?


> Yes.


I agree.


> Can you think of a time when 6 million people were drowned with the intent of establishing a super race?


You made the connection. The above is just chaff.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And again we come to the part where the fault with the evidence is us just not seeing it as such.
> 
> Do you believe God to be all-powerful? If so, and given that he gave you your faith as a gift, according to one of your own posts, then why wouldn't he be able to speak to us all in the same manner, if not the same words, to convert us all?
> 
> Why leave some out in the cold?



Theres no fault with the evidence.But you are right about not seeing it.
God is all-powerful and He can do whatever He wants, however He wants, whenever He wants.

I can't tell you why He doesn't save everyone.It just doesn't please Him to do it that way, I suppose.
My question is why doesn't He destroy us all?
Can you answer that one?


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> It is wrong to kill 6 million people to establish a super-race.
> 
> I would argue that is absolutely true.  Whether Hitler believed it or not does not change the truth of the statement.



It is true to you and me but, obviously not absolutely true. 
Flood has been mentioned. 
Is it wrong to carry a newborn baby into the bush and leave it to die? What about if it meant the survival of an entire family and future generations?
It is hard to correlate absolute truths and morality. Let's stick with stuff that cannot be interpreted any other way...by anyone. For instance, prime numbers.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Theres no fault with the evidence.But you are right about not seeing it.
> God is all-powerful and He can do whatever He wants, however He wants, whenever He wants.
> 
> I can't tell you why He doesn't save everyone.It just doesn't please Him to do it that way, I suppose.
> My question is why doesn't He destroy us all?
> Can you answer that one?



Because I'm not certain He exists, so I don't presuppose a reason why someone I'm not sure even exists may or may not do something. 

Remember, I'm not the one with the personal relationship with him.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> My question is why doesn't He destroy us all?
> Can you answer that one?



Ooo! I can. 
Cause he can't.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> It is true to you and me but, obviously not absolutely true.
> Flood has been mentioned.
> Is it wrong to carry a newborn baby into the bush and leave it to die? What about if it meant the survival of an entire family and future generations?
> It is hard to correlate absolute truths and morality. Let's stick with stuff that cannot be interpreted any other way...by anyone. For instance, prime numbers.



And beer.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And beer.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I was gonna say bourbon, but that's only true relative to me.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Ooo! I can.
> Cause he can't.



Why can't He?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Theres no fault with the evidence.But you are right about not seeing it.
> God is all-powerful and He can do whatever He wants, however He wants, whenever He wants.
> 
> I can't tell you why He doesn't save everyone.It just doesn't please Him to do it that way, I suppose.
> My question is why doesn't He destroy us all?
> Can you answer that one?





> My question is why doesn't He destroy us all?
> Can you answer that one?


Maybe he is a little twisted and wants the ongoing joy of punishing and torturing?
That he doesn't just destroy us all is evidence of that possibility.
But ya know, you just don't see it. 
That game can work both ways, just pointing out.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I was gonna say bourbon, but that's only true relative to me.


Bourbon leads to fights and cheese sandwiches in jail is what I found true relative to me


----------



## welderguy

Romans 9:23 tells us the answer.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Romans 9:23 tells us the answer.


Honestly, with all due respect, scripture will get you nowhere.
Almost all of us were believers at one time. Scripture didn't keep us there so its really not going to be all that effective now.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> It's impossible for me to make you see any proof.The proof has to be revealed to you by God.I try but you still don't see it.You deny it,make fun of it,twist it,and either refuse to try to see it or simply cannot see it.It is in God's hands.I am only an instrument in His hand to be used as He wills.Sorry



If it is impossible then why do you state that you have proof?
What proof did you try to show me?
Why are you here then?


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Yes.  Can you think of a time when 6 million people were drowned with the intent of establishing a super race?
> 
> Bet ya can't.


What was God's intent for the 8 people he did not drown?
Why did he drown all the rest?







Huntinfool said:


> I stopped posting in here for a very long time for a reason and I'm starting to remember that reason after today.  For my own sake, I will do my best to limit my responses from here on.



What is the reason?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Theres no fault with the evidence.But you are right about not seeing it.
> God is all-powerful and He can do whatever He wants, however He wants, whenever He wants.
> 
> I can't tell you why He doesn't save everyone.It just doesn't please Him to do it that way, I suppose.
> My question is why doesn't He destroy us all?
> Can you answer that one?



Powerless
Non Existent


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> If it is impossible then why do you state that you have proof?
> What proof did you try to show me?
> Why are you here then?


If given actual proof Im thinking we would all sit up and take notice.
So far we have gotten assertions, scripture, belief and opinion.
Which is fine but that's not proof. Pretty much everything but proof.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> If it is impossible then why do you state that you have proof?
> What proof did you try to show me?
> Why are you here then?



I do have proof.I just can't make you see it.I don't have what it takes.He does. I don't know why I'm here.I guess because a part of me wants to reach out to you guys to try to help you because you're lost and don't even know it.But I'm finding out that I really can't help you.It's up to His sovereign will to open your blind eyes or not.Believe it or not,we are all in the same boat.We all need Him.The difference is some know it and others deny it.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I do have proof.I just can't make you see it.I don't have what it takes.He does. I don't know why I'm here.I guess because a part of me wants to reach out to you guys to try to help you because you're lost and don't even know it.But I'm finding out that I really can't help you.It's up to His sovereign will to open your blind eyes or not.Believe it or not,we are all in the same boat.We all need Him.The difference is some know it and others deny it.


I cant decide if that's completely arrogant and want to kick you in the pants in the direction of the door OR
appreciate the sentiment.
You could always drop the "mission" you are on and discuss/debate what you believe and why, get challenged on it and we'll do the same and you challenge us.
However if the "mission" is your motivator you will very soon throw your hands up in disgust and leave.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I do have proof.I just can't make you see it.I don't have what it takes.He does. I don't know why I'm here.I guess because a part of me wants to reach out to you guys to try to help you because you're lost and don't even know it.But I'm finding out that I really can't help you.It's up to His sovereign will to open your blind eyes or not.Believe it or not,we are all in the same boat.We all need Him.The difference is some know it and others deny it.



Clearly you are not in your God's will to be of any help to him.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I was gonna say bourbon, but that's only true relative to me.





WaltL1 said:


> Bourbon leads to fights and cheese sandwiches in jail is what I found true relative to me



Bourbon is good and that's the truth.  Walt, you just didn't discern the truth properly.

It's still good, though. amen.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Bourbon is good and that's the truth.  Walt, you just didn't discern the truth properly.
> 
> It's still good, though. amen.


Fortunately now I have the ability to have 1 drink and sip on it and enjoy it. I have a good friend that I get a bottle of Makers Mark every year for Christmas and I can sit down and have A drink with him and stop there. That's pretty much my yearly bourbon intake. Hate beer, hate wine, hate gin, hate scotch, hate vodka.
Oh and when I go to the beach I always get a Pina Colada with a cute umbrella in it.
My friends get a good laugh out of that because they know how I used to be.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Bourbon leads to fights and cheese sandwiches in jail is what I found true relative to me



That give me a good laugh


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Fortunately now I have the ability to have 1 drink and sip on it and enjoy it. I have a good friend that I get a bottle of Makers Mark every year for Christmas and I can sit down and have A drink with him and stop there. That's pretty much my yearly bourbon intake. Hate beer, hate wine, hate gin, hate scotch, hate vodka.
> Oh and when I go to the beach I always get a Pina Colada with a cute umbrella in it.
> My friends get a good laugh out of that because they know how I used to be.



Enlightenment.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Enlightenment.


Come to think of it God may have been responsible because every time I woke up in the drunk tank I said "God darn it (or something similar), not again!". 
And one day there was no more "again".


----------



## JB0704

Bullet, I'm reading the link.....it's not short.....I'll post after.


----------



## bullethead

jb0704 said:


> bullet, i'm reading the link.....it's not short.....i'll post after.



10/4 jb


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Brussel sprouts.



Goodness Gracious that is the best post you have ever made!


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> I do have proof.I just can't make you see it.I don't have what it takes.He does.


It's like proving a rainbow to a blind man?


----------



## bullethead

It is like I have 20/20 vision and I have people who have never seen a rainbow trying to explain to me how rainbows are created.


----------



## JB0704

Hey Bullet, I finally finished the article.  Interesting, for sure.  Not sure that lifestyle is for everybody, but it seems to work for them.

One item I found interesting was the Pirahi's(?) aversion to Jesus because of what the individual likes, such as drinking and having a good time, etc.  Makes me think the missionary was trying to guilt them into believing.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Hey Bullet, I finally finished the article.  Interesting, for sure.  Not sure that lifestyle is for everybody, but it seems to work for them.
> 
> One item I found interesting was the Pirahi's(?) aversion to Jesus because of what the individual likes, such as drinking and having a good time, etc.  Makes me think the missionary was trying to guilt them into believing.


I think your first comment can be equally applied to every lifestyle and set of beliefs.
Yes. The author dips into some of the "tactics" used by missionaries.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I think your first comment can be equally applied to every lifestyle and set of beliefs.
> Yes. The author dips into some of the "tactics" used by missionaries.



While reading, I was trying to figure out if the speaker was describing a superior system, or an interesting one.  My takeaway was that he is happy to have found a culture which goes against the trend to belief.

He said nobody knows where they came from, or where their language originated from.  I guess my follow up would be to ask if the idea is that faith only occurs through influence, and it does not exist in isolation.

To the second sentence, I'm not a fan of many "tactics" used.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> While reading, I was trying to figure out if the speaker was describing a superior system, or an interesting one.  My takeaway was that he is happy to have found a culture which goes against the trend to belief.
> 
> He said nobody knows where they came from, or where their language originated from.  I guess my follow up would be to ask if the idea is that faith only occurs through influence, and it does not exist in isolation.
> 
> To the second sentence, I'm not a fan of many "tactics" used.



I got a sense that the article backs up the evolution of beliefs, faith and religions.
Certainly history worldwide has shown how different beliefs are incorporated into various cultures and how religions and faith follow.
I do not argue that beliefs had to start somewhere but most likely it started when individuals, families and clans mourned the loss of one of their own.
It evolved from there.

This particular tribe seem content to not muddy up the waters. The trees and water always was to them and no need to listen to or believe stories about a person that they have not seen, their fathers have not seen or no one telling them these stories have not seen in two thousand years or ever.

The article and further research into that tribe and similar tribes is quite revealing.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> While reading, I was trying to figure out if the speaker was describing a superior system, or an interesting one.  My takeaway was that he is happy to have found a culture which goes against the trend to belief.
> 
> He said nobody knows where they came from, or where their language originated from.  I guess my follow up would be to ask if the idea is that faith only occurs through influence, and it does not exist in isolation.
> 
> To the second sentence, I'm not a fan of many "tactics" used.


The tactics used in the article are revealing.
It makes me wonder how many tribes went along with it willingly and how genuine spreading the word really was and is.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would agree that faith is all that is needed for salvation. I don't see a need for any seen evidence of God. I fix my eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.

2 Corinthians 5:7
For we live by faith, not by sight.

What about the evidence of our faith?

The Light I was given was spiritual light.
Will the Hindu be given this "light?"
In other words will God grant the world salvation either by the Great commission or by divine intervention. Will God open their eyes?
Does God really need me or Welderguy for his will to be done?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> While reading, I was trying to figure out if the speaker was describing a superior system, or an interesting one.



I got the feeling the speaker was describing a simple genuine system where the people are happy,  have no stress or worries, want or need nothing and are content living life as is with no need to include anyone or anything else beyond themselves. 
And clearly it works!

It bucks the thoughts that it is in human nature to find a god.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Why can't He?



Because he doesn't exist.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Fortunately now I have the ability to have 1 drink and sip on it and enjoy it. I have a good friend that I get a bottle of Makers Mark every year for Christmas and I can sit down and have A drink with him and stop there. That's pretty much my yearly bourbon intake. Hate beer, hate wine, hate gin, hate scotch, hate vodka.
> Oh and when I go to the beach I always get a Pina Colada with a cute umbrella in it.
> My friends get a good laugh out of that because they know how I used to be.



Capn and Coke is my go to drink. However, I do enjoy bourbon from time to time. I am told I have a good time.


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> It's like proving a rainbow to a blind man?



Or, starting an entire movement over an hallucination.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> It is like I have 20/20 vision and I have people who have never seen a rainbow trying to explain to me how rainbows are created.


Yes


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Oh and when I go to the beach I always get a Pina Colada with a cute umbrella in it.
> My friends get a good laugh out of that because they know how I used to be.



Kinda left yourself open on this one, brother.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> I would agree that faith is all that is needed for salvation. I don't see a need for any seen evidence of God. I fix my eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1
> Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:7
> For we live by faith, not by sight.
> 
> What about the evidence of our faith?
> 
> The Light I was given was spiritual light.
> Will the Hindu be given this "light?"
> In other words will God grant the world salvation either by the Great commission or by divine intervention. Will God open their eyes?
> Does God really need me or Welderguy for his will to be done?



Therein lies the difference. Your brain is capable of compartmentalizing the two. You can believe in God with no substantiating support. 

I can't shut that part of my brain off because I've seen a wider picture, faith and religion relative to the world, and all make the same claims. Maybe if I'd have stuck with just one to study I could release my requirement for proof, but I doubt it. It was that desire for proof that set me about my search to learn about it and the genesis of it specifically. 

Yes, I engage in a leap of faith to believe in the full model of the big bang, because we can't "see" into that singularity, but it's the path leading up to that point, and the remaining minor distance between where that path stops and the Big Bang itself, that makes that possible. Instead of jumping a proverbial Grand Canyon to get to God, I'm jumping a curb, or a crack in the cement, to get to the BB. Still, I acknowledge that my belief in it could be misplaced and would put the next model through the same crucible I put the BB through before I believed it, and if it passes it's the next thing. If not...well...


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I would agree that faith is all that is needed for salvation. I don't see a need for any seen evidence of God. I fix my eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1
> Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:7
> For we live by faith, not by sight.
> 
> What about the evidence of our faith?
> 
> The Light I was given was spiritual light.
> Will the Hindu be given this "light?"
> In other words will God grant the world salvation either by the Great commission or by divine intervention. Will God open their eyes?
> Does God really need me or Welderguy for his will to be done?





> Does God really need me or Welderguy for his will to be done?


An Omni-everything wouldn't need anyone to do anything.
But a religious organization recruitment process to gain numbers, power and money would.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> An Omni-everything wouldn't need anyone to do anything.
> But a religious organization recruitment process to gain numbers, power and money would.



And going back before that, a society trying to base their laws in some higher morality would as well.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> It's like proving a rainbow to a blind man?


Of course the advantage to that is you can tell him your version of what a rainbow is and because he cant see it he'll have to take your word for it and will never actually know for himself.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Kinda left yourself open on this one, brother.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Have we ever had a thread in AAA get closed because of the 1000 post limit?


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by StripeRR HunteRR View Post
> Kinda left yourself open on this one, brother





Artfuldodger said:


>


No problem, I laugh at me right along with them


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> One man can never imagine being hungry enough for brussel sprouts to taste "good".
> Another man who ordinarly loves them spits one out when he is presented one, chocolate covered, while making his way through a box of Russel Stovers.
> A child will gladly live on M&M's as long as he can. A proud man may eschews chitterlings.
> We just don't know when we are proud or childish.
> 
> To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.



Not a bad analogy, but many of us are hungry and know we are hungry. That's why we search, and debate. We're looking to differentiate the food from the sand, or the wheat from the chaff, if you will.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> An Omni-everything wouldn't need anyone to do anything.
> But a religious organization recruitment process to gain numbers, power and money would.



I think that is why the "Election" crowd doesn't have an altar call or missionaries.
God offers sight as he sees fit. They see you as being incapable of seeing the light, depraved as it is called. 

What I can't figure out is why God doesn't let the Hindu see the light. Just the idea that I had something to do with me seeing the light means I haven't seen the light.

It's all God or there is no God. Why God chooses generations of the same family is a mystery to me as God is no respecter of man. 
Why doesn't God elect more blind atheist and more blind Hindus than kids of blind Primitive Baptists?
God is no respecter of man?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> One man can never imagine being hungry enough for brussel sprouts to taste "good".
> Another man who ordinarly loves them spits one out when he is presented one, chocolate covered, while making his way through a box of Russel Stovers.
> A child will gladly live on M&M's as long as he can. A proud man may eschews chitterlings.
> We just don't know when we are proud or childish.
> 
> To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.


Yes I would agree that the hunger or need of the individual appears to be driving the determination of what is good or not.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> No problem, I laugh at me right along with them



Yeah, me to. It's all good. We know you were relating to you  not stopping at one or two drinks.
It's something young people have to figure out on their own.
Moderation is a virtue!


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Yes I would agree that the hunger or need of the individual appears to be driving the determination of what is good or not.



But a belly full of sand is not better than an empty belly.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Yeah, me to. It's all good. We know you were relating to you  not stopping at one or two drinks.
> It's something young people have to figure out on their own.
> Moderation is a virtue!



All I know is quitters never win, and winners never quit. If ya ain't first, you're last!

Pssh, moderation.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I think that is why the "Election" crowd doesn't have an altar call or missionaries.
> God offers sight as he sees fit. They see you as being incapable of seeing the light, depraved as it is called.
> 
> What I can't figure out is why God doesn't let the Hindu see the light. Just the idea that I had something to do with me seeing the light means I haven't seen the light.
> 
> It's all God or there is no God. Why God chooses generations of the same family is a mystery to me as God is no respecter of man.
> Why doesn't God elect more blind atheist and more blind Hindus than kids of blind Primitive Baptists?
> God is no respecter of man?





> What I can't figure out is why God doesn't let the Hindu see the light


Its possible that they see it exactly as God intended them to see it.
Its Christianity that is telling you that they don't see it.
Organized religion may be the devil's greatest work. Nothing else has separated people the way it has.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But a belly full of sand is not better than an empty belly.


But at the time it feels satisfying eating it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> But at the time it feels satisfying eating it.



Dunno, haven't tried it. And by the way, believers, I'm not saying you're eating sand or chaff.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I would agree that faith is all that is needed for salvation. I don't see a need for any seen evidence of God. I fix my eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1
> Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:7
> For we live by faith, not by sight.
> 
> What about the evidence of our faith?
> 
> The Light I was given was spiritual light.
> Will the Hindu be given this "light?"
> In other words will God grant the world salvation either by the Great commission or by divine intervention. Will God open their eyes?
> Does God really need me or Welderguy for his will to be done?



You were commanded to do it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Yeah, that really advanced the conversation.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, that really advanced the conversation.



Awww. C'mon, man. Lighten up.

OK. I suppose the point of that was to illustrate that people of faith have different ideas about what is required of them.  I like Artful.  I like how he struggles to make sense of the position where he has put himself.  

Art, you seem to have given up on some of your previous issues and "Layed them at the foot of the cross" so to speak.  That's too bad.  I've seen you have great capacity to reason and examine things critically.  It would be a shame if you quit doing that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Awww. C'mon, man. Lighten up.
> 
> OK. I suppose the point of that was to illustrate that people of faith have different ideas about what is required of them.  I like Artful.  I like how he struggles to make sense of the position where he has put himself.
> 
> Art, you seem to have given up on some of your previous issues and "Layed them at the foot of the cross" so to speak.  That's too bad.  I've seen you have great capacity to reason and examine things critically.  It would be a shame if you quit doing that.



I'm light. I just want this thread to continue, it's been fun so far.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Have we ever had a thread in AAA get closed because of the 1000 post limit?



Discussion relevant to predestination and gays usually get a lot of traction.  

This thread includes neither, but seems to have some decent life.  I'm guessing we'll lock 'er down before it's all over with.  And, I also will boldly predict nobody will  change their mind between now and then


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> ..... and "Layed them at the foot of the cross" so to speak.



Funny use of the lingo.....you could have also inserted "let go and let God."  Either works.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Discussion relevant to predestination and gays usually get a lot of traction.
> 
> This thread includes neither, but seems to have some decent life.  I'm guessing we'll lock 'er down before it's all over with.  And, I also will boldly predict nobody will  change their mind between now and then



It's an educated guess that we agree on. I don't get why it's specifically homosexuality that gets so much attention. I know it's one of my "issues" with society, but if I ranked them I doubt it would even break the top 10.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Funny use of the lingo.....you could have also inserted "let go and let God."  Either works.



I read it upstairs and I liked it.  It's poetic.  "Let go and let God" sounds like something Joel Osteen would say.  Either way I interpret it as a recommendation for non-thoughtfulness.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I read it upstairs and I liked it.  It's poetic.  "Let go and let God" sounds like something Joel Osteen would say.  Either way I interpret it as a recommendation for non-thoughtfulness.



Or a Carrie Underwood song.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I read it upstairs and I liked it.  It's poetic.  "Let go and let God" sounds like something Joel Osteen would say.  Either way I interpret it as a recommendation for non-thoughtfulness.



I think I have seen both on church signs.  Either way, there is a concept there which could be interpretted as anti-intellectual.  It could also be that we have trust there is an answer......but it does not mean we have to abandon the search.

For instance, some things cannot be answered scientifically or spiritually.  That doesn't mean there is not a scientific or a spiritual answer to the question.  We can continue searching, and have faith a conclusion exists.  Just a thought.....


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't get why it's specifically homosexuality that gets so much attention.



I don't either.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I think I have seen both on church signs.  Either way, there is a concept there which could be interpretted as anti-intellectual.  It could also be that we have trust there is an answer......but it does not mean we have to abandon the search.
> 
> For instance, some things cannot be answered scientifically or spiritually.  That doesn't mean there is not a scientific or a spiritual answer to the question.  We can continue searching, and have faith a conclusion exists.  Just a thought.....



In all the cases where I saw it used the intent was clearly to recommend not "thinking about it".  If someone told me that about anything it would really bother me.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> In all the cases where I saw it used the intent was clearly to recommend not "thinking about it".  If someone told me that about anything it would really bother me.


On the flip side though if someone is quite happy with what they think what is more thinking about it going to accomplish?
We view questioning and questioning as a positive thing but it can also have negative results. What is negative and what is positive is different for different people.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> I think I have seen both on church signs.  Either way, there is a concept there which could be interpretted as anti-intellectual.  It could also be that we have trust there is an answer......but it does not mean we have to abandon the search.
> 
> For instance, some things cannot be answered scientifically or spiritually.  That doesn't mean there is not a scientific or a spiritual answer to the question.  We can continue searching, and have faith a conclusion exists.  Just a thought.....



That's the way I see it. I don't have a problem with God using science. 
I have been enlightened but that doesn't mean everything has been revealed to me yet.
I see a big difference between God and organized religion. 
I have enough faith not to need evidence. I guess I have laid some of it at the foot of the cross.
I'm still worried about those blinded Hindus. I need to justify their salvation before I lay it all at the foot of the cross. If God can give a blinded homosexual sight, he should be able to open the Hindu's eyes too.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> On the flip side though if someone is quite happy with what they think what is more thinking about it going to accomplish?
> We view questioning and questioning as a positive thing but it can also have negative results. What is negative and what is positive is different for different people.



All that good advice was given to poor souls that were clearly struggling with new faith or reexamined faith.  They were clearly trying to make sense of things that don't make sense and were told "stop thinking about it".  The way that those people were approaching their questions leads me to believe that that kind of an answer will leave them filled with dissatisfaction.

Maybe they can pray for it to go away.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I envy the people who are happy being ignorant. I'd be happier if I could make myself more ignoranter.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> I envy the people who are happy being ignorant. I'd be happier if I could make myself more ignoranter.



Ignorant is such a charged word. I've educated myself as much as a person can about the Bible and the stories. I've tried to lens my life through acts of God, even. Not just the bad but the good as well. 

I'm not "ignoring" anything.


----------



## ambush80

Sam Harris asked "Why is religion the only area in our lives where having no reasons or very tenuous ones is considered a boon?  It's even more ennobling to take things on faith".


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm still worried about those blinded Hindus. I need to justify their salvation before I lay it all at the foot of the cross. If God can give a blinded homosexual sight, he should be able to open the Hindu's eyes too.



"They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."

Jesus is the great physician. He can heal anyone,...even a homosexual Hindu atheist.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."
> 
> Jesus is the great physician. He can heal anyone,...even a homosexual Hindu atheist.



How many Hindus has God elected compared to the kids of Primitive Baptists?
God is no respecter of men. Salvation is of the Lord.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> How many Hindus has God elected compared to the kids of Primitive Baptists?
> God is no respecter of men. Salvation is of the Lord.



His election took place before the foundation of the world.In other words before the world was created He chose His people out of every kindred tongue and nation.We don't know the numbers or ratios.He does.He knowsthe number of hairs each of His elect has.Awesome!


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> His election took place before the foundation of the world.In other words before the world was created He chose His people out of every kindred tongue and nation.We don't know the numbers or ratios.He does.He knowsthe number of hairs each of His elect has.Awesome!



Unless you're not in that group.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> His election took place before the foundation of the world.In other words before the world was created He chose His people out of every kindred tongue and nation.We don't know the numbers or ratios.He does.He knowsthe number of hairs each of His elect has.Awesome!



Amen, now I can lay it all at the foot of the cross. I'll see all of my fellow elected men of all nations in Heaven.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.

3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

There is only one true God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Amen, now I can lay it all at the foot of the cross. I'll see all of my fellow elected men of all nations in Heaven.
> 
> There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.
> 
> 3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
> 
> _There is only one true God._



And here we go again. That is a declarative statement that begs proof.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> All that good advice was given to poor souls that were clearly struggling with new faith or reexamined faith.  They were clearly trying to make sense of things that don't make sense and were told "stop thinking about it".  The way that those people were approaching their questions leads me to believe that that kind of an answer will leave them filled with dissatisfaction.
> 
> Maybe they can pray for it to go away.


I agree with you and think pretty much the same about as you do.
However "don't think about it" can/may be a fix to their struggling etc.
Struggling and reexamining are probably a syptom of thinking about it.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Amen, now I can lay it all at the foot of the cross. I'll see all of my fellow elected men of all nations in Heaven.
> 
> There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.
> 
> 3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
> 
> There is only one true God.





> I'll see all of my fellow elected men of all nations in Heaven.


Just curious, were you issued an "Elected" card that certifies you as part of the Elected Club?
If this true -


> Originally Posted by welderguy View Post
> His election took place before the foundation of the world.In other words before the world was created He chose His people out of every kindred tongue and nation.We don't know the numbers or ratios.He does.


It means NOTHING you do or how faithful you are matters one iota if you weren't pre-elected. 
You guys seem pretty confident you are elected.
For your sake I honestly hope you are right.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And here we go again. That is a declarative statement that begs proof.



Well, Im just doing what the word says do "Declare his glory among the heathen; his wonders to all people." Psalm 96:3


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Well, Im just doing what the word says do "Declare his glory among the heathen; his wonders to all people." Psalm 96:3



Do you always do as you're told?

Come to the dark side, we have cookies.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Well, Im just doing what the word says do "Declare his glory among the heathen; his wonders to all people." Psalm 96:3


Why?
If you are one of the elected it doesn't matter if you do or not and if you aren't one of the elected it doesn't matter if you do or not.
Or can the elected get unelected and vice versa?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Why?
> If you are one of the elected it doesn't matter if you do or not and if you aren't one of the elected it doesn't matter if you do or not.
> Or can the elected get unelected and vice versa?



From the way I understand it there's no reward for him other than serving his lord. He's already bound for heaven because his number was pulled in the lottery.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."
> 
> Jesus is the great physician. He can heal anyone,...even a homosexual Hindu atheist.


That's one of things I find disgusting about religion. It taught you that each of those people needed healing so that they could be just like you.
The ultimate in arrogance and self worship.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's one of things I find disgusting about religion. It taught you that each of those people needed healing so that they could be just like you.
> The ultimate in arrogance and self worship.



I needed and still need daily healing.If you knew my past youd agree.Even daily Im a terrible sinner.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> From the way I understand it there's no reward for him other than serving his lord. He's already bound for heaven because his number was pulled in the lottery.


Apparently so. Out of curiosity though I would like to see what a winning ticket looked like. Im envisioning gold foil and embossed lettering etc.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Apparently so. Out of curiosity though I would like to see what a winning ticket looked like. Im envisioning gold foil and embossed lettering etc.



Ya know, I'm sure those kids looked upon the rest of us rubes like the winners of this particular lottery.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I needed and still need daily healing.If you knew my past youd agree.Even daily Im a terrible sinner.


Ok.
Any comment on this? -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> That's one of things I find disgusting about religion. It taught you that each of those people needed healing so that they could be just like you.
> The ultimate in arrogance and self worship.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Do you always do as you're told?
> 
> Come to the dark side, we have cookies.



...and


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> From the way I understand it there's no reward for him other than serving his lord. He's already bound for heaven because his number was pulled in the lottery.



I think I understand it.  

The elect will "show fruit" ie. helping little old ladies across the street, feeling constant guilt and proselytizing incessantly (until it's time to wipe the dust from your sandals and quit throwing pearls to swine, which I think the time is nigh for Welderguy ).  We'll see how long the Lord intends for him to service us.

Besides, he can't help it.  It is written.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I think I understand it.
> 
> The elect will "show fruit" ie. helping little old ladies across the street, feeling constant guilt and proselytizing incessantly (until it's time to wipe the dust from your sandals and quit throwing pearls to swine, which I think the time is nigh for Welderguy ).  We'll see how long the Lord intends for him to service us.
> 
> Besides, he can't help it.  It is written.



That wasn't very nice.I thought everyone was welcome here?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."
> 
> Jesus is the great physician. He can heal anyone,...even a homosexual Hindu atheist.


Look into what the various forums in the Spiritual Help and Religious Discussion are all about. Each are tailored to specific areas of discussion.
This particular one is where Atheists,Agnostics, and Apologists gather to discuss things. I am quite positive you are neither an Atheist or Agnostic but you surely lack any Apologetic skills that are beneficial to this forum.
We all know and have heard every verse, every sermon, every bit of preaching and proselytizing and we occasionally lurk and participate a few floors up when we want to talk about that stuff. In here it would do us all well if you could try to put an apologetic flavor to your replies. Unsubstantiated claims and bold statements do not help whatever you are trying to accomplish.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> That wasn't very nice.I thought everyone was welcome here?



No, no, no. Don't get me wrong.  I like having you here but I can see that you're going to run out of material soon and that's when God will call you to take your seeds to less rocky ground.   

I can listen to you all day. Not many people around here still have that kind of zeal.  You should stay as long as you want to or should or must.....I guess you'll do whatever you're gonna do or have to do or are designed to do or are destined to do.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Look into what the various forums in the Spiritual Help and Religious Discussion are all about. Each are tailored to specific areas of discussion.
> This particular one is where Atheists,Agnostics, and Apologists gather to discuss things. I am quite positive you are neither an Atheist or Agnostic but you surely lack any Apologetic skills that are beneficial to this forum.
> We all know and have heard every verse, every sermon, every bit of preaching and proselytizing and we occasionally lurk and participate a few floors up when we want to talk about that stuff. In here it would do us all well if you could try to put an apologetic flavor to your replies. Unsubstantiated claims and bold statements do not help whatever you are trying to accomplish.



"Apologetic flavor".   I like that.


----------



## welderguy

Y'all might need to educate me on this "apologetic flavor" stuff.
To set the record straight about me, I'm not attempting to get anybody "saved".I don't have that ability, only God does, and that is already a finished task anyway.I'm only stating my beliefs,same as you guys.Maybe, I can learn from you guys and see things I would otherwise not see.Kind of a different objective angle on it.We can agree to disagree at the least, without totally rejecting one another as human beings.I've already learned a lot.After all, we're all just dressed up dirt anyway.Right?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That wasn't very nice.I thought everyone was welcome here?



Everyone certainly is welcomed here but your input will be more appreciated if you change your style.
I know it has been said in here many times but since you are fairly new I will restate what may help you to understand some of us.....
Many in here followed Christianity at one time. We read the Bible. We attended Church. We were "good Christians" in many if not all aspects.
Scripture had not made such an impact to us that it kept us in the Christian way so constantly using scripture to show us how we are "lost" hurts your cause way more than it helps. If it worked at all there would be no need for this forum.
I appreciate bold statements and claims and respect anyone that makes them that can in turn back them up with facts to substantiate them...which makes that person very credible. We want to hear what you have to say if it is something that you can back up.
There are a fantastic group of people in here that participate and having you stick around would be great. Hopefully knowing what works and what doesn't helps you out a bit in future discussions.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> That wasn't very nice.I thought everyone was welcome here?


I want to add my "you are definitely welcome here" to
Bullet's and Ambush's.
However regurgitation of scripture doesn't allow for much conversation.
How about you tell us a little about you, what your story is, how you came to believe what you do and why etc.
We want to converse with You, the person, and get YOUR take on things.
We've all read scripture and the Bible already.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Y'all might need to educate me on this "apologetic flavor" stuff.
> To set the record straight about me, I'm not attempting to get anybody "saved".I don't have that ability, only God does, and that is already a finished task anyway.I'm only stating my beliefs,same as you guys.Maybe, I can learn from you guys and see things I would otherwise not see.Kind of a different objective angle on it.We can agree to disagree at the least, without totally rejecting one another as human beings.I've already learned a lot.After all, we're all just dressed up dirt anyway.Right?



Credible post until you include "only God does, and that is a finished task anyway"

I am all for believing you as soon as you can somehow prove a god..ANY god exists...and if a god exists it the same god you worship..and somehow you can prove a task is finished.

You are certainly free to post any claim you want to....but please understand just making the claim will not gain you much credibility and only bring you a onslaught of requests to back it up.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And here we go again. That is a declarative statement that begs proof.



I have faith, I don't need proof.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Just curious, were you issued an "Elected" card that certifies you as part of the Elected Club?
> If this true -
> 
> It means NOTHING you do or how faithful you are matters one iota if you weren't pre-elected.
> You guys seem pretty confident you are elected.
> For your sake I honestly hope you are right.



This pre-election religion is even better than it was with someone taking the place of my sins. 
First man was required to live a life of laws and rules. It was impossible to do so God sent his Son to take the place of us doing it. This too was God's original plan. Christianity got really better than the old way at this point.
Now with this pre-election, everyone in the whole wide world who is lucky enough to be elected receives salvation.
This means some of my Hindu & Mali friends have a chance being elected. This is way better than the old way of the free will chance that someone will reach them in time. It takes the burden away from me and places it on God's back.
It's really not any worse when you think about it. God has a better chance at reaching the world than I do. I'd hate to know I had anything to do with my salvation or anyone elses for sure.
I'll probably never go to Timbuktu. God is already there!

How's that for an "Apologetic flavor?"


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> This pre-election religion is even better than it was with someone taking the place of my sins.
> First man was required to live a life of laws and rules. It was impossible to do so God sent his Son to take the place of us doing it. This too was God's original plan. Christianity got really better than the old way at this point.
> Now with this pre-election, everyone in the whole wide world who is lucky enough to be elected receives salvation.
> This means some of my Hindu & Mali friends have a chance being elected. This is way better than the old way of the free will chance that someone will reach them in time. It takes the burden away from me and places it on God's back.
> It's really not any worse when you think about it. God has a better chance at reaching the world than I do. I'd hate to know I had anything to do with my salvation or anyone elses for sure.
> I'll probably never go to Timbuktu. God is already there!
> 
> How's that for an "Apologetic flavor?"



But......are you sure it IS  a pre-election religion?


----------



## Huntinfool

Artfuldodger said:


> I have faith, I don't need proof.



Boy are they gonna have fun with that one!

Let the feeding frenzy begin!


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> But......are you sure it IS  a pre-election religion?



I would like to think that it is not but according to the Biblical evidence. If it gives more people around the world salvation than free will chance, then I'm for it.
I ask everyone who believes, aren't you glad that your salvation wasn't left up to chance? Is there any chance this thread will not reach 1,000?


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Boy are they gonna have fun with that one!
> 
> Let the feeding frenzy begin!



I can't knock him for stating what he needs to be convinced.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to think that it is not but according to the Biblical evidence. If it gives more people around the world salvation than chance, then I'm for it.
> I ask everyone who believes, aren't you glad that your salvation wasn't left up to chance? Is there any chance this thread will not reach 1,000?


The thread started slow but is definitely making a strong sprint to the finish line.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Huntinfool said:


> Boy are they gonna have fun with that one!
> 
> Let the feeding frenzy begin!



I mentioned faith vs evidence in post #772. Striper Hunter responded in post 779. He requires evidence of a one true God even though he is agnostic.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> What can "work" for a man convinced he had been in any sense a "_good christian_"? (but now appears to say..."but I saw through it")
> If one has indeed seen it through, the word good would have its proper place.


Jeepers....if I knew that I wouldn't be here.
I have to conclude that If the Word had been Good it would have Stuck.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> What can "work" for a man convinced he had been in any sense a "_good christian_"? (but now appears to say..."but I saw through it")
> If one has indeed seen it through, the word good would have its proper place.



I could be proof that you are faking it.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Agreed.


I agree that you agree and to nothing after.


Israel said:


> Or we could both be shown to be lacking. Have you not already ceded..."good" is?
> A thing that may be discovered as worthy of abandonment is the notion of trying to stand on our good intentions.


No agreement there


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> I have faith, I don't need proof.



And that's just fine for you. But declarative statements beg of it. 

If I said, "All cars are red." That's equally declarative and you would most likely reply, "Wait a minute, my car is black, substantiate your claim." 

But God gets a pass.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> It is, it has. The lights have been left on for us both.



I am proof that your claim is wrong.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Boy are they gonna have fun with that one!
> 
> Let the feeding frenzy begin!



Not a frenzy. That same line, or permutations of it, has been repeated in here more than I can possibly recall. It's nothing new, nor is the response to it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> I mentioned faith vs evidence in post #772. Striper Hunter responded in post 779. He requires evidence of a one true God even though he is agnostic.



I also require evidence of no God, meaning that we have inventoried everything from the Big Bang to the end of time, if there is one, and have explained away everything as being mundane scientific principles. Only then will I adopt the atheist approach, as well. 

Seeing as how neither are likely, here I sit, holding both to the same candle of requirement. I don't think that's unfair, or unjust in any way since I'm giving all possibilities a fair shake to make their cases.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not a frenzy. That same line, or permutations of it, has been repeated in here more than I can possibly recall. It's nothing new, nor is the response to it.



To be clear....the statement was an accurate one (to a degree).   I, to a large extent, believe the same as he does.  But you cannot start at faith with someone who has none and dismisses it as a "gap filler".

In other words, you cannot walk into somebody else's home stadium and declare "we will play by my rules".


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> To be clear....the statement was an accurate one (to a degree).   I, to a large extent, believe the same as he does.  But you cannot start at faith with someone who has none and dismisses it as a "gap filler".
> 
> In other words, you cannot walk into somebody else's home stadium and declare "we will play by my rules".




The rules are the same for everyone.   To declare a statement of faith as fact is cheating.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> To be clear....the statement was an accurate one (to a degree).   I, to a large extent, believe the same as he does.  But you cannot start at faith with someone who has none and dismisses it as a "gap filler".
> 
> In other words, you cannot walk into somebody else's home stadium and declare "we will play by my rules".



I agree, but that's were it always ends up.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree, but that's were it always ends up.




Why anyone would bring "faith" to the table is beyond me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Why anyone would bring "faith" to the table is beyond me.



Because, like above, to them that's all they need. I'm sure it's as perplexing to them why that's not good enough for us.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because, like above, to them that's all they need. I'm sure it's as perplexing to them why that's not good enough for us.



It shouldn't be. Any rational person can see that faith is not the same as fact and shouldn't ever be used as a replacement in any circumstance.  It's an terrible way to describe and engage reality.  They wouldn't use it anywhere else in their lives.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> It shouldn't be. Any rational person can see that faith is not the same as fact and shouldn't ever be used as a replacement in any circumstance.  It's an terrible way to describe and engage reality.  They wouldn't use it anywhere else in their lives.



But that's from your own perspective. Step outside of it and see how it looks. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I can understand how it can happen.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> The main cause of the spread of Christianity has not been birth for many generations.  If it were left to simple replacement, we would be extinct at this point.  Christianity has not been spread by war for centuries.  Do better than that.


 My statements have some facts to back it up. What backs up your statements? Compare that to the spread of Muslim religion. Do you not think that the lottery of birth and war had anything to do with the spread of either? Or just the evidence points to the prophet and Jesus? 



> Is it possible that people convert because of evidence presented to them?


 Oh yea. There is no limit to what folks will believe.




> She was insane.....and she was wrong (or evil) to do so.  Do we agree on that?  Absolutely true or just relative to her experience and ours?


 I guess it would depend on what time frame of the earth she did it in. During the age of the bible, it would have just been another story.

Sorry for the late responses to this. Occasionally, I cannot access certain pages of this thread for several days. I don't know why...yet.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> Why anyone would bring "faith" to the table is beyond me.



Because that is all they have.


----------



## welderguy

I'm not trying to derail your nice debate here but a question just came to mind I'm curious about:

What do atheists and agnostics,(that never have their mind/heart changed),have to look forward to after they die?

I'm new to this stuff and still trying to get a handle on what yall believe.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I'm not trying to derail your nice debate here but a question just came to mind I'm curious about:
> 
> What do atheists and agnostics,(that never have their mind/heart changed),have to look forward to after they die?
> 
> I'm new to this stuff and still trying to get a handle on what yall believe.



For me, the knowledge that my life will have impacted the people around me, and I _know_ for sure, that I will have some modicum of immortality.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> What do atheists and agnostics,(that never have their mind/heart changed),have to look forward to after they die?


It would depend on the person. Some would probably welcome the peace and/or lack of pain and stress. 

For me, nothing. Live life while you can. There isn't another.

All that after-life stuff is just a way to cope with the inevitability of death.


----------



## drippin' rock

ambush80 said:


> Why anyone would bring "faith" to the table is beyond me.



I have faith Bigfoot exists?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm not trying to derail your nice debate here but a question just came to mind I'm curious about:
> 
> What do atheists and agnostics,(that never have their mind/heart changed),have to look forward to after they die?
> 
> I'm new to this stuff and still trying to get a handle on what yall believe.





> What do atheists and agnostics,(that never have their mind/heart changed),have to look forward to after they die?


I look forward to having my ashes scattered at a place that's very important to me and becoming part of it.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> I look forward to having my ashes scattered at a place that's very important to me and becoming part of it.



Earth?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But that's from your own perspective. Step outside of it and see how it looks. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I can understand how it can happen.



I've believed in the supernatural.  I know what it's like.  It's not all love and kindness.  If you allow the happy little angels then you allow the slobbering, malevolent beast and all sorts of other useless weirdness like incantations.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Earth?


 
Well yes but a certain place on earth.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But that's from your own perspective. Step outside of it and see how it looks. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I can understand how it can happen.



I like the way you reason. I respect you for that.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Well yes but a certain place on earth.



I was gonna ask but, knew you wouldn't give up your honey hole. 

I am going to be cremated as well. Told my wife to surprise me.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> I was gonna ask but, knew you wouldn't give up your honey hole.
> 
> I am going to be cremated as well. Told my wife to surprise me.


Yup kind of a personal thing. Have it all arranged. Instructions and cash in a lock box to cover all the expenses. Only thing left to do is burn my carcass lol.
The thought of being stuck in a box in the ground is horrifying to me even though I wont know it.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I'm not trying to derail your nice debate here but a question just came to mind I'm curious about:
> 
> What do atheists and agnostics,(that never have their mind/heart changed),have to look forward to after they die?
> 
> I'm new to this stuff and still trying to get a handle on what yall believe.




I'm not particularly looking forward to death.  I'm having quite a nice time here.  I've got a cool little family and friends and a cute dog.  I'm ready for it when it comes.  

Think about how your belief in an afterlife affects the way you view your life here on Earth.  This life is misery and suffering because of a snake and an apple.   You are a useless, evil wretch and so are your kids (if you have any) and so are all the children in the world.  You can't wait for Heaven; "Come Lord, quick!!"   

The most glorious thing that you can imagine happening to the world is that fire rains down from the sky and that Satan will torment the inhabitants of the Earth for some time until Jesus flies down from the clouds.  In your mind apocalypse is a good thing.

I know you don't spend all your time dwelling on it but at some level you always do. You go through this life thinking that it's not that great.  A ten pound bass here is no match for a ten pound Heaven bass.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Yup kind of a personal thing. Have it all arranged. Instructions and cash in a lock box to cover all the expenses. Only thing left to do is burn my carcass lol.
> The thought of being stuck in a box in the ground is horrifying to me even though I wont know it.



http://www.greenburials.org/


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I like the way you reason. I respect you for that.



Art, do you understand how replacing faith for facts happens?  Can you describe the process to me?


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> The thought of being stuck in a box in the ground is horrifying to me even though I wont know it.



I just think it is a ridiculous waste of resources.
I wish they could use any heat generated to heat a children's hospital or retirement home...or make smores. Something.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> http://www.greenburials.org/


Nope. Includes the word "burial". Not me aint gonna happen no way.


----------



## ambush80

An outfitter that I worked for in MT said that back in the day, if a horse or mule from your pack string died in Yellowstone that it had to be packed out like an elk or blown up with dynamite so that there were no big chunks left (as a precaution against attracting large predators).  Sounds good to me for me.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> I just think it is a ridiculous waste of resources.
> I wish they could use any heat generated to heat a children's hospital or retirement home...or make smores. Something.


Get yourself turned into one of those artificial logs that people burn in their fireplaces.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> I like the way you reason. I respect you for that.



Thank you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I've believed in the supernatural.  I know what it's like.  It's not all love and kindness.  If you allow the happy little angels then you allow the slobbering, malevolent beast and all sorts of other useless weirdness like incantations.



I disagree. That's slippery slope logic.


----------



## welderguy

Sooooooo........That's it? That's all you look forward to? That's so sad.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I disagree. That's slippery slope logic.




Not really.  If you allow that a donkey talked then you also believe the other things that it says in the Bible about sweet angels (and angry angels) and the Beast, as well as the power of prayer.  

Why would you allow gremlins and not unicorns?

It's funny to me that they allow a resurrection but not a blue, eight armed, elephant headed deity.  "CLEARLY _they've_ got it wrong; those elephant head worshipers."


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Sooooooo........That's it? That's all you look forward to? That's so sad.



Would you be filled with joy if the prophesies in Revelation started happening right now?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Sooooooo........That's it? That's all you look forward to? That's so sad.




Because we derive more meaning from our every day lives as a result of that being all that can be seen, proven, and demonstrated to someone else. 

My instinct is telling me to snipe back at you for the "that's so sad," part because it comes across as very condescending, but I'll just let that go.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Sooooooo........That's it? That's all you look forward to? That's so sad.


I don't find it sad at all. I find it just as comforting as you probably find the idea of heaven.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Sooooooo........That's it? That's all you look forward to? That's so sad.



Let me ask you a question.   Does this life suck compared to Heaven?  Are you looking forward to being dead so that you can be at the foot of your Lord?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Art, do you understand how replacing faith for facts happens?  Can you describe the process to me?



Mostly indoctrination and reading the Bible. I too am sure that if I was born in India that I would be a Hindu.
True that is still a belief in a God. Perhaps the one true God.
I like the way Striper Hunter reasons as for as evidence for or against. He doesn't see enough evidence to support God the Father of Jesus yet he doesn't find enough evidence to support a belief in no God. 

Maybe Striper doesn't find enough evidence to support a belief in any God but he doesn't find enough evidence to be an Atheist. I can support his belief.

I can also support your belief that you have enough "facts" and "evidence" to support a belief in no God. Maybe by not having enough evidence to believe in a God makes you an Atheist. You believe that facts and evidence are necessary to believe in anything. 

I too would believe facts and evidence are necessary to believe in most things but not spiritual things. There are some things that one just has to have faith to believe. God is one of them. Now we could argue about who this one true God is and why we have so many various religions but even then it still requires faith to believe.

I too can think and see outside of the box to respect any and all beliefs. I see where you are coming from. I see where Striper is coming from. I see where Welderguy is coming form. I can remove my Baptist goggles, my freewill goggles, my Christian goggles, and even my believing in God goggles in order to check out the other side. Then I just put on whatever goggles I feel like wearing depending on the amount of my ever-changing faith for that day. 

My life is going through a constant change. One day I might have a stronger faith in God and one day I might not have any faith at all in God. 
Sometimes I feel like I'm in total control and sometimes I agree with Welderguy that God is in total control.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Yup kind of a personal thing. Have it all arranged. Instructions and cash in a lock box to cover all the expenses. Only thing left to do is burn my carcass lol.
> The thought of being stuck in a box in the ground is horrifying to me even though I wont know it.


I had a salesman that worked for me, who got into an argument with his live-in girlfriend. She flushed the ashes of his dad... down the toilet.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would think that if Christians lived a more spiritual life while still on the earth they wouldn't dwell on the physical experience being so bad.
I compare my life on the earth like a hiking trip. It's about the journey instead of the destination. Maybe as a Christian that is the wrong way to view it. 
But many Christians say we are already born again and nothing much changes at our physical death. We are or should already be a new spirit. 
We shouldn't even notice our physical death.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> I had a salesman that worked for me, who got into an argument with his live-in girlfriend. She flushed the ashes of his dad... down the toilet.


I'm assuming he flushed her ashes shortly there after.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Mostly indoctrination and reading the Bible. I too am sure that if I was born in India that I would be a Hindu.
> True that is still a belief in a God. Perhaps the one true God.
> I like the way Striper Hunter reasons as for as evidence for or against. He doesn't see enough evidence to support God the Father of Jesus yet he doesn't find enough evidence to support a belief in no God.
> 
> Maybe Striper doesn't find enough evidence to support a belief in any God but he doesn't find enough evidence to be an Atheist. I can support his belief.



Very accurate. I see many world religions which hint to me that there is something at work, but in the absence of hard evidence I can't say what. Because of that two things occur. One, I stay agnostic because atheists have no more evidence against. Now, if there were only one world religion with the same lack of evidence I would say that it's much more likely that there's no God. The multitude of data points pointing to something, even if it's variations on the theme or outright different religions, draws a line but I still need more proof to know where the end of that line is. The second thing that occurs is that I immediately question someone who espouses to have absolute knowledge. That's done to sharpen iron, as the parable goes, but also to see if maybe this is the day that I'm to have that revelation myself with evidence that I can't explain any other way.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> I am going to be cremated as well. Told my wife to surprise me.



My will says to dump my ashes in a near-by ditch.  

Only thing I really hope for is that they tote me out in a coffee can instead of an urn, kind-a like how they dumped Donnie in the Big Lebowski......

I'll be dead.  I don't want them wasting time or resources on me.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Very accurate. I see many world religions which hint to me that there is something at work, but in the absence of hard evidence I can't say what. Because of that two things occur. One, I stay agnostic because atheists have no more evidence against. Now, if there were only one world religion with the same lack of evidence I would say that it's much more likely that there's no God. The multitude of data points pointing to something, even if it's variations on the theme or outright different religions, draws a line but I still need more proof to know where the end of that line is. The second thing that occurs is that I immediately question someone who espouses to have absolute knowledge. That's done to sharpen iron, as the parable goes, but also to see if maybe this is the day that I'm to have that revelation myself with evidence that I can't explain any other way.



There's quite a bit of research going on that is looking for an evolutionary explanation for people's propensity to seek god(s).  Then there's those Piraha that Bullet brought up.  

Can you put a percentage on the possibility of god existing?  It's not as odd an exercise as you might imagine.  

Why would you not be able to explain the evidence for your revelation.  I understand the illustration of trying to explain color to the blind but people still try with varied degrees of success.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> My will says to dump my ashes in a near-by ditch.
> 
> Only thing I really hope for is that they tote me out in a coffee can instead of an urn, kind-a like how they dumped Donnie in the Big Lebowski......
> 
> I'll be dead.  I don't want them wasting time or resources on me.



Make sure they stand upwind during the dumping.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> There's quite a bit of research going on that is looking for an evolutionary explanation for people's propensity to seek god(s).  Then there's those Piraha that Bullet brought up.
> 
> Can you put a percentage on the possibility of god existing?  It's not as odd an exercise as you might imagine.
> 
> Why would you not be able to explain the evidence for your revelation.  I understand the illustration of trying to explain color to the blind but people still try with varied degrees of success.



I also understand that, about the research. I studied the then current stuff circa 2000. That's why I have data points against God, in all his incarnations around the world, as well. For every point I have for God, there's another against. 

A percentage? In my experience I would put it right at 50%. Just the same as him not existing. 

I don't know why I wouldn't be able to explain it. I haven't experienced it, yet, or if I ever will. 

Can you explain color without resorting to using color to do it? What IS that which we call blue? It is nothing more than the reflection of certain wavelengths of light, received by our eyes, and interpreted by our brains. That's how you get red/green color blindness. The light is no less red to you because someone else sees it as a shade of grey, and they see it no less grey than you see it as red. But then you're trying to explain the experience of something, rather than the something itself. 

That's why I take umbrage with people saying that they know Jesus or God. You perceive Jesus, or God, like your eyes perceive red or green, but you don't know for sure what the fixture itself emitted. Sure, you could measure the wavelengths, derive the frequency, and come to what most people call red or green, but there is no similar crucible by which to measure God in any of his forms. It's entirely reliant on the experience being felt and the desire of the individual to assign that experience to Him. 


Sorry that's so long, a simple question sparked a thought and I didn't want to lose it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

The "something at work" I alluded to earlier isn't limited to just God being at work. I didn't say it there, but it also encompasses the possibility that primitive man formulated gods to fight back the darkness of their own ignorance to the natural world around them, and more modern men have continued it because of the comfort, though different from their ancestors, it brings them now. 

Can anyone of faith tell me that when they think of God they feel anything but warmth, love, comfort, certainty in an uncertain world? Really anything "swelling" your heart past full? Does anyone believe in God out of fear or other coercion?


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I also understand that, about the research. I studied the then current stuff circa 2000. That's why I have data points against God, in all his incarnations around the world, as well.



More evidence. to some, that there is no God or one true God. God would not be relative to geography.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm not trying to derail your nice debate here but a question just came to mind I'm curious about:
> 
> What do atheists and agnostics,(that never have their mind/heart changed),have to look forward to after they die?
> 
> I'm new to this stuff and still trying to get a handle on what yall believe.



Make of life what I can right now and hope that I have made a positive lasting impression on my friends and family so that I can live on through them.

You brought up (in my opinion) THE #1 Point for the NEED for religion...... "What happens to me when I die?"
People cannot fathom it all ending. Time waits for no one and the clock is ticking for us all.
I feel the only way the majority of humans can deal with death and specifically their own death is to be convinced that after they die there is something "more" or "better".
I am comfortable that I will know or feel nothing more after I am gone than what I knew or felt before I was born. Hopefully I have made a positive impact on the journey in between.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> More evidence. to some, that there is no God or one true God. God would not be relative to geography.



One would think that not be the case, if there was one true God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

But then again, maybe the different takes are variations on a theme, and they're all telling roughly the same story, colored by their culture, using different languages.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I also understand that, about the research. I studied the then current stuff circa 2000. That's why I have data points against God, in all his incarnations around the world, as well. For every point I have for God, there's another against.
> 
> A percentage? In my experience I would put it right at 50%. Just the same as him not existing.
> 
> I don't know why I wouldn't be able to explain it. I haven't experienced it, yet, or if I ever will.
> 
> Can you explain color without resorting to using color to do it? What IS that which we call blue? It is nothing more than the reflection of certain wavelengths of light, received by our eyes, and interpreted by our brains. That's how you get red/green color blindness. The light is no less red to you because someone else sees it as a shade of grey, and they see it no less grey than you see it as red. But then you're trying to explain the experience of something, rather than the something itself.
> 
> That's why I take umbrage with people saying that they know Jesus or God. You perceive Jesus, or God, like your eyes perceive red or green, but you don't know for sure what the fixture itself emitted. Sure, you could measure the wavelengths, derive the frequency, and come to what most people call red or green, but there is no similar crucible by which to measure God in any of his forms. It's entirely reliant on the experience being felt and the desire of the individual to assign that experience to Him.
> 
> 
> Sorry that's so long, a simple question sparked a thought and I didn't want to lose it.



The Pariaha people do not use colors.
They say it looked like blood, or the sky, or the cloud, or the water, or the leaves etc....


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I also understand that, about the research. I studied the then current stuff circa 2000. That's why I have data points against God, in all his incarnations around the world, as well. For every point I have for God, there's another against.
> 
> A percentage? In my experience I would put it right at 50%. Just the same as him not existing.
> 
> I don't know why I wouldn't be able to explain it. I haven't experienced it, yet, or if I ever will.
> 
> Can you explain color without resorting to using color to do it? What IS that which we call blue? It is nothing more than the reflection of certain wavelengths of light, received by our eyes, and interpreted by our brains. That's how you get red/green color blindness. The light is no less red to you because someone else sees it as a shade of grey, and they see it no less grey than you see it as red. But then you're trying to explain the experience of something, rather than the something itself.
> 
> That's why I take umbrage with people saying that they know Jesus or God. You perceive Jesus, or God, like your eyes perceive red or green, but you don't know for sure what the fixture itself emitted. Sure, you could measure the wavelengths, derive the frequency, and come to what most people call red or green, but there is no similar crucible by which to measure God in any of his forms. It's entirely reliant on the experience being felt and the desire of the individual to assign that experience to Him.
> 
> 
> Sorry that's so long, a simple question sparked a thought and I didn't want to lose it.




I guess i would tell a blind person that the color blue is "cold" and the color red is "hot" or something like that.  Green might be "cool" and maybe they already know about black.  If the believers tried they could say "Well, god's love is like a shot of heroin or being four years old and wrapped up in a blanket".  I don't buy this "It's like nothing else.  I can't describe it".  I don't know why they are so reluctant to even make an attempt to describe it.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But then again, maybe the different takes are variations on a theme, and they're all telling roughly the same story, colored by their culture, using different languages.



That is a possibility....but if so, it takes away from what the Bible tells us. 
In the case off all paths leading to One God ...then all religions are not wrong but none of them are right either.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Very accurate. I see many world religions which hint to me that there is something at work, but in the absence of hard evidence I can't say what. Because of that two things occur. One, I stay agnostic because atheists have no more evidence against. Now, if there were only one world religion with the same lack of evidence I would say that it's much more likely that there's no God. The multitude of data points pointing to something, even if it's variations on the theme or outright different religions, draws a line but I still need more proof to know where the end of that line is. The second thing that occurs is that I immediately question someone who espouses to have absolute knowledge. That's done to sharpen iron, as the parable goes, but also to see if maybe this is the day that I'm to have that revelation myself with evidence that I can't explain any other way.



Are you saying that if there were only one world religion God would be more or less believable? With just the knowledge we have now. 
I would think having only one religion instead of many would make God more believable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> The Pariaha people do not use colors.
> They say it looked like blood, or the sky, or the cloud, or the water, or the leaves etc....



Still something you have to see to experience, or experience to understand fully. 



ambush80 said:


> I guess i would tell a blind person that the color blue is "cold" and the color red is "hot" or something like that.  Green might be "cool" and maybe they already know about black.  If the believers tried they could say "Well, god's love is like a shot of heroin or being four years old and wrapped up in a blanket".  I don't buy this "It's like nothing else.  I can't describe it".  I don't know why they are so reluctant to even make an attempt to describe it.



Maybe afraid of being dismissed as juvenile if they equated God to a woobie. Or afraid of being disrespectful of God for same. 



bullethead said:


> That is a possibility....but if so, it takes away from what the Bible tells us.
> If there is a God...One God....then all religions are not wrong but none of them are right either.



I agree. If you look at all of the common kernels in all of the disparate religions you see a lot more than there would be assumed to be before you began. 

Right now my take on that is due to the commonality of human nature across all those miles, rather than the commonality of God, but I'm willing to indulge the opposing viewpoint from time to time just to see where it goes. Especially when there's new information, or a new person to talk to.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you saying that if there were only one world religion God would be more or less believable? With just the knowledge we have now.
> I would think having only one religion instead of many would make God more believable.



One data point does not a good sample size make. Especially when you start out as skeptical of the data. 

To me, it would be more easily dismissed as a wide ranging form of self-delusion if there were only the one data point. Much like Santa Claus not corroborating the Easter Bunny, to use other pleasantly perceived constructs. 

The simple fact that so many people, separated by so many miles, came to a few very common stories suggests something. What that is, I don't know. It could be, as I said a moment ago, the commonality of man, or the commonality of God. There's a lot of evidence for people being people, even from different continents and cultures, but not enough to completely preclude the possibility of them all having a glimmer of a larger universal truth and filtering the remainder through cultural lenses.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Still something you have to see to experience, or experience to understand fully.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe afraid of being dismissed as juvenile if they equated God to a woobie. Or afraid of being disrespectful of God for same.



"Woobie" would be a powerful description.  Many people would understand that.  The "disrespectful" thing is a stretch....



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree. If you look at all of the common kernels in all of the disparate religions you see a lot more than there would be assumed to be before you began.
> 
> Right now my take on that is due to the commonality of human nature across all those miles, rather than the commonality of God, but I'm willing to indulge the opposing viewpoint from time to time just to see where it goes.  Especially when there's new information, or a new person to talk to.




Me too.

 and  and


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> One data point does not a good sample size make. Especially when you start out as skeptical of the data.
> 
> To me, it would be more easily dismissed as a wide ranging form of self-delusion if there were only the one data point. Much like Santa Claus not corroborating the Easter Bunny, to use other pleasantly perceived constructs.
> 
> The simple fact that so many people, separated by so many miles, came to a few very common stories suggests something. What that is, I don't know. It could be, as I said a moment ago, the commonality of man, or the commonality of God. There's a lot of evidence for people being people, even from different continents and cultures, but not enough to completely preclude the possibility of them all having a glimmer of a larger universal truth and filtering the remainder through cultural lenses.




There are a lot of dragon myths that corroborate.  As well as  Bigfoot myths.  UFOs?  Seamonsters?  They're still not worth hanging your hat on.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> One data point does not a good sample size make. Especially when you start out as skeptical of the data.
> 
> To me, it would be more easily dismissed as a wide ranging form of self-delusion if there were only the one data point. Much like Santa Claus not corroborating the Easter Bunny, to use other pleasantly perceived constructs.
> 
> The simple fact that so many people, separated by so many miles, came to a few very common stories suggests something. What that is, I don't know. It could be, as I said a moment ago, the commonality of man, or the commonality of God. There's a lot of evidence for people being people, even from different continents and cultures, but not enough to completely preclude the possibility of them all having a glimmer of a larger universal truth and filtering the remainder through cultural lenses.



In reality so many people separated by so many miles coming to a few common stories backs up the case for human migration.
People did not pop up all over the planet at roughly the same time and all had a "god story". People migrated and stories were made and stories were told, stories changed and other stories were incorporated and stories were forced and anywhere along the line someone felt the need to change or tweak a story along the way in order to fit themselves better it happened.
The earliest civilized cultures are proof and as they spread so did their beliefs and it is clear how those beliefs were changed and tweaked to fit where other cultures overlapped....and so on and so on.


----------



## ambush80

More curious to me is why are the gods that people come up with often "super" versions of things that are crawling or running around?  I'm curious in the same way about why Aliens often play with their abductee's rectums and why are they described as using "needles" and "knives"?  You'd figure they had better stuff than that.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> More curious to me is why are the gods that people come up with often "super" versions of things that are crawling or running around?  I'm curious in the same way about why Aliens often play with their abductee's rectums and why are they described as using "needles" and "knives"?  You'd figure they had better stuff than that.



It is human nature to describe things in ways that can be understood so that others can relate but then "supersized" in ways that make the natural seem supernatural....but not so supernatural that no one else can imagine it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> "Woobie" would be a powerful description.  Many people would understand that.  The "disrespectful" thing is a stretch....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.
> 
> and  and



Maybe, but what people perceive as disrespectful depends a lot on both parties. God may or may not view it as such, but if the person speaking perceives it as a disrespect I doubt they'd go through with it.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Would you be filled with joy if the prophesies in Revelation started happening right now?



Oh, now he wants to pull out the bible. yall spanked my hand last time I did that.
But, to answer your question, yes I believe the Holy Spirit would fill me with joy unspeakable and full of glory.I'm not sure I'd be happy.Don't confuse joy with happiness.
He calls it a "great and dreadful day".
I say even so, Lord ,come quickly.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> There are a lot of dragon myths that corroborate.  As well as  Bigfoot myths.  UFOs?  Seamonsters?  They're still not worth hanging your hat on.



Which is why I don't on either side. The giant squid belonged to cryptozoology not too long ago. Now it doesn't. 



bullethead said:


> In reality so many people separated by so many miles coming to a few common stories backs up the case for human migration.
> People did not pop up all over the planet at roughly the same time and all had a "god story". People migrated and stories were made and stories were told, stories changed and other stories were incorporated and stories were forced and anywhere along the line someone felt the need to change or tweak a story along the way in order to fit themselves better it happened.
> The earliest civilized cultures are proof and as they spread so did their beliefs and it is clear how those beliefs were changed and tweaked to fit where other cultures overlapped....and so on and so on.



I realize that possibility. It's a data point against. One for and one against, see? 



ambush80 said:


> More curious to me is why are the gods that people come up with often "super" versions of things that are crawling or running around?  I'm curious in the same way about why Aliens often play with their abductee's rectums and why are they described as using "needles" and "knives"?  You'd figure they had better stuff than that.



A machine that generates a laser is more complex than a simple sharpened wedge, or a hollow wedge.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe, but what people perceive as disrespectful depends a lot on both parties. God may or may not view it as such, but if the person speaking perceives it as a disrespect I doubt they'd go through with it.



I think it's something else.  It's fishy smelling.  I've got my own ideas why they don't try.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Oh, now he wants to pull out the bible. yall spanked my hand last time I did that.
> But, to answer your question, yes I believe the Holy Spirit would fill me with joy unspeakable and full of glory.I'm not sure I'd be happy.Don't confuse joy with happiness.
> He calls it a "great and dreadful day".
> I say even so, Lord ,come quickly.



Given that the NT washes away sins, even those committed intentionally, with a repentant heart, what keeps you from taking your own life to be with your creator that much more quickly? 

Please bear in mind that this is a serious question, dealing with a serious subject, and is in no way meant to denigrate, belittle, or be snide. 

I'm honestly curious as to what keeps you from jumping the line to the end of your time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I think it's something else.  It's fishy smelling.  I've got my own ideas why they don't try.



I agree. Not even trying is very telling, at least on the surface. Perhaps someone will expound on why they won't do that.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Oh, now he wants to pull out the bible. yall spanked my hand last time I did that.
> But, to answer your question, yes I believe the Holy Spirit would fill me with joy unspeakable and full of glory.I'm not sure I'd be happy.Don't confuse joy with happiness.
> He calls it a "great and dreadful day".
> I say even so, Lord ,come quickly.



"Lord Come Quickly'
"....but with all due respect.....No One is doing anything to speed up the process.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Oh, now he wants to pull out the bible. yall spanked my hand last time I did that.
> But, to answer your question, yes I believe the Holy Spirit would fill me with joy unspeakable and full of glory.I'm not sure I'd be happy.Don't confuse joy with happiness.
> He calls it a "great and dreadful day".
> I say even so, Lord ,come quickly.




I'm using the Bible because it's the underpinnings of your beliefs about life and death.

With all due respect and sincerity, that makes _me_ sad.  

You are looking _forward_ to death, not just your own but the billions of other people, and by a monstrous mutiheaded beast.  If you're terminally ill or in great suffering I understand but if you want to die because you think what happens after death, which you know nothing about, will be swell then....I'm at a loss for words.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I realize that possibility. It's a data point against. One for and one against, see?



No not really because the point "for" being that so many people all over the world have similar god stories is totally refuted by the point "against" being that humans did not pop up all over but that they came out on one centralized area and spread taking their stories with them.
All that is left is one point. They do not cancel each other out.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Given that the NT washes away sins, even those committed intentionally, with a repentant heart, what keeps you from taking your own life to be with your creator that much more quickly?
> 
> Please bear in mind that this is a serious question, dealing with a serious subject, and is in no way meant to denigrate, belittle, or be snide.
> 
> I'm honestly curious as to what keeps you from jumping the line to the end of your time.




As a predeterminist, in his worldview, how could anything he does, including taking his own life be anything but the will of god.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> No not really because the point "for" being that so many people all over the world have similar god stories is totally refuted by the point "against" being that humans did not pop up all over but that they came out on one centralized area and spread taking their stories with them.
> All that is left is one point. They do not cancel each other out.



For you. 



ambush80 said:


> As a predeterminist, in his worldview, how could anything he does, including taking his own life be anything but the will of god.



I don't know. Let's see if he answers the first question and tack this one on the end.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> as a predeterminist, in his worldview, how could anything he does, including taking his own life be anything but the will of god.



b
i
n
g
o


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> More curious to me is why are the gods that people come up with often "super" versions of things that are crawling or running around?  I'm curious in the same way about why Aliens often play with their abductee's rectums and why are they described as using "needles" and "knives"?  You'd figure they had better stuff than that.



You'd think they would use zappers and scanners. Maybe they are interested in what we had to eat that day. 
I'd think they would do us like the Japanese did the Chinese & Russians in Unit 731. Just cut us open alive and see how we tick and what's in our stomachs.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

14 viewers, 6 members, 8 guests. 

Is that a AAA record?


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree, but that's were it always ends up.



Not true.....we didn't up there two days ago.  I never one time pulled the faith card on you.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For you.


It is not for me.
It doesn't matter what I think or matter what anyone else thinks....what matters is the facts and the facts point to human migration and civilization spreading the "word".
History backs it up.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> You'd think they would use zappers and scanners. Maybe they are interested in what we had to eat that day.
> I'd think they would do us like the Japanese did the Chinese & Russians in Unit 731. Just cut us open alive and see how we tick and what's in our stomachs.



How many times would they need to do it?  Why don't they just take a cell sample and clone a bunch of "lab rats".  

The reason should be obvious why people who get abducted are carved on with Medieval tools the same way that it should be clear why god(s) get angry and jealous and spiteful.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Not true.....we didn't up there two days ago.  I never one time pulled the faith card on you.



Fair point. That's where, in my experience and up to now, it always ends up. Better? 



bullethead said:


> It is not for me.
> It doesn't matter what I think or matter what anyone else thinks....what matters is the facts and the facts point to human migration and civilization spreading the "word".
> History backs it up.



The "facts" backed up no giant squid prior to its discovery, too.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Can any see, let alone accept, that religion is a system constructed to approach "a" god? In some way...most rightly, appease him?
> I have read here of some willingly confessing their participation in a system they deemed (were either told, or instructed, or indoctrinated to believe...or mistook as teaching) as a so called thing, "christianity". Attending meetings, praying, reading a particular book...these things were presented as evidence of having _been_ a christian, and perhaps for some even as being a _good_ christian. Some may say "I believed...once upon a time".
> Yet even in that, the book is quite clear...all the doing is for nought, what is of material import alone...is a new creature.
> Why is there no testimony of that? Do you not know?
> One is either begotten of God...or not. All the other "stuff" which may or may not be attendant, all the works (and I would at this point dare say none has resisted sin to the shedding of their own blood) must take their place in subordinance to the revelation of Jesus as Lord. No man can tell you are, nor can man undo this. It is the work of God. By a man's words he is either justified or condemned.
> I surely cannot tell which of you, from "that" experience, if indeed one had been begotten again to a lively hope, (though I have heard no testimony of it...[for the absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence]) that your preparation of service is being conducted in a way I do not understand...but can accept.
> A virulent rejection of religiosity does not equate to me as a rejection of Christ, though its out workings to some may appear so.
> If all is from a soul thats inward appeal is such that "I will have truth at all and any cost...no matter what others say" it does not signal to me anything but the Christ at work. But, who of us really knows this of anyone...but ourselves? And who of us cannot admit...(As perhaps Ambush brushed up against)...no, I find myself recoiling at the perceived "knowing" of certain things? The "If I allow for this...am I not also allowing for that"...when "the that" is something I dare not set my foot to follow in experience?
> Jesus said this, to all and any who heard, any who have read, any who have even barely turned a page..."what they do to me, they will do likewise to you..."
> One has a sig line, "The belief in the inevitability of conflict can result in its cause" or something there like.
> A man needn't set his heart to seek out the conflict, the contradiction, by a "striving to make true" what has already been declared.
> It's as sure as the one who uttered it.
> If the Christ is in you...you will hate form in preference to substance, you will hate the less than sure in preference to the truth, you will indeed come to hate all that would seek to take advantage of what may remain of superstition and turn it to another man's glory. You will, in fact, come to hate all of the world as its poor evidence of glory is seen for what it is.
> You will, if of God, even a "once", know you have no place to stand on anything "of yourself"...and come to be glad it has been taken from you.
> The inevitability of "your own" death requires no preparation, it is already accomplished. Consider it so, and see life. In the one who accomplished it...for you.



Or another option.
The Book is wrong.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> No not really because the point "for" being that so many people all over the world have similar god stories is totally refuted by the point "against" being that humans did not pop up all over but that they came out on one centralized area and spread taking their stories with them.
> All that is left is one point. They do not cancel each other out.



If man was created in one central location by God using evolution, and this man eventually migrated throughout the world. This man would take the basic story of this one true God with him. Man would also change the story to fit and explain his ever evolving culture.

If God predetermined these events to happen, then he will have mercy on whom ever he wants to. Salvation is of the Lord. This grants salvation to some Americans and some Africans. 
This way doesn't grant salvation to everyone but neither does free will chance.

Maybe God started all the religions to see if we can find truth in Unity or something spiritual. We're a big giant ant farm experiment.

That or having so many religions was just man's way of explaining the unexplainable. It all could be coincidence.
Having a virgin birth in more than one religion could just be a coincidence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> Can any see, let alone accept, that religion is a system constructed to approach "a" god? In some way...most rightly, appease him?
> I have read here of some willingly confessing their participation in a system they deemed (were either told, or instructed, or indoctrinated to believe...or mistook as teaching) as a so called thing, "christianity". Attending meetings, praying, reading a particular book...these things were presented as evidence of having _been_ a christian, and perhaps for some even as being a _good_ christian. Some may say "I believed...once upon a time".
> Yet even in that, the book is quite clear...all the doing is for nought, what is of material import alone...is a new creature.
> Why is there no testimony of that? Do you not know?
> One is either begotten of God...or not. All the other "stuff" which may or may not be attendant, all the works (and I would at this point dare say none has resisted sin to the shedding of their own blood) must take their place in subordinance to the revelation of Jesus as Lord. No man can tell you are, nor can man undo this. It is the work of God. By a man's words he is either justified or condemned.
> I surely cannot tell which of you, from "that" experience, if indeed one had been begotten again to a lively hope, (though I have heard no testimony of it...[for the absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence]) that your preparation of service is being conducted in a way I may not fully understand...but can accept.
> A virulent rejection of religiosity does not equate to me as a rejection of Christ, though its out workings to some may appear so.
> If all is from a soul thats inward appeal is such that "I will have truth at all and any cost...no matter what others say" it does not signal to me anything but the Christ at work. But, who of us really knows this of anyone...but ourselves? And who of us cannot admit...(As perhaps Ambush brushed up against)...no, I find myself recoiling at the perceived "knowing" of certain things? The "If I allow for this...am I not also allowing for that"...when "the that" is something I dare not set my foot to follow in experience?
> Jesus said this, to all and any who heard, any who have read, any who have even barely turned a page..."what they do to me, they will do likewise to you..."
> One has a sig line, "The belief in the inevitability of conflict can result in its cause" or something there like.
> A man needn't set his heart to seek out the conflict, the contradiction, by a "striving to make true" what has already been declared.
> It's as sure as the one who uttered it.
> If the Christ is in you...you will hate form in preference to substance, you will hate the less than sure in preference to the truth, you will indeed come to hate all that would seek to take advantage of what may remain of superstition and turn it to another man's glory. You will, in fact, come to hate all of the world as its poor evidence of glory is seen for what it is.
> You will, if of God, even a "once", know you have no place to stand on anything "of yourself"...and come to be glad it has been taken from you.
> *The inevitability of "your own" death requires no preparation, it is already accomplished. *Consider it so, and see life. In the one who accomplished it...for you.



A) That's my sigline. 

B) I couldn't agree with this in bold more. Every living thing dies. That's the lens I view life through. Most humans are remembered after their own death and, in being so, attain even a small amount of immortality having outstripped their flesh container. 

As for the rest, the language is so florid that I have a hard time making heads or tails as to the underlying point.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Fair point. That's where, in my experience and up to now, it always ends up. Better?
> 
> 
> 
> The "facts" backed up no giant squid prior to its discovery, too.



But now we have a body.  If someone wants to claim there are no such things as giant squids we can all laugh at them.  If Christ comes down out of the clouds we will have a new scientific field:  "The Science of Christianity" and the Bible will be the text book.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Fair point. That's where, in my experience and up to now, it always ends up. Better?
> 
> 
> 
> The "facts" backed up no giant squid prior to its discovery, too.



I agree but in this case the spread of humans has been discovered. The spread of language has been discovered. Stories of belief in higher powers within individuals, clans, tribes, societies, civilizations have been discovered. The stories have been tracked from one to the next and the influence and incorporation from one to another has been discovered.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> But now we have a body.  If someone wants to claim there are no such things as giant squids we can all laugh at them.  If Christ comes down out of the clouds we will have a new scientific field:  "The Science of Christianity" and the Bible will be the text book.



And so far there's nothing precluding that from happening. Even right now. 



bullethead said:


> I agree but in this case the spread of humans has been discovered. The spread of language has been discovered. Stories of belief in higher powers within individuals, clans, tribes, societies, civilizations have been discovered. The stories have been tracked from one to the next and the influence and incorporation from one to another has been discovered.



Which suggests your position if you read it flowing forward in time. Read it backwards and tell me if you get the same answer. It's okay if you do, or don't. This is my personal belief and you're not subject to subscription.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> How many times would they need to do it?  Why don't they just take a cell sample and clone a bunch of "lab rats".
> 
> The reason should be obvious why people who get abducted are carved on with Medieval tools the same way that it should be clear why god(s) get angry and jealous and spiteful.



For some reason I'm reminded of futuristic space TV shows and movies like Buck Rodgers or Firefly.
They have spaceships and horseback riders in the same time period. Space Westerns if you will. They have some futuristic tools and weapons and some old school tools and weapons.
I doubt it would be like that but the writers are using what we know now as we don't yet know what the future holds. We can't write about things we don't know about. People couldn't relate.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> If man was created in one central location by God using evolution, and this man eventually migrated throughout the world. This man would take the basic story of this one true God with him. Man would also change the story to fit and explain his ever evolving culture.
> 
> If God predetermined these events to happen, then he will have mercy on whom ever he wants to. Salvation is of the Lord. This grants salvation to some Americans and some Africans.
> This way doesn't grant salvation to everyone but neither does free will chance.
> 
> Maybe God started all the religions to see if we can find truth in Unity or something spiritual. We're a big giant ant farm experiment.
> 
> That or having so many religions was just man's way of explaining the unexplainable. It all could be coincidence.
> Having a virgin birth in more than one religion could just be a coincidence.



Yeah, uhhhhh, Maybe....If.
I would tend to be more inclined to believe that Maybe If said God left HIS personal handbook in his own personal writing to the first central location instead of some humans a million years later writing down what THEY think happened.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> More evidence. to some, that there is no God or one true God. God would not be relative to geography.



I actually disagree with you on the interpretation of this map.  If you look at everything that is classified as christian in one way or another and count it all together, you see a very different picture.

But that's not what is striking to me....

What strikes me about this map is that it is pretty clear that man (as a general statement) is "wired" to long for a deity, regardless of "who" that deity is.

Pretty much everything is covered.  Of course not all people in those regions believe in a god.  You guys are living proof of that.  And I'll counter myself and admit that just because the majority says so doesn't make it right.

But it IS striking that the entire world is covered in religion.  I know you have an explanation and I probably already know what it is.  But I thought it worth pointing out anyway.

It's friday....I ain't got no job....and I ain't got 'nothing' to do!


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Given that the NT washes away sins, even those committed intentionally, with a repentant heart, what keeps you from taking your own life to be with your creator that much more quickly?



Im called to LIVE for Christ.
"To live is Christ and to die is gain"
I want to glorify Him the best way I can and taking the easy way out, I don't believe, would be an answer.He said "My grace is sufficient for you"


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> No not really because the point "for" being that so many people all over the world have similar god stories is totally refuted by the point "against" being that humans did not pop up all over but that they came out on one centralized area and spread taking their stories with them.
> All that is left is one point. They do not cancel each other out.



Not to mention the first 250,000 years of human existence with no Christian god.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Im called to LIVE for Christ.



That's why I did away with a land line.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> Thanks. Yes! I see it now (again).
> One may also conclude, may one not, the the belief in the inevitability of peace may also lead one into conflict with others not so disposed? And yet...may such a one still find, despite such conflict...peace remains as true?
> There's a lot of peace in dying.
> But who wants to look...there?
> 
> I would like to think "how I am remembered" is as of little import as how I appear. For even though it be a beckoning truth...I too, find conflict along the way. Yet the beckoning of peace...remains greater.
> 
> "It is expedient for you that I go away" one said.
> That the outer perception become the inward reality.



Appearances are trivial. Actions matter. It's not the man you appear to be that people remember. It's the man you are that sticks with them. It's also, supposedly before the NT, the man you are that God judged you for.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> I actually disagree with you on the interpretation of this map.


 Shocker


> What strikes me about this map is that it is pretty clear that man (as a general statement) is "wired" to long for a deity, regardless of "who" that deity is.


 Absolutely. Folks are curious and self aware. They want answers and know they are going to die and are scared. Plus, powers that be need a way to unite and control. 2 birds with one stone.




> Pretty much everything is covered.  Of course not all people in those regions believe in a god.


 Working on it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> I actually disagree with you on the interpretation of this map.  If you look at everything that is classified as christian in one way or another and count it all together, you see a very different picture.
> 
> But that's not what is striking to me....
> 
> What strikes me about this map is that it is pretty clear that man (as a general statement) is "wired" to long for a deity, regardless of "who" that deity is.
> 
> Pretty much everything is covered.  Of course not all people in those regions believe in a god.  You guys are living proof of that.  And I'll counter myself and admit that just because the majority says so doesn't make it right.
> 
> But it IS striking that the entire world is covered in religion.  I know you have an explanation and I probably already know what it is.  But I thought it worth pointing out anyway.
> 
> It's friday....I ain't got no job....and I ain't got 'nothing' to do!



There's also no atheist or agnostic line on that map. It's a broad generalization based on population densities and relevant percentages. 



welderguy said:


> Im called to LIVE for Christ.
> "To live is Christ and to die is gain"
> I want to glorify Him the best way I can and taking the easy way out, I don't believe, would be an answer.He said "My grace is sufficient for you"



Where was that quote pulled from? Thank you for taking the question seriously, though. 

What makes you believe that A) you're glorifying him here, and B) that it's more effective here than it would be by his side? 

Again, serious questions.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Not to mention the first 250,000 years of human existence with no Christian god.



Yes
If there is one true god and one true religion(and for the sake of a popular argument in here lets call it Christianity) it took hundreds of thousands if not a million years for a certain group of people who think they are "chosen" to independently write down stories (only within the last 5000 years)as to how their culture came to be. (Never mind that darn near every culture has a story and all feel that they are chosen too.) And then these collections of anonymous stories are gathered together...first an old version then a new....and all attributed to a God.
History shows things were borrowed and tweaked from other cultures and incorporated to make these stories.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Yes
> If there is one true god and one true religion(and for the sake of a popular argument in here lets call it Christianity) it took hundreds of thousands if not a million years for a certain group of people who think they are "chosen" to independently write down stories (only within the last 5000 years)as to how their culture came to be. (Never mind that darn near every culture has a story and all feel that they are chosen too.) And then these collections of anonymous stories are gathered together...first an old version then a new....and all attributed to a God.
> History shows things were borrowed and tweaked from other cultures and incorporated to make these stories.



Very suggestive. Definitely not concrete of anything, though.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Very suggestive. Definitely not concrete of anything, though.



Well in my defense it was a very quick condensed version.
I could show a timeline how humans migrated out of Africa and spread. I could show how civilizations thousands of years older than the earliest Jewish civilizations existed. And I could show how those civilizations had similar creation stories and how those stories were incorporated into the stories of the Bible.
But I found it very satisfying researching those things and suggest anyone with any questions about it to check into it for themselves.
Ain't no Big Bad Wolf gonna blow that house down so if it is not concrete then it must be better.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Well in my defense it was a very quick condensed version.
> I could show a timeline how humans migrated out of Africa and spread. I could show how civilizations thousands of years older than the earliest Jewish civilizations existed. And I could show how those civilizations had similar creation stories and how those stories were incorporated into the stories of the Bible.
> But I found it very satisfying researching those things and suggest anyone with any questions about it to check into it for themselves.
> Ain't no Big Bad Wolf gonna blow that house down so if it is not concrete then it must be better.



You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, though I did say anything and that's my bad. Not concrete of anything relative to God is what I should have said. 

I've read much of the same things. I get what you're saying and it's one of the data points against a God, but there's still a veil between our realm and God's realm, if there is one.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I've read much of the same things. I get what you're saying and it's one of the data points against a God, but there's still a veil between our realm and God's realm, if there is one.



if there is a realm of God... is the sticking point

It comes down to known facts and "if" facts.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> if there is a realm of God... is the sticking point



I agree. If there weren't people talking about it, other than me, I wouldn't even indulge it as a possibility.


----------



## bullethead

striperr hunterr said:


> i agree. If there weren't people talking about it, other than me, i wouldn't even indulge it as a possibility.



10/4


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> For a many seemingly devoted in one fashion or another to an "evolution" why would it be so peculiar to find this:
> 
> Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.


Because there is no evidence of it happening. Ever.



Israel said:


> Appointed times...for appointed things.
> The thing is we can no more "project" ourselves into the _what was_ to disannul the what "is".
> I have come to see no need for any projection...all my history is recorded...I woke up, I breathed, commandments came, which I refused, I sought the "way back" to simplicity of life, found myself in my own attempts to "restore" blocked by insurmountable commandments now, and when undone...did the only thing appropriate...wailed.
> I didn't know...till I knew...the wailing was heard...and answered.
> The "not me" was given me, in which to live.
> I watch the righteous demands of the law work upon the me...but the "not me" abides...and I am, yet... not I.


All that is just another unnecessary attempt for you to tell us what you tell us in every speech.
God called, you didn't hear him. You eventually heard God yet are still unworthy...yada yada yada yada...praise Jesus.
We get it already


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> I actually disagree with you on the interpretation of this map.  If you look at everything that is classified as christian in one way or another and count it all together, you see a very different picture.
> 
> But that's not what is striking to me....
> 
> What strikes me about this map is that it is pretty clear that man (as a general statement) is "wired" to long for a deity, regardless of "who" that deity is.
> 
> Pretty much everything is covered.  Of course not all people in those regions believe in a god.  You guys are living proof of that.  And I'll counter myself and admit that just because the majority says so doesn't make it right.
> 
> But it IS striking that the entire world is covered in religion.  I know you have an explanation and I probably already know what it is.  But I thought it worth pointing out anyway.
> It's friday....I ain't got no job....and I ain't got 'nothing' to do!


I hope you are sitting down because........
I agree with your point.
As Griz pointed man is curious and wants answers etc.
And I agree that MAY be an answer to your observation.
But Im just not convinced it may be the only possible answer.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's also no atheist or agnostic line on that map. It's a broad generalization based on population densities and relevant percentages.
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that quote pulled from? Thank you for taking the question seriously, though.
> 
> What makes you believe that A) you're glorifying him here, and B) that it's more effective here than it would be by his side?
> 
> Again, serious questions.



The first quote was Phil.1:21
Second quote from 2Cor.12:9
I believe I'm glorifying Him here because verses like Ps.50:15
I don't believe I can glorify Him more effectively here but I'm not ready.He's preparing me now for the time when I will be able to glorify Him perfectly, without any corruption hindering me.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The first quote was Phil.1:21
> Second quote from 2Cor.12:9
> I believe I'm glorifying Him here because verses like Ps.50:15
> I don't believe I can glorify Him more effectively here but I'm not ready.He's preparing me now for the time when I will be able to glorify Him perfectly, without any corruption hindering me.


Throughout our history those who required our glorification under penalty of punishment turned out be not worthy of glory.
Hope that's not true here for your sake.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Throughout our history those who required our glorification under penalty of punishment turned out be not worthy of glory.
> Hope that's not true here for your sake.



Thankyou my friend.I hope so too.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And so far there's nothing precluding that from happening. Even right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Which suggests your position if you read it flowing forward in time. Read it backwards and tell me if you get the same answer. It's okay if you do, or don't. This is my personal belief and you're not subject to subscription.



I think a meteor more likely.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree. Not even trying is very telling, at least on the surface. Perhaps someone will expound on why they won't do that.



Anyone?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Anyone?


What was the question? I must have missed it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

It takes a certain amount of faith to believe in the Big Bang or Creation.
As a Scientific Creationist, I have to have the faith of all of ya'll. 

I believe in a Great Architect. Now I don't need the evidence of either side.

I should say there is enough evidence to support evolution, therefore as a Christian, I believe in evolution. I believe the Great Architect used science for his creation. He still uses science today as part of his maintenance system. He hasn't taken science away from our bodies after he created us.

Sometimes man uses God's science for good things and sometimes man uses God's science for bad things.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> It takes a certain amount of faith to believe in the Big Bang or Creation.
> As a Scientific Creationist, I have to have the faith of all of ya'll.
> 
> I believe in a Great Architect. Now I don't need the evidence of either side.
> 
> I should say there is enough evidence to support evolution, therefore as a Christian, I believe in evolution. I believe the Great Architect used science for his creation. He still uses science today as part of his maintenance system. He hasn't taken science away from our bodies after he created us.
> 
> Sometimes man uses God's science for good things and sometimes man uses God's science for bad things.


How do you feel about the claims saying the Bible is the infallible inerrant word of that same God but those words do not add up with what you know and is known about evolution? 

Like... I understand it is easier to believe the Bible and Evolution and it is easy to believe that every god that has ever been worshiped are all just paths to the same god.....I totally get meshing the two is a way to have it make sense but does it bother you at all that those beliefs go against what the Bible tells us?


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> How do you feel about the claims saying the Bible is the infallible inerrant word of that same God but those words do not add up with what you know and is known about evolution?
> 
> Like... I understand it is easier to believe the Bible and Evolution and it is easy to believe that every god that has ever been worshiped are all just paths to the same god.....I totally get meshing the two is a way to have it make sense but does it bother you at all that those beliefs go against what the Bible tells us?



I don't believe the Bible goes against my beliefs. Many Christians don't believe the Bible is without errors. Many Christians don't take everything in the Bible as literal. I just take one step further. Take the flood for instance, many Christians don't believe it was worldwide. 
Many Christians work freewill into the Bible even though God is in total control and elects, according to scripture. 
Many Christians believe in the Trinity and many believe God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one.
It's just reading according to how one is enlightened.
I've been enlightened in a more liberal view of Christianity than the conservative view. I don't believe in a literal he11 either. 
The Bible is told with many types of stories, poems, and literature styles.
Apocalyptic language is fairly common in Scripture as an example.
Changing Hebrew idioms into Greek and then archaic English. Scripture is the Word of God, not the Bible. 
Now we've got Christians all over the world who have all types of various beliefs using all different types of Biblical interpretations. And we are suppose to believe man doesn't have any part of this? 
Somehow in the end there will be some type of Unity among mankind. Maybe with a world monetary system.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't believe the Bible goes against my beliefs. Many Christians don't believe the Bible is without errors. Many Christians don't take everything in the Bible as literal. I just take one step further. Take the flood for instance, many Christians don't believe it was worldwide.
> Many Christians work freewill into the Bible even though God is in total control and elects, according to scripture.
> Many Christians believe in the Trinity and many believe God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one.
> It's just reading according to how one is enlightened.
> I've been enlightened in a more liberal view of Christianity than the conservative view. I don't believe in a literal he11 either.
> The Bible is told with many types of stories, poems, and literature styles.
> Apocalyptic language is fairly common in Scripture as an example.
> Changing Hebrew idioms into Greek and then archaic English. Scripture is the Word of God, not the Bible.
> Now we've got Christians all over the world who have all types of various beliefs using all different types of Biblical interpretations. And we are suppose to believe man doesn't have any part of this?
> Somehow in the end there will be some type of Unity among mankind. Maybe with a world monetary system.



Killer answers and I appreciate the details.
Those are along the lines I last believed when I was still a believer. 

Do you think any one of those belief systems within Christianity can be more accurate than the next?


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Killer answers and I appreciate the details.
> Those are along the lines I last believed when I was still a believer.
> 
> Do you think any one of those belief systems within Christianity can be more accurate than the next?



I'm sure one is more accurate but that mystery hasn't been revealed to me yet. There is a certain amount of mystery in the spiritual realm of religion. Things that are revealed at different times. Things that are only revealed to certain people. 
I'm not sure how much reveal is needed for salvation. Especially if it's all up to the one true God. Especially if faith is given from this same God.  
This "Light" is still a mystery as to how it shines. I'll keep my eyes open to receive it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Killer answers and I appreciate the details.
> Those are along the lines I last believed when I was still a believer.



What made you cross over? Was it one or two things or did the overall concept quit clicking?
Even without God how do you dismiss the possibility of everything coming from nothing? 
Did you follow the line of reasoning of Striper Hunter before becoming an Atheist?
You lost your faith in God but is there not enough evidence in a Great Architect? What got the ball rolling so to speak?
I'm not talking about man or the earth but the universe and time. Who started  the stopwatch  and will this entity stop it?
One more question, is everything by chance and random or is someone or thing causing some of it or all of it?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> What made you cross over? Was it one or two things or did the overall concept quit clicking?
> Even without God how do you dismiss the possibility of everything coming from nothing?
> Did you follow the line of reasoning of Striper Hunter before becoming an Atheist?
> You lost your faith in God but is there not enough evidence in a Great Architect? What got the ball rolling so to speak?
> I'm not talking about man or the earth but the universe and time. Who started  the stopwatch  and will this entity stop it?
> One more question, is everything by chance and random or is someone or thing causing some of it or all of it?


I have told my entire story many times in the AAA section so I won't waste anymore bandwith on it.
Long story short...I am not an atheist.
The last 25 years I have spent trying to prove God exists not disprove it. 
I just do not know if no god, one god or thousands of gods exist.
I have no idea what or who started anything let alone IF anything at all is responsible.
I am fairly certain No religion on the planet has any god market cornered.
I am confident the god as described in the Bible either does not exist or the description and actions and responsibilities as written are all wrong.
I have become confident and relieved that I can lead my life without thinking my life is micromanaged by a being and that I am not some experiment.
I am full well confident that if there is a god that is fair and just and decides my fate after death, I am prepared to let my actions in life stand for me. I take full responsibility for my words and deeds now and if those things are at all considered at death for my judgement by a higher power I honestly have no worries.
I am wide open for any contact by any god that wants to set me straight if have gotten anything incorrect.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> What made you cross over? Was it one or two things or did the overall concept quit clicking?
> Even without God how do you dismiss the possibility of everything coming from nothing?
> Did you follow the line of reasoning of Striper Hunter before becoming an Atheist?
> You lost your faith in God but is there not enough evidence in a Great Architect? What got the ball rolling so to speak?
> I'm not talking about man or the earth but the universe and time. Who started  the stopwatch  and will this entity stop it?
> One more question, is everything by chance and random or is someone or thing causing some of it or all of it?



I honestly,due to research, do not think there was a time where there was nothing. Nothing=Nothing
There always had to be something. Something does not...cannot come from nothing. Something comes from something.
I do not know what that something was or is that started our current Universe but I also do not know what existed before our current Universe.
I do not have to insert a fix all answer to fill in those unknowns. I am fine searching and hoping I can find out but I sleep well with what science tells me and I am open minded enough to accept new information should it appear.
Facts work fine for me.


----------



## welderguy

Israel said:


> That's very precise. Even to the veil.
> When you were a child did you ever do anything that you knew would be a displeasure to your parents? I know I did.
> 
> And in that place to which I often ventured I became aware of a dread, in particular the dread that I would be "found out"...and then the imaginings of what would occur after. They were not fun things to consider in that place to which I had usually been brought by just wanting to "have" fun. Stuff broken, another parent I verbally disrespected, or trying to bribe the neighbor girl with 35 cents to show me something again she had shown me for free once. (Never knowing her mother had listened through an open bedroom window from inside the house to the whole exchange).
> 
> In those moments, of seeming impending doom, not once did I consider, nor  did it even seem a thing to do, all the times my father had taken me fishing, carried me on his shoulders, showed me patiently how to steer a boat with a tiller...no, at those moments, none of these things could break through...I had what could only be rightly called a fearful expectation of wrath. Those times I was "caught".
> 
> It never even computed in any measure there could be love in my Father's response. Love was "being for me what I liked", and never anything other. This, you could say, is hidden from a child...or was at least hidden, from me.
> 
> It has taken as long as it has for me to now, rising from bed in the dark at the alarm's behest to go places I would of myself prefer not in some labor of provision (of which I am still learning) to appreciate the many things of which I did not even consider of my father beyond "steering the boat". A million things he did, I see now, for me, for his wife, for his children, far "harder" if you will, than just letting me have the tiller. He never spoke of these "harder" things (and if you can or will...more "real" things) of which he was about...that I now see done...but which still, I know in my heart...would be "eclipsed"...(veiled) when I imagined Mrs Farnham saying "do you know what your son tried to buy with 35 cents?"
> (Really, what good would there be if my father had said...sit down...let me tell you all the things I do for you and then, at the end let me ask you if it is unreasonable for me to ask anything of you...")
> 
> The point? The love never "wasn't there"...but my position relative to what I knew was his approval, into which I had ventured, again, knowing against his will, didn't let "me" perceive it.
> 
> One may say..."Your father could have removed the veil...he might have said, or been the kind of man who would say "Son, I was young once, too. I know that "thing" is of great interest when you become very aware of a difference between yourself and a girl, and on and on..." It would be foolish for me to wish he were something different, though, for what else might I also have been wishing different in that "wish"?
> 
> Suppose my "wishing" also had the unintended effect of changing him from a man who responded to the alarm clock on cold winter mornings to go to a frigid car? Suppose it turned him into "the heck with that, I'm going back to sleep"?
> 
> Besides, in looking back, and seeing all that "other love" ...I easily accept now his right and place not merely granted in the "because I am the Father"...but all the other times I was left breathing, and breathing in a very wonderful life with more than ample "fun"...in which I continually pushed the envelope.
> 
> I have no other truth than I was the one who placed the "veil". I was the one who ventured the places I knew not to go, even when all the consequences were not seen. (What harm is there in flooring the accelerator just for a moment in first gear? On a street filled with parked cars? Who knew about fishtailing? I thought all cars always go where the steering wheel is pointed)
> 
> Now...if in the wishing for a father a bit more "understanding"...but not undoing anything by my wish...in other words...could I have someone who would understand my complete proclivity to the "seeing of that girl thing" understand the desire to find out "what this heap will do when floored" and yet...help me to see the things that could result even before they are done (seeing that "girl" thing has left me with two estranged grown daughters...but also now...with a great grandchild who calls me boompah, though her color and strict familial relationship has no "blood" of mine in her...just because I found a father that would tell me..."There's more to a girl than that girl thing...find out what love really is, and you'll find some things you could have never imagined well beyond the pleasure of a cigarrette in a set of sweaty sheets."
> 
> Yeah...when I owned up, was pressed to beyond my ability to deny it..."I did it!" "It was me!" by a _terrible_ hand over which I had no control, no amount of wishing for things different to make it stop...yes, the "I did it" did something to that veil...and I was then, now, allowed to see all that another had, is, was always doing on my behalf to get me there. That "fearful expectation" into which I had hurried, of myself, with no one else to ever blame...gave way.
> 
> Yes, the "God realm" is different. And now, when I am tempted to bring down a hand against what I may be so convinced deserves it, I am reminded of the mercy I have seen in bringing me to admit, to the removal of that veil, as much as I have been allowed to see, that if I would continue "veil-less" I must extend the mercy I have been shown. And yes, I have ventured into the "other than mercy" place often, only to find again...how terrible it is. And find a hand, still willing to lead when I admit "I did it".
> 
> 
> With that veil removed, I see a something too wonderful to describe. I see the God of the God realm, who has come to be for me, in all the weakness of "wanting to see that girl thing", wanting to press that accelerator...even the "wanting to drop the hammer on what it thinks deserves it"....but withholds...having learned the consequences of self indulgence. And willing to teach them. Man...to man.
> 
> You could rightly say to me..."look at yourself!"...just look at the many words! You are all just one big ball of self indulgence. Yes. I am.
> I did it.
> But look at him!
> And in the looking, the veil...begins to evaporate.
> 
> It's funny how easily we take "being" for granted, but when we begin to glimpse what has "gone into it" for us, and how deeply the going is, we may see something...to not be taken for granted.



Wow! That was a good post.Israel,you just described my life too in a nutshell.The way you compared a child's relationship with his loving,forgiving,yet righteous father,to the relationship with our Father in heaven.Well,it's very true and accurate. I too had a good,loving Dad who was a faithful provider,working 65 hour weeks regularly and still we were poor by most standards.But he never complained.And he always made it very clear that he loved me,even when his heavy hand was across my backside.I was a reckless kid too,indulging in everything I could think of that might be fun,not really caring about the consequences,though I knew they were sure to come.Later in life,as the consequences grew more and more severe(jail,broken jaw,divorce, estranged children,lost jobs,etc,etc) I suddenly realized there was something,though very subtle,that was speaking to me,drawing me slowly out of the darkness I had been in.It was changing the way I looked at things(myself,others,God)I knew about a God,but until this point,I didn't KNOW God.I believe this is when He gave me faith,that is so hard to describe to someone who hasn't yet experienced it.It's just a sort of inner"knowing".That's the best way I can describe it.It starts off small.But,along with it comes this insatiable desire to learn more.It's a hunger that will drive you to stay up all night sometimes(knowing you have to go to work the next day)reading and praying and meditating.It will also cause you to stop loving yourself so much and start loving others more,even complete strangers.Even people who are mean to you.You begin to see past their outward person and start looking deeper into their heart,looking for any good that you might get a glimpse of.These things that happen are not normal human nature things.They are things that are caused by something much higher than we are.


----------



## bullethead

Oh maybe that is it.....I have not hit rock bottom or repeatedly gotten in enough trouble and burned all of my bridges with family and friends in order to physically, mentally and finally have no one left but a specific imaginary deity that only showed up after all the other constant excuses for my actions were exhausted.
I have not had to tap into that part of my subconscious mind.
Maybe the God excuse err...card was dealt to me those first 20 years of my life by upbringing,Sunday School, Church, family,society,civilization and culture just to prepare me for the day I decided to change course and act like a menace to society, family and friends...but since I did not...I don't need to play that card??
Quite possibly maybe I have not been bad enough to be a real Christian??


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> I have not had to tap into that part of my sub concious mind.


Subconscious. 

Prove it.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Oh maybe that is it.....I have not hit rock bottom or repeatedly gotten in enough trouble and burned all of my bridges with family and friends in order to physically, mentally and finally have no one left but a specific imaginary deity that only showed up after all the other constant excuses for my actions were exhausted.
> I have not had to tap into that part of my sub concious mind.



Maybe you're right.Maybe you are so "whole" that you need not a physician.Or.....maybe you just THINK you're whole when in reality you really are at rock bottom,spiritually,and don't even know it.I can't judge that.I'm pretty sure we are all at rock bottom until the Spirit comes and begins to pick us up.


----------



## hummerpoo

welderguy said:


> Wow! That was a good post.Israel,you just described my life too in a nutshell.The way you compared a child's relationship with his loving,forgiving,yet righteous father,to the relationship with our Father in heaven.Well,it's very true and accurate. I too had a good,loving Dad who was a faithful provider,working 65 hour weeks regularly and still we were poor by most standards.But he never complained.And he always made it very clear that he loved me,even when his heavy hand was across my backside.I was a reckless kid too,indulging in everything I could think of that might be fun,not really caring about the consequences,though I knew they were sure to come.Later in life,as the consequences grew more and more severe(jail,broken jaw,divorce, estranged children,lost jobs,etc,etc) I suddenly realized there was something,though very subtle,that was speaking to me,drawing me slowly out of the darkness I had been in.  It was changing the way I looked at things(myself,others,God)I knew about a God,but until this point,I didn't KNOW God.I believe this is when He gave me faith,that is so hard to describe to someone who hasn't yet experienced it. . It's just a sort of inner"knowing".That's the best way I can describe it.It starts off small.But,along with it comes this insatiable desire to learn more.It's a hunger that will drive you to stay up all night sometimes(knowing you have to go to work the next day)reading and praying and meditating.It will also cause you to stop loving yourself so much and start loving others more,even complete strangers.Even people who are mean to you.You begin to see past their outward person and start looking deeper into their heart,looking for any good that you might get a glimpse of.These things that happen are not normal human nature things.They are things that are caused by something much higher than we are.



A really good display of the spiritual evidence of that which has no physical evidence.

Thanks


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Subconscious.
> 
> Prove it.



Hey .....in here.....proof dare not be given when asked for.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Wow! That was a good post.Israel,you just described my life too in a nutshell.The way you compared a child's relationship with his loving,forgiving,yet righteous father,to the relationship with our Father in heaven.Well,it's very true and accurate. I too had a good,loving Dad who was a faithful provider,working 65 hour weeks regularly and still we were poor by most standards.But he never complained.And he always made it very clear that he loved me,even when his heavy hand was across my backside.I was a reckless kid too,indulging in everything I could think of that might be fun,not really caring about the consequences,though I knew they were sure to come.Later in life,as the consequences grew more and more severe(jail,broken jaw,divorce, estranged children,lost jobs,etc,etc) I suddenly realized there was something,though very subtle,that was speaking to me,drawing me slowly out of the darkness I had been in.It was changing the way I looked at things(myself,others,God)I knew about a God,but until this point,I didn't KNOW God.I believe this is when He gave me faith,that is so hard to describe to someone who hasn't yet experienced it.It's just a sort of inner"knowing".That's the best way I can describe it.It starts off small.But,along with it comes this insatiable desire to learn more.It's a hunger that will drive you to stay up all night sometimes(knowing you have to go to work the next day)reading and praying and meditating.It will also cause you to stop loving yourself so much and start loving others more,even complete strangers.Even people who are mean to you.You begin to see past their outward person and start looking deeper into their heart,looking for any good that you might get a glimpse of.These things that happen are not normal human nature things.They are things that are caused by something much higher than we are.


The part highlighted above(minus prayer and meditation) describes me too. And yet no higher power involved.
But If that is not part of human nature what is human nature?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> The part highlighted above(minus prayer and meditation) describes me too. And yet no higher power involved.But If that is not part of human nature what is human nature?



That you acknowledge...right?  Surely that point is obvious.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> The part highlighted above(minus prayer and meditation) describes me too. And yet no higher power involved.
> But If that is not part of human nature what is human nature?



I believe that when God decides to apply faith to what you already have in place,you will turn your efforts and energy from trying to deny Him,to trying to exalt Him.It's going to take faith that is given as a gift to you.It's not something you can muster up on your own.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Hey .....in here.....proof dare not be given when asked for.


It may seem so. Sometimes the proof provided is unacceptable to the materialist, understandably so.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Wow! That was a good post.Israel,you just described my life too in a nutshell.The way you compared a child's relationship with his loving,forgiving,yet righteous father,to the relationship with our Father in heaven.Well,it's very true and accurate. I too had a good,loving Dad who was a faithful provider,working 65 hour weeks regularly and still we were poor by most standards.But he never complained.And he always made it very clear that he loved me,even when his heavy hand was across my backside.I was a reckless kid too,indulging in everything I could think of that might be fun,not really caring about the consequences,though I knew they were sure to come.Later in life,as the consequences grew more and more severe(jail,broken jaw,divorce, estranged children,lost jobs,etc,etc) I suddenly realized there was something,though very subtle,that was speaking to me,drawing me slowly out of the darkness I had been in.It was changing the way I looked at things(myself,others,God)I knew about a God,but until this point,I didn't KNOW God.I believe this is when He gave me faith,that is so hard to describe to someone who hasn't yet experienced it.It's just a sort of inner"knowing".That's the best way I can describe it.It starts off small.But,along with it comes this insatiable desire to learn more.It's a hunger that will drive you to stay up all night sometimes(knowing you have to go to work the next day)reading and praying and meditating.It will also cause you to stop loving yourself so much and start loving others more,even complete strangers.Even people who are mean to you.You begin to see past their outward person and start looking deeper into their heart,looking for any good that you might get a glimpse of.These things that happen are not normal human nature things.They are things that are caused by something much higher than we are.



Regarding the part in blue above..
Now Imagine losing that father.
Most likely, and I include myself in this next part too, we would miss him so much that often we would look down where he is buried or off into the distance and talk to him when we are feeling down, just plain miss him, need guidance, see or remember something that reminded us of our father....etc. Sometimes we would just need to unload on someone who understood us all through life like no one else could.

Well that is how early religion got started.
And it evolved from there into having these lost family members as spiritual guides and then into supreme beings.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Wow! That was a good post.Israel,you just described my life too in a nutshell.The way you compared a child's relationship with his loving,forgiving,yet righteous father,to the relationship with our Father in heaven.Well,it's very true and accurate. I too had a good,loving Dad who was a faithful provider,working 65 hour weeks regularly and still we were poor by most standards.But he never complained.And he always made it very clear that he loved me,even when his heavy hand was across my backside.I was a reckless kid too,indulging in everything I could think of that might be fun,not really caring about the consequences,though I knew they were sure to come.Later in life,as the consequences grew more and more severe(jail,broken jaw,divorce, estranged children,lost jobs,etc,etc) I suddenly realized there was something,though very subtle,that was speaking to me,drawing me slowly out of the darkness I had been in.It was changing the way I looked at things(myself,others,God)I knew about a God,but until this point,I didn't KNOW God.I believe this is when He gave me faith,that is so hard to describe to someone who hasn't yet experienced it.It's just a sort of inner"knowing".That's the best way I can describe it.It starts off small.But,along with it comes this insatiable desire to learn more.It's a hunger that will drive you to stay up all night sometimes(knowing you have to go to work the next day)reading and praying and meditating.It will also cause you to stop loving yourself so much and start loving others more,even complete strangers.Even people who are mean to you.You begin to see past their outward person and start looking deeper into their heart,looking for any good that you might get a glimpse of.These things that happen are not normal human nature things.They are things that are caused by something much higher than we are.


If belief in God is what it took you to get from "there" to here, Im glad for you that you believe.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> It may seem so. Sometimes the proof provided is unacceptable to the materialist, understandably so.



Yeah.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I believe that when God decides to apply faith to what you already have in place,you will turn your efforts and energy from trying to deny Him,to trying to exalt Him.It's going to take faith that is given as a gift to you.It's not something you can muster up on your own.



That doesn't answer the human nature part.
If you believe a god created us and we are in his image and we get our morals and inner compass from this god why would it not be instilled in our nature to do good, seek good, be compassionate towards others?


----------



## ambush80

999


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> 999



that is three upside down sixes....OHHH NOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Regarding the part in blue above..
> Now Imagine losing that father.
> Most likely, and I include myself in this next part too, we would miss him so much that often we would look down where he is buried or off into the distance and talk to him when we are feeling down, just plain miss him, need guidance, see or remember something that reminded us of our father....etc. Sometimes we would just need to unload on someone who understood us all through life like no one else could.
> 
> Well that is how early religion got started.
> And it evolved from there into having these lost family members as spiritual guides and then into supreme beings.



I'm sorry but that last paragraph is just a bunch of hogwash in my opinion.Although,I'm not gonna argue if you don't agree.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Regarding the part in blue above..
> Now Imagine losing that father.
> Most likely, and I include myself in this next part too, we would miss him so much that often we would look down where he is buried or off into the distance and talk to him when we are feeling down, just plain miss him, need guidance, see or remember something that reminded us of our father....etc. Sometimes we would just need to unload on someone who understood us all through life like no one else could.
> 
> Well that is how early religion got started.
> And it evolved from there into having these lost family members as spiritual guides and then into supreme beings.



I know that if you were ask to prove that it would take a book.  So I'll just say that it strikes me as fanciful conjecture, without claim beyond that.  We can call it the thesis, antithesis thing and forgo the synthesis part.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I believe that when God decides to apply faith to what you already have in place,you will turn your efforts and energy from trying to deny Him,to trying to exalt Him.It's going to take faith that is given as a gift to you.It's not something you can muster up on your own.



Is it possible for God to give this faith to people who have never heard of Jesus? 

If every man in the whole world was made in the image of God, perhaps Adam took this image away and Jesus restored it.
Now somehow every man in the whole world's image has been restored. We can now become more like God. 
We can become the Children of God and the brother of Jesus.

Election is better for world wide salvation compared to witnessing.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm sorry but that last paragraph is just a bunch of hogwash in my opinion.Although,I'm not gonna argue if you don't agree.



No offense but I didn't expect anything else from you.
All I can ask of you, and this is the way I did it, is to research the earliest beginnings of "How God got started" and "How did religion start" and "How was early worship linked to deceased family members".
Don't just read an article or two but get into it like you described above by staying up way past your bedtime etc..
You can ignore it and carry on stating it is hogwash or you can educate yourself. As always it is up to you.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I know that if you were ask to prove that it would take a book.  So I'll just say that it strikes me as fanciful conjecture, without claim beyond that.  We can call it the thesis, antithesis thing and forgo the synthesis part.



Horse/Water
I don't care if you drink but don't tell me you are thirsty if you don't drink.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it possible for God to give this faith to people who have never heard of Jesus?



Yes.This faith comes by the Holy Spirit before any other form of comunication can be effectual.You mark it down,if you see someone who has been "enlightened" by human teaching,there has already been a working on the inside by the Spirit.It has to be in that order for it to be effectual.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> horse/water
> i don't care if you drink but don't tell me you are thirsty if you don't drink.



o.k.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> If you then conclude that man is always looking to his "Father"...why is it so foreign to believe what you have never seen a chemistry set do, all men do? For a reason?


It goes back to the human migration, early stories and rituals, incorporated stories and rituals, passed on and tweaked stories and rituals. All tens of hundreds of thousands of years in the making and that is just for "modern humans". For a million or so years before that we didn't need to.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> So...you look to "your Fathers..." as to how God got started? Or are you divorced from all?
> Are you the son of those who "made up a god"...then you will fill up the full measure of your fathers.



Can you dumb it down for me a bit?
I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say...

But I find myself speaking to relatives that have passed on from time to time. Maybe that is how they get to live on???


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Yes.This faith comes by the Holy Spirit before any other form of comunication can be effectual.You mark it down,if you see someone who has been "enlightened" by human teaching,there has already been a working on the inside by the Spirit.It has to be in that order for it to be effectual.



But why is the human teaching necessary for salvation if one is elected by God? Human intervention goes against Election. You are putting man in the "salvation equation."If you would like you can join me in the thread in the next forum up titled "One True God."


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> If belief in God is what it took you to get from "there" to here, Im glad for you that you believe.



WaltL1,belief is not what it took.My belief is a result of something that was already done for me. I appreciate your kindness in saying what you said though.I think you and I are really adopted brothers.We just don't know each other very well yet.I'm hoping anyway.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it possible for God to give this faith to people who have never heard of Jesus?
> 
> If every man in the whole world was made in the image of God, perhaps Adam took this image away and Jesus restored it.
> Now somehow every man in the whole world's image has been restored. We can now become more like God.
> We can become the Children of God and the brother of Jesus.
> 
> Election is better for world wide salvation compared to witnessing.



"Better" for who?  Certainly not the un-elect.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> "Better" for who?  Certainly not the un-elect.



It's better because it increases the odds of who will receive salvation. God can elect from the various world religions and locations quicker than we can.
I'd rather place salvation in the hands of God than man. There is already a quota in place. Seating is limited. God can fill his quote.
The vessels of destruction will just die. They won't burn forever. It's not that bad, they just go to sleep.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> It's better because it increases the odds of who will receive salvation. God can elect from the various world religions and locations quicker than we can.
> I'd rather place salvation in the hands of God than man.



It is just too bad that with all these ghosts, ghouls, angels and demons NONE of them can tell us what is really going on and all we really have to rely on is Man.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I love you man.
> That's all I got, brother.



Well...... I appreciate it.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> But why is the human teaching necessary for salvation if one is elected by God? Human intervention goes against Election. You are putting man in the "salvation equation."If you would like you can join me in the thread in the next forum up titled "One True God."



Art,when I said "enlightened",I didn't mean that humans have power to give light.That is done by the Holy Spirit.I should have worded it differently.I simply meant "taught".


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Art,when I said "enlightened",I didn't mean that humans have power to give light.That is done by the Holy Spirit.I should have worded it differently.I simply meant "taught".



Every man cam form Adam and wandered throughout the world. They took their belief in the one true God with them.
God has the sole power to elect at his will. 
Does man play any part in the salvation of any soul in the whole wide world?
Man may have the responsibility to teach but is any man's salvation dependent upon this responsibility?
I hope not.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Every man cam form Adam and wandered throughout the world. They took their belief in the one true God with them.
> God has the sole power to elect at his will.
> Does man play any part in the salvation of any soul in the whole wide world?
> Man may have the responsibility to teach but is any man's salvation dependent upon this responsibility?
> I hope not.



No, man is not essential.He is an instrument used by God.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Does man play any part in the salvation of any soul in the whole wide world?


I didn't in my own. I would have rather burned, than to bow.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> I didn't in my own. I would have rather burned, than to bow.



Bow eternally on streets of gold? I'll take that over burning all day long forever.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Bow eternally on streets of gold? I'll take that over burning all day long forever.


No you won't.


ambush80 said:


> While I've got breath in me a will denounce him, refuse to believe that he exists and never, ever bow before him.


----------



## welderguy

gemcgrew said:


> No you won't.



He will if he's washed in the blood of Jesus.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's also no atheist or agnostic line on that map. It's a broad generalization based on population densities and relevant percentages.



True. But the map represents the majority of population in every area. There is not an area where either of those two dominate the population. 

That's not a curious thing to you?

If there is no god, that map simply represents the single greatest deception in the history of the world. 

Whether people are scared to die and are looking for an "out" is not relevant to my point (though it's true in a lot of cases). The very fact that the great majority across the world have the same "sense" that there is something greater than they is very interesting.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> True. But the map represents the majority of population in every area. There is not an area where either of those two dominate the population.
> 
> That's not a curious thing to you?
> 
> If there is no god, that map simply represents the single greatest deception in the history of the world.
> 
> Whether people are scared to die and are looking for an "out" is not relevant to my point (though it's true in a lot of cases). The very fact that the great majority across the world have the same "sense" that there is something greater than they is very interesting.


If you would research why various beliefs are spread worldwide it is all easily explainable. It is actually not that surprising.
I wonder what a world wide map would look like of children that believe in Christmas/Santa or Holiday type mystical gift givers? Many cultures have a Santa type.
Is that evidence of Santa? And because we know of Santa, and because all the other versions are similar, are all those other versions just paths that lead to the same "right" version of Santa?
Or
Is it very good evidence of family and cultural beliefs and traditions passed down throughout time which some are original yet many are similar because elements have been incorporated,borrowed, and changed to suit?


----------



## bullethead

I did a quick search about Xmas worldwide. http://www.whychristmas.com/cultures/
There are a lot of traditions that vary all among people that celebrate Christmas and how versions of Santa vary within those traditions.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Can any see, let alone accept, that religion is a system constructed to approach "a" god? In some way...most rightly, appease him?
> I have read here of some willingly confessing their participation in a system they deemed (were either told, or instructed, or indoctrinated to believe...or mistook as teaching) as a so called thing, "christianity". Attending meetings, praying, reading a particular book...these things were presented as evidence of having _been_ a christian, and perhaps for some even as being a _good_ christian. Some may say "I believed...once upon a time".


After thinking about this and making my last few posts, I think my answer is ...For similar reasons as to why I am no longer a  Clause-tian.
I was once hard core a believer in Santa. To the best of my ability I tried to do everything right to be worthy. I tried to be nice and not naughty. I feared the repercussions that were told to me would happen if I did not follow the rules. At times I took the punishments and I benefited from the rewards. It made an impact on the way I led my life. My parents introduced the concept. Everyone else I knew up until the age of 8 or 10 all KNEW Santa existed. I read books about him. Saw the stories on TV. I even saw him literally everywhere around the holidays. Everyone else that was an adult and in a position of authority and trust told me Santa was real and to this day all of them including myself carries on the rouse when children are within earshot. 
Yeah, I can say with honesty I was a good Clause-tian just as much and heartfelt as I can say I was a good Christian for many of the same reasons.
But there was a point, albeit much later for one than the other, that I finally (as you say) "saw through it" and put it away in the "once upon a time" files.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> If you would research why various beliefs are spread worldwide it is all easily explainable. It is actually not that surprising.
> I wonder what a world wide map would look like of children that believe in Christmas/Santa or Holiday type mystical gift givers? Many cultures have a Santa type.
> Is that evidence of Santa? And because we know of Santa, and because all the other versions are similar, are all those other versions just paths that lead to the same "right" version of Santa?
> Or
> Is it very good evidence of family and cultural beliefs and traditions passed down throughout time which some are original yet many are similar because elements have been incorporated,borrowed, and changed to suit?



I did not make a claim that it was evidence of a god. I think it's a curious observation that begs the question. Of course I've researched why ideas spread. Surely you know that by now. 

Please don't belittle adults all over the world by comparing them to children. Children trust parents without questioning. 

Show me a map of the world of grown ups who did believe in Santa at 5 and still did at 25. 

For the most part those same children who believed in a god at 5 still did at 25. 

The Santa analogy is so tired and irrelevant its not even funny. We all agree Santa isn't real. Intelligent adults who have examined evidence for centuries do not agree on the other question. There is a reason and it ain't "because my daddy told me".


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> I did not make a claim that it was evidence of a god. I think it's a curious observation that begs the question. Of course I've researched why ideas spread. Surely you know that by now. And studies have been done on how religion spreads. The question is answered within those studies
> 
> Please don't belittle adults all over the world by comparing them to children. Children trust parents without questioning.
> 
> Show me a map of the world of grown ups who did believe in Santa at 5 and still did at 25.
> 
> For the most part those same children who believed in a god at 5 still did at 25.
> 
> The Santa analogy is so tired and irrelevant its not even funny. We all agree Santa isn't real. Intelligent adults who have examined evidence for centuries do not agree on the other question. There is a reason and it ain't "because my daddy told me".


You said " that if there is no God that maps represents the single greatest deception in the history of the world".  Did you say that FOR evidence of a God? Or as evidence of a great deception? Which claim is it?
I am not belittling anyone. I used the Santa analogy to show human nature. Everyone I know and especially most adults in the USA can relate to how sure they were Santa was real.
No disrespect but you stating that "we all agree Santa isn't real" and believing it is no different than me stating that "the majority of humans worldwide agree Jesus as god form isn't real"
The God in the Bible is just as unreal to me as Santa and how the stories spread worldwide are about as similar as any other example as I can think of.

Bringing adults into the mix is not a far jump from once believing in Santa and continuing to believe in a God. Adults are not taught that God/Jesus or any other God isn't real. Where the Santa belief is curbed the religion keeps on going. There are dozens upon dozens of factors that figure into it all with upbringing, need, fear, comfort,money and power being just a few.
Intelligence has very little to do with it. The world is full of examples of incredibly intelligent people following beliefs,orders, decisions of the heart, feelings,love,hate etc etc etc and NONE of it has to do with IQ points. If every intelligent adult on this planet always made the right decisions I think we would all be a little better off.
"My daddy told me"  is one of a hundred excuses/reasons why people believe. Dang near all have been given in these posts. Gimme a thousand believers and I'll give you a thousand different reasons that separate em all just a bit.
If by your stance that Intelligent people believing is some sort of proof (of something?) then can you break down the intelligence of believers and their religious preferences across the world?
I think you will find that beliefs in every religion incorporate all levels of intelligence as does just about anything else that mass amounts of people are involved in. Followers,fans,clubs,gangs,vocations, fraternities,careers, jobs, etc X a thousand. No need for one IQ point over another to be involved.

Are you seriously trying to tell me Intelligence is the main factor for the actions of people? 
I am in no way even suggesting believers are less intelligent but you always include intelligence as some sort of benefit to the believer crowd.
It is a fact believers of all intelligence levels act in a different way for beliefs than they do in almost every other aspect of their lives. IQ points be darned


----------



## Huntinfool

It seems, to me, that "human nature" doesn't fit into the world view you espouse.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> It seems, to me, that "human nature" doesn't fit into the world view you espouse.



It sure does. It has to be considered into our actions.

But don't let that have you skip all the questions I had for you above.


----------



## 660griz

The adults in the ancient world were much like children with their knowledge of the world and willingness to believe just about anything. They propagated the myth. Folks that knew better let it be since it had the side affect of keeping folks in line. 

After several 'debates' with religious folk that knock on my door, the debate usually draws to a close with them saying, "Why not just believe so you won't go to hades? What is there to lose?" 

Just like a bag of coal keeps children in line, eternal fire keeps adults in line.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> True. But the map represents the majority of population in every area. There is not an area where either of those two dominate the population.
> 
> That's not a curious thing to you?
> 
> If there is no god, that map simply represents the single greatest deception in the history of the world.
> 
> Whether people are scared to die and are looking for an "out" is not relevant to my point (though it's true in a lot of cases). The very fact that the great majority across the world have the same "sense" that there is something greater than they is very interesting.



It is a curious thing to me, and my previous posts even said as much, just not in relation to this map. 

The sheer number of people who espouse to believe in some form of deity is one of my data points for their existence. It's not hard proof, but a suggestive point. 

I do recognize the possibility that that many people just want to believe in something, but that's speculative and I don't have data on how many are represented by that, either.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Just like a bag of coal keeps children in line, eternal fire keeps adults in line.



I have trouble with this logic.  Maybe I am different than most.......but, I am certain my faith in God has nothing to do with the heaven and he11 concepts.  Primarily, when I was very young, heaven seemed like a very sad place to me, and, it's almost impossible to wrap your mind around the idea of he11.

So, if my faith was based on the results, then I prolly would have ditched it several years back when I went through the inevitable questioning phase most go through.


----------



## JB0704

Why would punishment / reward impact the existence of God?  Would God exist any more or less if there was only heaven, or he11?


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> I have trouble with this logic.



Some may be different. 
Some will admit it.
Some will refuse to admit it.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Why would punishment / reward impact the existence of God?  Would God exist any more or less if there was only heaven, or he11?



Without punishment / reward, there would be far less reasons to believe. Since punishment / reward is the reason to begin with.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> Me too. I tried the "I'll be nice so God will like me. I'll do this so God will like me. I won't do that so God won't dislike me".
> I been "moved" so to speak, by a gazillion superstitions. But here's what the superstition was for, (again, at least as I see now)...the "doing" was always a cover for the thing I was, in my "being". I "did" forgiveness, I did "prayer", I did attending meetings, (after all if the christians didn't like me...{and worse, if I discovered I "didn't much like them"} didn't that mean that God didn't?) I did all manner of things...as payment. There wasn't one thing, not done "for show". (But how could I know this...a thing devoted from it's first breath to a doing of all for show...?) It isn't long before a pure wail is coupled in a babies mind with "hey...something happens when I do that, that is "good" for me, and so begins all the first cries for attention)
> 
> Payment for a thing I knew I wasn't  deep down, at least as far as I could see...crap! What had I "gotten myself into?" I was worse off now than at the start...all I can see now is my own hypocrisy. (Psyche 101...I think you can see where this then led in "projection".)
> It struck me "once"...and has at least ten thousand times since, I was completely opposed in my thinking that led to that "doing" ...what a complete and total hypocrite I was to the "very thing" I went around saying I believed. Something would have to give.
> There's at least a volume, if not more, that I won't go into on my way to discovering the "reality", the God, the being above all being, the "Prime mover"...not only "first cause" but _all_ cause...has not at all one problem with, let alone the "all the torment" I _tried_ gladly to take to myself...(can you see it....? another form of "payment"?) with hypocrites. (I'll pay with my suffering! Or, at least what I can summon as a "show")
> Then I discovered "this" wasn't something at all I had "gotten myself into", I got drafted. (better to say "was forced to see" instead of "I discovered")
> Oh.
> I was the man that "opposed" himself. To whatever extent I still am, I found out I can't do a thing in its uncovering, I need to stay on the hunt for the man who doesn't.
> Oppose himself.
> The one who first told me "hey, this thing wasn't _my idea_ either. I "got sent", too."
> 
> Having been (and again I cannot overstress there is remaining in the "just how much" may still be to be revealed "about me" in every sense) the man who "tried" to "be" like Jesus and thereby showed completely (semi completely, part completely...a little completely...maybe even "Not at all") to himself "he is not", I am learning to come to terms with what "tries".
> The reality, the God, the being above all, tries (tests, purifies, washes out, "runs through the wringer") everything that "tries", that trying not remain.
> 
> Yeah, someone once wrote "make every effort to find out what pleases the Lord", another "labor to enter into rest"...what weird recipes  ...until they are "tried".
> Yeah, there ain't nothing about IQ points that's a help here, (or a hindrance, really).
> They too, are just a thing to be "tried".



My mirror is less clear, just clear enough to recognize what you describe.  The highlighted seems near the bullseye.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Why would punishment / reward impact the existence of God?  Would God exist any more or less if there was only heaven, or he11?



It has less to do with the existence than it does with the propensity for the average Joe to subscribe to it. If you remove the reward, or the punishment or both, then the numbers would likely fall as those following only to receive the reward, or avoid the rod, would leave. You'd be left with your devout followers only.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Without punishment / reward, there would be far less reasons to believe. Since punishment / reward is the reason to begin with.



Either God is or he ain't.  I see punishment / reward as irrelevant to the fact.

Would you believe more if there were no idea of he11?  Why would I believe less if there were no idea of heaven?


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> It sure does. It has to be considered into our actions.
> 
> But don't let that have you skip all the questions I had for you above.



I'll simply say this in response.  I have yet to read the story of a martyr who willingly went to his death because he refused to renounce the existence of jolly old Saint Nick.

Martyrs are not proof of a god.  They are proof that faith in a deity and a belief that Santa Clause is the person responsible for the gifts are entirely different concepts and, as I said, is the oldest of most tired of the comparisons that are made.

There is no rational adult testimony that Santa exists; no historical texts that seem to substantiate the version of him that delivers presents all over the world.  There are no martyrs who met horrifying deaths in defense of the fat guy, and there are no people anywhere who grew up without believing in Santa, but were suddenly convinced of his existence as adults.  Faith does not, necessarily imply blind faith.  Believers in a god look at the evidence and conclude there is no Santa.  Many also look at the evidence and conclude that there is a god.

I will grant you that there are likely millions of believers in a god all over the world whose response to "Why do you believe?" is "Because my daddy told me so".  There is no argument against that.  That, IMO, is 100% true and factual.  However, there are also millions whose answer is "Because I've examined the evidence and it confirms my faith."  

There are also children all over the world who grow up in atheist homes.  Guess what....they generally believe there is no god (shocker).  Somehow, the first example is viewed as indoctrination into a lie and the second is not held to the same standard.  It is viewed as raising them with the truth or (even less honest) letting them "find their own truth" (whatever that means).

To answer your last question, no, I am not making the case that the fact that intelligent people believe in a god is proof of the existence of a god.  I am making the case that you cannot use the belief in god to prove that believers are not thinkers or to attack their capacity to see beyond what their parents told them.  Brilliant people throughout all of human existence prove that wrong.  

Being personally emancipated from a belief in a deity makes an athiest no more enlightened than the rest of us regardless of what Richard Dawkins thinks.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Either God is or he ain't.  I see punishment / reward as irrelevant to the fact.
> 
> Would you believe more if there were no idea of he11?  Why would I believe less if there were no idea of heaven?



Without heaven or hades, what would be the point? 

Answers to the universe? There are no real answers to that in scripture except God did it. Most other ways in which the solar system worked was incorrect.

Everlasting life in a better place was, after all, the 'answer' for human suffering and death.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Without heaven or hades, what would be the point?



That's what I am trying to communicate here......there is no "point" in believing.  You either believe God exists, or you don't.  It's not an action to rpoduce a result.

I believe God exists.  Does my opinion on the matter, or the afterlife, change that? 



660griz said:


> Everlasting life in a better place was, after all, the 'answer' for human suffering and death.



Everlasting life does not end human suffering or death.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It is a curious thing to me, and my previous posts even said as much, just not in relation to this map.
> 
> The sheer number of people who espouse to believe in some form of deity is one of my data points for their existence. It's not hard proof, but a suggestive point.
> 
> I do recognize the possibility that that many people just want to believe in something, but that's speculative and I don't have data on how many are represented by that, either.



Sounds like a legitimately honest statement to me. 

I suspect that both are likely the answer.  Many likely do believe just because they don't want death to be the end.  Many also believe for very different reasons.

I've always found it curious that, even in our court systems, humanity does not require only physical proof for conviction.  The entirely of the evidence (both physical and circumstantial) is taken into account.  Yet, in the case of deity, physical proof of existence like, as we talked about earlier, like a burning bush or a talking donkey seems to be the only thing that the 'judge' will admit into evidence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Sounds like a legitimately honest statement to me.
> 
> I suspect that both are likely the answer.  Many likely do believe just because they don't want death to be the end.  Many also believe for very different reasons.



I'm sure you'll hate this next part, but it's a personal belief of mine that faith is relative to the person. No two people believe anything in the exact same way.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> That's what I am trying to communicate here......there is no "point" in believing.  You either believe God exists, or you don't.  It's not an action to rpoduce a result.


 Well, I respect your opinion and you are certainly different from every Christian I have met. 



> I believe God exists.  Does my opinion on the matter, or the afterlife, change that?


 Nope. I guess it may depend on which God you believe exist.



> Everlasting life does not end human suffering or death.



No, but it answered the questions of, "Is this it?", "Am I ever going to see my mother again?", etc.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Either God is or he ain't.  I see punishment / reward as irrelevant to the fact.
> 
> Would you believe more if there were no idea of he11?  Why would I believe less if there were no idea of heaven?


I agree either God is or he aint.
However there is a lot of info on how the concept of he11 came to the forefront. 
In short - preaching good things led to fairly empty churches.
So the concept of he11 started getting pushed.
Packed the churches.
I watched a documentary on this very subject just a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm sure you'll hate this next part, but it's a personal belief of mine that faith is relative to the person. No two people believe anything in the exact same way.



Ha!  I guess I can kind of buy that.  Faith can certainly be viewed as very personal.


----------



## JB0704

This thread has exceeded 1K.......dang shame too.  Starting to get fun.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> I watched a documentary on this very subject just a couple of weeks ago.



Do you remember what it's called, I'll try to look it up.....


----------



## WaltL1

At the end of the 2nd century Christianity had begun to blend Greek philosophy —human speculative reasoning, with the teachings of God’s Word. Such words and phrases as ‘continuance of being’, ‘perpetual existence’, ‘incapable of dissolution’ and ‘incorruptible’ began to appear in so-called Christian writings. These had come straight from Plato, the Greek philosopher, all those years before Jesus. Other phrases used were ‘the soul to remain by itself immortal’, and ‘an immortal nature’. It was taught that this is how God made us. But this idea derives from philosophy, not divine inspiration. There are no such words in the Bible. It was Athenagorus, a Christian, but whose teachings, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, were strongly tinged with Platonism, who had introduced the teaching of an immortal soul into Christianity. In this way, he paved the way for the logical introduction of eternal torment for immortal, but sinful, souls. This was a hundred years and more after the time of the apostles, and came straight from popular philosophy. The apostles had consistently taught that death is a sleep, to be followed by resurrection.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> There are also children all over the world who grow up in atheist homes.  Guess what....they generally believe there is no god (shocker).  Somehow, the first example is viewed as indoctrination into a lie and the second is not held to the same standard.  It is viewed as raising them with the truth or (even less honest) letting them "find their own truth" (whatever that means).




What don't you understand about this?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Do you remember what it's called, I'll try to look it up.....


Don't remember but I'll try to find it. It was pretty interesting.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> What don't you understand about this?





This part:



> the second is not held to the same standard



The hypocrisy.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by Huntinfool View Post
> There are also children all over the world who grow up in atheist homes. Guess what....they generally believe there is no god (shocker). Somehow, the first example is viewed as indoctrination into a lie and the second is not held to the same standard. It is viewed as raising them with the truth or (even less honest) letting them "find their own truth" (whatever that means).
> the second is not held to the same standard.


Not sure its the same standard.
One is teaching that something that hasn't been proven to exist actually does exist.
One is teaching that something that hasn't been proven to exist doesn't therefore exist.
They are NOT the same thing.
Its the same ol "you cant prove he doesn't exist" argument.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> However, there are also millions whose answer is "Because I've examined the evidence and it confirms my faith."


 No way that can happen.  There is no evidence of a God. 



> There are also children all over the world who grow up in atheist homes.  Guess what....they generally believe there is no god (shocker).  Somehow, the first example is viewed as indoctrination into a lie and the second is not held to the same standard.  It is viewed as raising them with the truth or (even less honest) letting them "find their own truth" (whatever that means).


 Not sure what you are talking about. Indoctrinating kids and letting them determine for themselves are not the same and shouldn't be held to the same standard. Whatever that means. There are thousands of religions and 1000s of Gods. Let them pick or not. Faith is personal, remember? 
I told my kids nothing about Gods. I didn't tell them there was no God. They went to church with their friends and I didn't poo poo it. 



> Being personally emancipated from a belief in a deity makes an athiest no more enlightened than the rest of us regardless of what Richard Dawkins thinks.



I am sure he would take your opinion in equally high regard.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Paul wrote about "grievous wolves" I don't really know too much in the separating (maybe yet)...of how to keep in the simplicity of devotion to Christ from all the other "stuff" that got/gets added....but I know I need to for this weak lamb. I am defenseless. A prey. Small...but even smaller than I believe.
> I see a great salvation in "being gone". Something resists. Something "dares" judgment. Something is begging to be torn...and eaten.
> I can't escape him.


I'll be honest Im not real sure how you being a weak lamb ties into the history of Christianity and where and why some of its teachings come from.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> This part:
> 
> 
> 
> The hypocrisy.




Lets discuss this.  I would say that you've got the cart before the horse.  Would you agree that atheists are generally skeptical, critical thinkers who place a high value on rationality?  Would you say that belief in the supernatural is rational?

Would you say that it is a neutral position to teach a child to think critically?

Would you say that it is a neutral position to tell a child about the supernatural and call it fact?


----------



## ambush80

Would you say that telling a child that a snake and a donkey and a burning bush talked is neutral;  not that neutrality is an end all be all but in the sense that we are talking about indoctrination.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by Huntinfool View Post
> However, there are also millions whose answer is "Because I've examined the evidence and it confirms my faith."


As Griz pointed out your faith cant be confirmed until the day its proven the Christian God actually exists.
The reason you have faith is because his existence CAN'T be confirmed.
FAITH -
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith. 
3.  (Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4.  (Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
Proof is what will confirm your faith as being correct/factual.  See #1


----------



## Huntinfool

> No way that can happen.  There is no evidence of a God.



You and I disagree on that.  I think a more honest statement on your part would be "I've not seen enough evidence to convince me...".  There is plenty of evidence.  He just hasn't sent you your own personal talking donkey yet....I get that.



> Not sure what you are talking about. Indoctrinating kids and letting them determine for themselves are not the same and shouldn't be held to the same standard. Whatever that means. There are thousands of religions and 1000s of Gods. Let them pick or not. Faith is personal, remember?
> I told my kids nothing about Gods. I didn't tell them there was no God. They went to church with their friends and I didn't poo poo it.



You honestly believe that the knowledge that the single most important man in your childrens' lives believes there is no god has nothing to do with their worldview and beliefs about a deity? 

You're not giving yourself enough credit.




> I am sure he would take your opinion in equally high regard.



If he doesn't disagree with me....then I'm doing something wrong.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> You and I disagree on that.  I think a more honest statement on your part would be "I've not seen enough evidence to convince me...".  There is plenty of evidence. He just hasn't sent you your own personal talking donkey yet....I get that.




Fill in the blanks.

Let's start with just five pieces of evidence:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.




Huntinfool said:


> You honestly believe that the knowledge that the single most important man in your childrens' lives believes there is no god has nothing to do with their worldview and beliefs about a deity?
> 
> You're not giving yourself enough credit.
> 
> If he doesn't disagree with me....then I'm doing something wrong.



I've also never told my child "There is no god".  

What would you tell your child if they asked you if donkeys can talk?


----------



## Huntinfool

> Lets discuss this.  I would say that you've got the cart before the horse.  Would you agree that atheists are generally skeptical, critical thinkers who place a high value on rationality?



For the most part.  Yes.  I also believe there are many who, irrationally, reject the concept of a god because of some hurt perpetrated in the name of a god.  But, yes, I would say that the majority put high value on logic.

I also believe that many theists that I know are generally skeptical, critical thinkers who also place a very high value on logic.

You, by default, exclude theists from placing high value on the same things you do.  False premise.



> Would you say that belief in the supernatural is rational?



Logical yes, in that it very much can be couched in both reason and logic.  There are certainly things that cannot be explained.



> Would you say that it is a neutral position to teach a child to think critically?





> Would you say that it is a neutral position to tell a child about the supernatural and call it fact?



I am, in no way, claiming that I am not indoctrinating my children.  I absolutely am.  That's not what we are discussing here.  

The issue is the hypocrisy of those who claim that they are not doing the same thing (whether intentionally like me or unintentionally). 

Parents' beliefs influence childrens' beliefs.  There is no way to circumvent that.



My children attend a classical school where they are intentionally taught the arts of logic and rhetoric.  They are taught every day to question, probe and look for the evidence.

Why are logic and evidence exclusive to your side?


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> Would you say that telling a child that a snake and a donkey and a burning bush talked is neutral;  not that neutrality is an end all be all but in the sense that we are talking about indoctrination.



See above.  I did not make the claim that neither of us indoctrinates.


----------



## Huntinfool

WaltL1 said:


> The reason you have faith is because his existence CAN'T be confirmed.
> FAITH -
> 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence



The reason I have faith is because I believe the evidence points to the existence of the God of the Bible.  Faith and reason/logic are not mutually exlusive concepts.  One can be confirmed by the other.

Funny.....In a lot of ways, I could make the claim that definition #1 applies to you as well.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> You honestly believe that the knowledge that the single most important man in your childrens' lives believes there is no god has nothing to do with their worldview and beliefs about a deity?



Never said that. I said it has nothing to do with indoctrination. 
I wanted them to question everything. I did not drill into their skulls there is no God. I did not take them to meetings with other atheist to discuss how there is no God. I did not have, 'In Me We Trust' printed on money, bumper stickers, and license plates.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Parents' beliefs influence childrens' beliefs.  There is no way to circumvent that.



That is not indoctrination.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> The reason I have faith is because I believe the evidence points to the existence of the God of the Bible.  Faith and reason/logic are not mutually exlusive concepts.  One can be confirmed by the other.
> 
> Funny.....In a lot of ways, I could make the claim that definition #1 applies to you as well.


Yes, you have faith that your faith is correct. I wont argue that.


> Funny.....In a lot of ways, I could make the claim that definition #1 applies to you as well.


Not really. I don't have a strong or unshakable belief that there are no god(s).
I have logic and reason that there aren't because there is no proof or even a preponderance of evidence that there are and certainly no proof that there is only one of them.


> Faith and reason/logic are not mutually exlusive concepts.


From the definition of faith -


> without proof or evidence
> when this is not based on reason


You have to use YOUR OWN definition of reason and logic to say that.
I'll never understand your guys argument on this. All I can come up with is you have some inner desire for it to be reasonable and logical because just faith doesn't sound good enough or something.
There is NO logic that gets you to god(s) based on the information we have now.
Therefore its not reasonable to believe it.
Thems the facts.


----------



## ambush80

Five pieces of evidence, real good unmistakable evidence that will lead necessarily to existence of god.  Just five.  Anyone?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Five pieces of evidence, real good unmistakable evidence that will lead necessarily to existence of god.  Just five.  Anyone?



Your qualifiers make it kind-a difficult to respond.  The best evidence is life.....but, that is clearly not unmistakeable, given your willingness to reject it and accept abiogenisis theories (which have even less claim to being evidence).


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Five pieces of evidence, real good unmistakable evidence that will lead necessarily to existence of god.  Just five.  Anyone?


I'll play. There is 1 and only 1 piece of evidence.
The Bible.
Every belief and thought and faith is derived from that.
Whether it is good evidence will be determined when the God of the Bible is proven to exist.


----------



## JB0704

Consider the bar you guys set for accepting scientific explanations compared to God oriented explanation.

Some dude sits in a chair, and imagines a way life can make itself.....evidence.  

Same dude sits in a chair, and determines there is zero evidence, ever, anywhere, of life creating itself....."nonsense, it couldn't be God."


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> What my faith tells me is that I am continually wrong about everything.
> I am as agnostic as the most screamingly proclaiming agnostic, as atheistic as the most screamingly loud atheist, as abysmally ignorant and mistaken about God from point A to point B to whatever may come next, as to be in the same boat as all.
> Oh, how I delighted in "But...you are the forgiven!" hating the "you all are forgiven"
> I am amazed that such a thing could hate God so much and live to even be corrected.
> Then I found out the very particular basis of my forgiveness "you don't know what you are doing".
> Maybe everybody else does...I sure don't...just watch me.





> as atheistic as the most screamingly loud atheist,


See you aren't wrong about everything because Christians were originally labeled as Atheists.


----------



## JB0704

Life requires life to create life, and sustain life.  You assume there is an answer beyond what we currently know that will exclude the possibility of a God, but evidence we have points convincingly to the fact that life does not creat itself from nothing.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Consider the bar you guys set for accepting scientific explanations compared to God oriented explanation.
> 
> Some dude sits in a chair, and imagines a way life can make itself.....evidence.
> 
> Same dude sits in a chair, and determines there is zero evidence, ever, anywhere, of life creating itself....."nonsense, it couldn't be God."





> "nonsense, it couldn't be God."


God would have to be proven to exist before you can claim there is evidence that he did something. No?


> Some dude sits in a chair, and imagines a way life can make itself.....evidence.


Its not evidence until there is..... well .... evidence that its not just a dude sitting in a chair day dreaming.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Some dude sits in a chair, and imagines a way life can make itself.....evidence.


 Uh no. That's not quite how it goes down. However, the thing about science is that being wrong, is o.k. One guy doesn't make the rules. Peers review and dissect trying to prove him wrong. Now, how does that compare with the religious community? It doesn't and folks have been hung for even questioning. 



> Same dude sits in a chair, and determines there is zero evidence, ever, anywhere, of life creating itself....."nonsense, it couldn't be God."



That's because there is a history of things attributed to God and are either proven to not work that way or described how they work. 
Of course then, the goal posts are moved until we reach something science can't explained and there is another ah ha moment from religion.
I don't have a problem with, "I don't know". Not sure why there has to be a God explanation for everything we don't know.
Patience grasshopper.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> 1. Your question
> 2. My wanting to answer
> 3. Knowing I can't, but do, anyway
> 4. I'm still here.
> 5. Are you?




Completely worthless to the discussion


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> God would have to be proven to exist before you can claim there is evidence that he did something. No?



As a concept, no.  We are looking at existence and asking "from where."



WaltL1 said:


> Its not evidence until there is..... well .... evidence that its not just a dude sitting in a chair day dreaming.



But, your (not specifically you) team's willingness to accept any natural explanation is always puzzling to me given the standar of proof you place on belief.

I am starting with what I know, and walking logically backwards.   I see no answer outside an original catalyst to what we have.

All the building blocks of life exist.  What are the odds of that?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Uh no. That's not quite how it goes down. However, the thing about science is that being wrong, is o.k. One guy doesn't make the rules. Peers review and dissect trying to prove him wrong. Now, how does that compare with the religious community? It doesn't and folks have been hung for even questioning.



Have you examined the abiogenesis theories which currently exist?



660griz said:


> That's because there is a history of things attributed to God and are either proven to not work that way or described how they work.
> Of course then, the goal posts are moved until we reach something science can't explained and there is another ah ha moment from religion.
> I don't have a problem with, "I don't know". Not sure why there has to be a God explanation for everything we don't know.
> Patience grasshopper.



Or, science explains How God does it.....it's just two ways of looking at the same thing.  If everything was created, the learning about everything (science) allows us to understand creation.

Is there a God in the sky dragging the sun across the horizon.......not exactly.  But, did a God build a universe containing properties and matter which would lead to a earth revolving perfectly around a sun?


----------



## JB0704

Or, another way to look at this:

Either life was created, or created itself.  Given what we know about life, which seems more logical?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Your qualifiers make it kind-a difficult to respond.  The best evidence is life.....but, that is clearly not unmistakeable, given your willingness to reject it and accept abiogenisis theories (which have even less claim to being evidence).



Could life have sprung up without a divine influence?  Not did it but could it?  You've read the article posted that showed how life is "inevitable" given the conditions?

I know you've tried to explain how in your mind that life is clear evidence of a creator.  Can we agree that the basis of your argument is the same as Willard in that you run the regression and instead of accepting the FACT that the regression simply has no apparent end you create an arbitrary end?

Why would you do that?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> All the building blocks of life exist.  What are the odds of that?



Speaking cosmologically, pretty good apparently. As far as it happening specifically on this one planet, and only this planet, at this one specific time, to give rise to this one species capable of analyzing it all, well that's constraining it unnecessarily, IMO. 

I don't think we would care if we orbited a different star on a different planet and were a different species, myself. 

The main problem is that we've only been really exploring the universe for an extremely short time, and the distances we can travel in that short time are laughably small compared to the universe at large. 

I have nothing to back this up other than random chance and odds played out in cosmological scales and quantities, but I think as we venture further and further out we're going be surprised how narrow our view of life really is in the universe. Even those of us who subscribe to the possibility of other life, I feel, are in for a shock.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Or, another way to look at this:
> 
> Either life was created, or created itself.  Given what we know about life, which seems more logical?



"Created itself" is a bit of a misrepresentation, IMO. 

The mountain doesn't create itself, it's a natural result from natural processes.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Or, another way to look at this:
> 
> Either life was created, or created itself.  Given what we know about life, which seems more logical?



Neither. 


> Life really is a form of chemistry, a particular form in which the chemicals can lead to their own reproduction. But the important thing, I think, is that when we think about the origin of life this way, it isn't that life is somehow different from the rest of the planet. Life is something that emerges on a developing planetary surface as part and parcel of the chemistry of that surface.


--Andy Knoll 
Also, look at Stanley Miller's experiment.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Or, another way to look at this:
> 
> Either life was created, or created itself.  Given what we know about life, which seems more logical?



Given what we know about life I think the best answer is "I don't know".


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> I have trouble with this logic.  Maybe I am different than most.......but, I am certain my faith in God has nothing to do with the heaven and he11 concepts.  Primarily, when I was very young, heaven seemed like a very sad place to me, and, it's almost impossible to wrap your mind around the idea of he11.
> 
> So, if my faith was based on the results, then I prolly would have ditched it several years back when I went through the inevitable questioning phase most go through.



I've asked the question before about believing in God if there was no Heaven or He!!. Now we all don't believe in a literal He!! and Heaven might be on the Earth, but  how does one explain salvation? Salvation from what?
I believe it is salvation from eternal death. 
Salvation gives us eternal life from this everlasting death.
Everlasting death is pretty self explanatory. You die when you die. 
Beyond that it's mostly speculation on what everlasting life means. I would assume it's spiritual and the soul resides somewhere. May it's physical too. Either way salvation is from death.
Many people feel salvation is from burning in He!! forever. That if there was no He!! they wouldn't see the point in salvation. They would be OK with everlasting death.
Many people believe in God, they just don't believe enough to care. 
In America many people believe in God. They just don't have salvation. I think it's two different things.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> As a concept, no.  We are looking at existence and asking "from where."
> 
> 
> 
> But, your (not specifically you) team's willingness to accept any natural explanation is always puzzling to me given the standar of proof you place on belief.
> 
> I am starting with what I know, and walking logically backwards.   I see no answer outside an original catalyst to what we have.
> 
> All the building blocks of life exist.  What are the odds of that?



When you hear a loud thump in the night or even the "sound of footsteps in the attic" do you assume ghost?  Do you think there are people that immediately assume ghost?  Why do you think they do that?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> You've read the article posted that showed how life is "inevitable" given the conditions?



Did you accept the basis of that article as fact?

That's my point.  We know of zero circumstance of life creating itself, nor have we proven that life can be created, yet, an article present a plausible theory, and that meets your bar........and somehow, I am not intellectually honest when I look at what we have, and what we know, and recognize that life does not come from nothing.



ambush80 said:


> I know you've tried to explain how in your mind that life is clear evidence of a creator.  Can we agree that the basis of your argument is the same as Willard in that you run the regression and instead of accepting the FACT that the regression simply has no apparent end you create an arbitrary end?
> 
> Why would you do that?



Honestly, I think I mostly avoided the Willard thread if I remember correctly.  I don't like assuming and defending another person's positions.

I don't add an end.  I do not believe life, matter, and energy are infinite, so there _must_ be an end.  The only alternative is infinite everything.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> When you hear a loud thump in the night or even the "sound of footsteps in the attic" do you assume ghost?  Do you think there are people that immediately assume ghost?  Why do you think they do that?



Thanks, remind me of all the weird noises in a house. Just rock me to sleep tonight why don't ya?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Do you think there are people that immediately assume ghost?  Why do you think they do that?



Prolly because they believe in ghosts.  I think my creaky old house is settling or the darn squirrels are at it again.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Have you examined the abiogenesis theories which currently exist?


 Some. Some are quite amusing. 




> Or, science explains How God does it.....


 Goal post moved.  Amazing how God's great work can be explained except for the virgin birth. Arc, flood, etc. Why can't natural laws be suspended now?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Given what we know about life I think the best answer is "I don't know".



But, I do know (as well as can be known at this time) that life never will be created from dead, inorganic matter.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thanks, remind me of all the weird noises in a house. Just rock me to sleep tonight why don't ya?



I "saw" an "apparition" in the hallway early this morning while I was half asleep, walking to the bathroom in the dark, after a particularly vivid dream......and without my glasses on.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Goal post moved.  Amazing how God's great work can be explained except for the virgin birth. Arc, flood, etc. Why can't natural laws be suspended now?



Now your discussing "which God."  From a logical perspective, shouldn't one start with "is God?"

I didn't put any goal posts in place to move.  I believe God exists.  My worldview is consitent with that.


----------



## Artfuldodger

660griz said:


> Without punishment / reward, there would be far less reasons to believe. Since punishment / reward is the reason to begin with.



Punishment is eternal death. 
Reward is everlasting life.

Other punishments and rewards exists and are promised.
I wonder to if there is a religion where there is just God and no punishements/rewards?
A religion where God isn't wrathful? A religion where people don't deserve wrath for just being born? (sin inheritance)
A religion where God is just the creator. A religion where God got the ball rolling and gives man total free will. Not just man but a religion where plants and animals have free will. Cancer and germs invade at their opportunity and not God's. A religion where if a man gets drunk and runs off the road it was because he was drunk.
A tree just dies from infection and randomly falls on my car. While I'm in it!
Weird huh?


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> But, I do know (as well as can be known at this time) .



Should they stop trying?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Neither.
> --Andy Knoll
> Also, look at Stanley Miller's experiment.



That's my point.  Andy Knoll says it, and you are willing to accept it in cotrast to what we know to be true.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Should they stop trying?



Absolutely not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I "saw" an "apparition" in the hallway early this morning while I was half asleep, walking to the bathroom in the dark, after a particularly vivid dream......and without my glasses on.



Make sure you get a webcam and set it to record. That's worth a lot of money, maybe.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Now your discussing "which God."  From a logical perspective, shouldn't one start with "is God?"
> 
> I didn't put any goal posts in place to move.  I believe God exists.  My worldview is consitent with that.



Nope. Just examples. Pick any God, and I can give other examples. 
Now, if you are saying that you came to the conclusion about God without any ancient text or indoctrination then please let me know and I'll try to keep to that level.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> As a concept, no.  We are looking at existence and asking "from where."
> 
> 
> 
> But, your (not specifically you) team's willingness to accept any natural explanation is always puzzling to me given the standar of proof you place on belief.
> 
> I am starting with what I know, and walking logically backwards.   I see no answer outside an original catalyst to what we have.
> 
> All the building blocks of life exist.  What are the odds of that?





> As a concept, no.  We are looking at existence and asking "from where."


You just changed the rules. A concept doesn't need evidence or anything else to be a concept. You just have to conceptualize it. See my point about the dude sitting in the chair.


> But, your (not specifically you) team's willingness to accept any natural explanation is always puzzling to me given the standard of proof you place on belief.


I can agree with some of your point.
But I disagree with "any" natural explanation. But if there is no proof of God doing it what else is left besides a natural explanation?
Even among Christian research, the focus isnt on proving God, its focused on proving the Bible being accurate by trying to find ruins of places etc mentioned in the Bible.


> I see no answer outside an original catalyst to what we have.


Yup had to be something.


> All the building blocks of life exist.  What are the odds of that?


Well here we are so the odds aren't zero.
What are the odds that God existed in nothingness and was created by no one or nothing?


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> That's my point.  Andy Knoll says it, and you are willing to accept it in cotrast to what we know to be true.



The point is we don't KNOW it to be true. We just don't know.
I didn't accept anything he said. I thought it was interesting is all. I like when folks put effort into a position rather than just God did it. 
There is no way I am going to lay responsibility to a mythical being just because I don't know something.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> This thread has exceeded 1K.......dang shame too.  Starting to get fun.



Did we get a waiver?


----------



## JB0704

I hope y'all understand that I'm not trying to convince anybody there is a God.  The point I am making is that a conclusion that God exists does not equal a lack of logic.......and a conclusion that there is no God is not intellectually superior.

I have said on here about 100 x's that I believe the most intellectually honest position is an agnostic.  Everybody else is making a conclusion beyond the proveable using only the knowable.  Knowing that, I am still a believer.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Did you accept the basis of that article as fact?
> 
> That's my point.  We know of zero circumstance of life creating itself, nor have we proven that life can be created, yet, an article present a plausible theory, and that meets your bar........and somehow, I am not intellectually honest when I look at what we have, and what we know, and recognize that life does not come from nothing.



Of course I don't consider it a fact. I have no bar to be met.  I have entertained creation myths.  What would you say to me if I conluded that The raven stole the moon from Father wolf and swallowed it and the resulting rainbow that shot out from his bottom created all the Mid-Earth and its inhabitants?  

What if I really, REALLY believed that?  Would you tell me that I might be mistaken?



JB0704 said:


> Honestly, I think I mostly avoided the Willard thread if I remember correctly.  I don't like assuming and defending another person's positions.
> 
> I don't add an end.  I do not believe life, matter, and energy are infinite, so there _must_ be an end.  The only alternative is infinite everything.



He's on your side and follows your same thinking and thus comes to the same conclusion.  There must have been an eternal "agent" that caused things, further more the agent is a guy and this guy loves us.  It says so in a book.

But it had to be an "agent", now.  No other way around it.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> .....please let me know and I'll try to keep to that level.



Every discussion I ever have on this particular sub forum is on that level.  I don't bring the Bible into it.  I think my logic is pretty firm.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> The point is we don't KNOW it to be true. We just don't know.



But, aren't aetheist?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Make sure you get a webcam and set it to record. That's worth a lot of money, maybe.



Only I can see him, brother.  You gotta getcher own "knowin".


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> Did we get a waiver?



It looks that way


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I hope y'all understand that I'm not trying to convince anybody there is a God.  The point I am making is that a conclusion that God exists does not equal a lack of logic.......and a conclusion that there is no God is not intellectually superior.
> 
> I have said on here about 100 x's that I believe the most intellectually honest position is an agnostic.  Everybody else is making a conclusion beyond the proveable using only the knowable.  Knowing that, I am still a believer.



So you don't care about being intellectually honest for yourself?


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Did we get a waiver?


We should. It actually consists of about 10 different subjects so I think 10,000 posts should be the cut off


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Did we get a waiver?



I dunno, seems that way. Maybe they manually kill the WWT's at 1000 in the campfire. 



ambush80 said:


> Only I can see him, brother.  You gotta getcher own "knowin".



I have faith in your testimony.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Of course I don't consider it a fact. I have no bar to be met.  I have entertained creation myths.  What would you say to me if I conluded that The raven stole the moon from Father wolf and swallowed it and the resulting rainbow that shot out from his bottom created all the Mid-Earth and its inhabitants?
> 
> What if I really, REALLY believed that?  Would you tell em that I might be mistaken?



How did the raven and the father wolf exist?  Organically, or spiritually?  If the latter, then we are asking "which God."  If the former, we are still searching for the beginning.



ambush80 said:


> But it had to be an "agent", now.  No other way around it.



I believe that.  I also believe it is relatively sound from a logical perspective.  The rest, the love, and all that, is a different topic, I think.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> We should. It actually consists of about 10 different subjects so I think 10,000 posts should be the cut off


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I dunno, seems that way. Maybe they manually kill the WWT's at 1000 in the campfire.



I am 99% certain threads are manually killed at 1K.  The UB's usually run a little over before somebody catches it.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Every discussion I ever have on this particular sub forum is on that level.  I don't bring the Bible into it.  I think my logic is pretty firm.




I disagree.  When you say "it MUST be caused by an outside agent".


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I disagree.  When you say "it MUST be caused by an outside agent".



I do not see the logical possibility of an option C.  Either everything is infinite, or, everything has an original cause.

Given that I do not believe, nor can we demnonstrate the possibility of everything "poofed" itself, it leads to the conclusion that it was all "poofed."  Or....It just always was.  To me, that makes even less sense, particularly given the cyclical nature of things, from beginning to end, as well as the interdependency of everything.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I do not see the logical possibility of an option C.  Either everything is infinite, or, everything has an original cause.
> 
> Given that I do not believe, nor can we demnonstrate the possibility of everything "poofed" itself, it leads to the conclusion that it was all "poofed."  Or....It just always was.  To me, that makes even less sense, particularly given the cyclical nature of things, from beginning to end, as well as the interdependency of everything.





> Given that I do not believe, nor can we demnonstrate the possibility of everything "poofed" itself, it leads to the conclusion that it was all "poofed."


True but consider where we are today in our knowledge compared to just 100 years ago. Now fast forward another 100 or 500.....
It would be interesting to see what the effect will be if and when the "poof" is actually found out.
Either there is going to be no A/As or lots of empty churches.
Seriously though what a major impact on society and the human race it will be.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> How did the raven and the father wolf exist?  Organically, or spiritually?  If the latter, then we are asking "which God."  If the former, we are still searching for the beginning.



In order to make my creation myth compatible with logic I must _ASSUME_ that they are supernatural and not subject to reality but they are real. 



JB0704 said:


> I believe that.  I also believe it is relatively sound from a logical perspective.  The rest, the love, and all that, is a different topic, I think.



It's slightly a different topic but if you claim to know that there is a "guy" and then claim to know what he's about then they're tied together; your ability to determine a god and then what he is like.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I do not see the logical possibility of an option C.  Either everything is infinite, or, everything has an original cause.
> 
> Given that I do not believe, nor can we demnonstrate the possibility of everything "poofed" itself, it leads to the conclusion that it was all "poofed."  Or....It just always was.  To me, that makes even less sense, particularly given the cyclical nature of things, from beginning to end, as well as the interdependency of everything.



Option C is that we don't know what happened and that's as solid as it gets.

I sense that you think we would prefer any other explanation besides god.  Well, when it comes to ghosties and demons ( I suppose I'm putting god in that category too) I will exhaust all the natural explanations first.  Is that illogical?



WaltL1 said:


> True but consider where we are today in our knowledge compared to just 100 years ago. Now fast forward another 100 or 500.....
> It would be interesting to see what the effect will be if and when the "poof" is actually found out.
> Either there is going to be no A/As or lots of empty churches.
> Seriously though what a major impact on society and the human race it will be.



Even before then I see people becoming more comfortable with "not knowing" and that should lead people away from superstition as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> At the end of the 2nd century Christianity had begun to blend Greek philosophy —human speculative reasoning, with the teachings of God’s Word.  [/COLOR]



The evolution of Christianity would make a great subject to study. We had the Protestant Reformation as an example. Another one was the Great Awakening And Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment actually began in Europe and it reached colonial America more than a century later. In Europe, the Enlightenment was responsible for inspiring revived interests in education, science and literature. The advocates of this movement stressed the power of humans to reason so as to promote progress. Some clergy also ended up adopting liberal theology that is known as Rational Christianity. Here the belief was that God gave salvation to everyone and not just a chosen group. The followers of this credence believed that God’s greatest gift to mankind was reason which allowed people to follow the moral teachings of Jesus.

http://www.historyrocket.com/Americ...ng-And-Enlightenment-In-Colonial-America.html


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Option C is that we don't know what happened and that's as solid as it gets.
> 
> I sense that you think we would prefer any other explanation besides god.  Well, when it comes to ghosties and demons ( I suppose I'm putting god in that category too) I will exhaust all the natural explanations first.  Is that illogical?
> 
> 
> 
> Even before then I see people becoming more comfortable with "not knowing".


The worst thing is going to be we wont be able to get into the Waffle House on Sunday morning before the church crowd shows up.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> In order to make my creation myth compatible with logic I must _ASSUME_ that they are supernatural and not subject to reality but they are real.



Then, aren't you just puttnig a face to the concept?



ambush80 said:


> It's slightly a different topic but if you claim to know that there is a "guy" and then claim to know what he's about then they're tied together; your ability to determine a god and then what he is like.



I see the two as seperate.   I can logically debate why I believe a God exists.  I can't do the same for my Chrisitan faith.  I can only give you my reasons why I accept this version over that.


----------



## Huntinfool

> It would be interesting to see what the effect will be if and when the "poof" is actually found out.



According to Revelation, it's going to be a heck of a lot louder than "poof".


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> According to Revelation, it's going to be a heck of a lot louder than "poof".



Explain how God took a rib from Adam to make Eve and we still have the same number of ribs.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> The worst thing is going to be we wont be able to get into the Waffle House on Sunday morning before the church crowd shows up.



The good thing is Chik Fil A may open on Sundays.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> Explain how God took a rib from Adam to make Eve and we still have the same number of ribs.



Well, I wasn't actually there.  But I assume he didn't use a scalpel (since he's God and all).  Bible says he opened up Adam, took a rib out and made Eve.

Seeing as he just created the earth, sun, stars and pretty much everything else....we have to make the assumption that taking a rib out of Adam was probably not the hardest thing God had done in that previous few days.


Let me ask you this.....if your appendix acts up and a surgeon removes it....do you believe that your children born after that will be born without an appendix?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Then, aren't you just puttnig a face to the concept?



Aren't you?  Can you think of your uncaused cause as something without an intent?  Without a personality?


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Well, I wasn't actually there.  But I assume he didn't use a scalpel (since he's God and all).  Bible says he opened up Adam, took a rib out and made Eve.
> 
> Seeing as he just created the earth, sun, stars and pretty much everything else....we have to make the assumption that taking a rib out of Adam was probably not the hardest thing God had done in that previous few days.
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this.....if your appendix acts up and a surgeon removes it....do you believe that your children born after that will be born without an appendix?



Does it surprise you that aliens that abduct people are often described as using "knives" and "needles"?  

Why do you think abductees would say that?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Aren't you?  Can you think of your uncaused cause as something without an intent?  Without a personality?



Yes.  But, then I look at the universe and think it would have to have been a seriously lucky uncaused cause to not have intent.  Too much perfection and inter-dependency going on to think it all just sort-a happened that way.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> The evolution of Christianity would make a great subject to study. We had the Protestant Reformation as an example. Another one was the Great Awakening And Enlightenment.
> 
> The Enlightenment actually began in Europe and it reached colonial America more than a century later. In Europe, the Enlightenment was responsible for inspiring revived interests in education, science and literature. The advocates of this movement stressed the power of humans to reason so as to promote progress. Some clergy also ended up adopting liberal theology that is known as Rational Christianity. Here the belief was that God gave salvation to everyone and not just a chosen group. The followers of this credence believed that God’s greatest gift to mankind was reason which allowed people to follow the moral teachings of Jesus.
> 
> http://www.historyrocket.com/Americ...ng-And-Enlightenment-In-Colonial-America.html


Yup its interesting how Christianity came to be what it is today by assimilating other beliefs from other religions and cultures. I don't think the average person/Christian has any idea that alot what they believe today actually originated outside of the "original" Christianity.
Its a major reason Christianity is as large and influential as it is today. 
Its a actually a buffet of beliefs rolled into one.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Well, I wasn't actually there.  But I assume he didn't use a scalpel (since he's God and all).  Bible says he opened up Adam, took a rib out and made Eve.



You didn't answer. Why do we still have the same number of ribs as woman?

How can a God create something from nothing...except for women, and other things? Why didn't he just poof an eve?


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Let me ask you this.....if your appendix acts up and a surgeon removes it....do you believe that your children born after that will be born without an appendix?



Of course not. I believe if the appendix proves useless that it will eventually go away. Just like our tails.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> The good thing is Chik Fil A may open on Sundays.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Too much perfection and inter-dependency going on to think it all just sort-a happened that way.



So, God created earth just for us except only a small percentage of it is inhabitable by humans and the vast majority being inhabitable by fish. Perfect?


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> You didn't answer. Why do we still have the same number of ribs as woman?
> 
> How can a God create something from nothing...except for women, and other things? Why didn't he just poof an eve?



Tell me, did you read my question about your appendix or are you just choosing not to answer it?



There is nothing in that story that implies that God couldn't have created Eve in a different manner.  It simply describes the way he did it.

I don't know why he didn't just 'poof' Eve.  Probably because he didn't 'poof' Adam.  It probably has something to do with what Adam said immediately afterward about being flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone....a connection.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that men have one less rib than women.  It actually doesn't say that Adam had one less than Eve (wrap your head around that one!).

Clearly I'm missing the point you're trying to make.  Wanna just skip ahead and tell me the "gotcha"?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> So, God created earth just for us except only a small percentage of it is inhabitable by humans and the vast majority being inhabitable by fish. Perfect?



It seems to work out ok for people and fish, and monkeys, and birds.......


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Tell me, did you read my question about your appendix or are you just choosing not to answer it?


 I did. You didn't read my response.




> Nowhere in the Bible does it say that men have one less rib than women.  It actually doesn't say that Adam had one less than Eve (wrap your head around that one!).


 I never said the bible indicated rib numbers. I was asking if God took one, why do men and women have the same number still?


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> According to Revelation, it's going to be a heck of a lot louder than "poof".


According to a lot of you guys that particular "poof" already happened.
Its tough to know who to believe any more that's why Im one of those "gotta see it for myself" kind of guys.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> It seems to work out ok for people and fish, and monkeys, and birds.......



You think so. Hmmmm. So, overpopulation, disease, clean water, and starvation are not an issue? Good to know.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Clearly I'm missing the point you're trying to make.  Wanna just skip ahead and tell me the "gotcha"?



Sure. There is no God. The bible is a bunch of fairy tales.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> I did. You didn't read my response.
> 
> 
> I never said the bible indicated rib numbers. I was asking if God took one, why do men and women have the same number still?


Probably got tired of hearing women complaining that they had to carry around an extra rib so God evened up the score.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> I did. You didn't read my response.
> 
> 
> I never said the bible indicated rib numbers. I was asking if God took one, why do men and women have the same number still?



You're not getting it.  God took a rib from Adam after he was created.  Why do you think that, somehow, indicates that men should have a different number of ribs than women?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> You think so. Hmmmm. So, overpopulation, disease, clean water, and starvation are not an issue? Good to know.



The whole circle of life thing is relatively efficient, I do believe.  Humans generally tamper with it and disrupt the natural order.  Which is also odd if you consider us as also natural.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> Sure. There is no God. The bible is a bunch of fairy tales.



AHH MAN!!!!!!

We've gone through 1100 posts and NOW you tell me????

Owned!  You win.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Probably got tired of hearing women complaining that they had to carry around an extra rib so God evened up the score.



I heard the original design of the woman was much better but, it was gonna cost Adam an arm and a leg. 
He said, "What can I get for a rib?"


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, then I look at the universe and think it would have to have been a seriously lucky uncaused cause to not have intent.  Too much perfection and inter-dependency going on to think it all just sort-a happened that way.




Do you realize that this is the Irreducible Complexity argument?  Have you seen it refuted?


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> You're not getting it.  God took a rib from Adam after he was created.  Why do you think that, somehow, indicates that men should have a different number of ribs than women?



Math. Sorry, he probably hadn't created math yet.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> The whole circle of life thing is relatively efficient, I do believe.  Humans generally tamper with it and disrupt the natural order.  Which is also odd if you consider us as also natural.



They just doing God's work. Go forth and multiply.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Do you realize that this is the Irreducible Complexity argument?  Have you seen it refuted?



Everything, even you, can only be broken down so far.  

Then what?


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> Math. Sorry, he probably hadn't created math yet.



Ok....let's step back.


What is it about the story of the rib that you have an issue with?  Can you explain that in your best "non-Israel" post for me?

What, logically, do you see as inconsistent (outside of the fact that you just plain don't believe any of the story)?

Do you think that, if the story is true, men should exhibit one less rib than women?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Everything, even you, can only be broken down so far.
> 
> Then what?


Divorce.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Everything, even you, can only be broken down so far.
> 
> Then what?



Insert god?  Nah.  That's lazy.

Anyway, that's not the irreducible complexity argument.


----------



## JB0704

I've seen irreducibly complex refuted by explaining that things are made of lesser things.

Let start with particles, and the little protons/electrons that form the bonds to create different elements......


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Divorce.



I've had one of those too


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> I've had one of those too



sinner.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> sinner.



Oh man......we could add topic #11 to this thread now  ......where's my "scarlet D" avatar....


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> sinner.


It was probably he11 either way


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I've seen irreducibly complex refuted by explaining that things are made of lesser things.
> 
> Let start with particles, and the little protons/electrons that form the bonds to create different elements......



Yeah, lets do that and at the end we will both come to "I don't know how that works" but one of us will say "It must be god." and that will be incorrect as it can be.

Not that god doesn't exist, necessarily, but that your/our ignorance of how it works is somehow proof, logically or otherwise of a god(s) is too big a leap.


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> Oh man......we could add topic #11 to this thread now  ......where's my "scarlet D" avatar....



I do so miss that "D".


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Do you think that, if the story is true, men should exhibit one less rib than women?



Well, yeah.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I do so miss that "D".


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Well, yeah.




If god is who they say he is, does he have to follow logic?  

Just a little Devil's advocate for advocates of the Devil.


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> Well, yeah.



I think your 'powers of deduction' button has been turned off today for some reason.

Adam was created.  God took a rib out of him and closed him up.

It no more implies that his offspring were born with the same number of "post-op" ribs than my story about your appendix.  

Having something surgically removed does not change the genetics you pass on to your children.  Of all the perceived in consistencies you could choose to pick out.....THIS is what you're hanging your hat on?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Yeah, lets do that and at the end we will both come to "I don't know how that works" but one of us will say "It must be god." and that will be incorrect as it can be.
> 
> Not that god doesn't exist, necessarily, but that your/our ignorance of how it works is somehow proof, logically or otherwise of a god(s) is too big a leap.



It all depends on how you look at it.  I tend to see assembly as an act of creation.  Particularly an assembly which has all the necessary parts......how many different things (particles, etc) are necessary for life?  What if one was missing?  What if one of the bonds formed by the different particles just didn't work out......then, we would have nothing.

So, I see evidence of a creator, given that things seem to work together in order to create.  The more we discover, the more we break it down, the more evident it seems to be.


----------



## JB0704

Anybody who has ever assembled a cheap deer stand knows how frustrating it is when one of the little pieces is missing........


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> I think your 'powers of deduction' button has been turned off today for some reason.


 



> It no more implies that his offspring were born with the same number of "post-op" ribs than my story about your appendix.


 I got it. I didn't know God had to abide by such things. 
Plus, it was Christians that were originally believing that man had on less rib.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> It all depends on how you look at it.  I tend to see assembly as an act of creation.  Particularly an assembly which has all the necessary parts......how many different things (particles, etc) are necessary for life?  What if one was missing?  What if one of the bonds formed by the different particles just didn't work out......then, we would have nothing.
> 
> So, I see evidence of a creator, given that things seem to work together in order to create.  The more we discover, the more we break it down, the more evident it seems to be.



Then there would be" something else".  

From all the discussions we've had I interpret that what you're really after is to feel important and special.  Don't let that impulse drive your eargerness to throw in magic.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> If god is who they say he is, does he have to follow logic?
> 
> Just a little Devil's advocate for advocates of the Devil.



No. Or the woman would have been made from dust too.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Anybody who has ever assembled a cheap deer stand knows how frustrating it is when one of the little pieces is missing........



Certain elements like to form bonds.  Where is the evidence of god there?


----------



## Huntinfool

660griz said:


> I got it. I didn't know God had to abide by such things.
> Plus, it was Christians that were originally believing that man had on less rib.



I think it's pretty well been confirmed that men and women both normally have an equal number of ribs.  Science and all.

I suppose you could say that this is a case where science confirms the Bible.  


Just repeat after me:  Man HF, my bad.  You're right.  I tried to make a case that wasn't there.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Then there would be" something else".



I'm not a physicist, but, if I remember correctly, everything requires some kind-of binder to hold together, and this is a product of the type of bond it has (positive/negative charge).

What would be without either, or just one type of charge?

My point is, natural law, and everything we know to be true, is what it is "just because" if there is no acting agent.  Take anything you are aware of, and determine whether or not it seems logical for it to be there "just because."



ambush80 said:


> From all the discussions we've had I interpret that what you're really after is to feel important and special.  Don't let that impulse drive your eargerness to throw in magic.





We are discussing a believers logical basis for believing.  I won't be dismissive of your desire to be intellectually honest if you won't dismiss my faith.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> No. Or the woman would have been made from dust too.




So say you.  I'm tired of the arguments that god should have done something this way or that or that he shouldn't have done so and so.

If he exists like they say he does, particularly like they say he does, then I don't put anything passed him.  I can make judgements on things that he is supposed to have done and say "that's irrational" or "that's the act of a homicidal lunatic".  I can even take a side on whether or not he can make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it.  But it's all useless because none of it can be proven and in fact much of it contradicts reason.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Certain elements like to form bonds.  Where is the evidence of god there?



.....



ambush80 said:


> Certain elements like to form bonds.



Why?  And, isn't it cool how the entire universe's existence is because of that.....dependency.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I can even take a side on whether or not he can make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it.



^^^^ funny spin on the heavy rock question.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I'm not a physicist, but, if I remember correctly, everything requires some kind-of binder to hold together, and this is a product of the type of bond it has (positive/negative charge).
> 
> What would be without either, or just one type of charge?
> 
> My point is, natural law, and everything we know to be true, is what it is "just because" if there is no acting agent.  Take anything you are aware of, and determine whether or not it seems logical for it to be there "just because."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing a believers logical basis for believing.  I won't be dismissive of your desire to be intellectually honest if you won't dismiss my faith.



I know what we're talking about.   I don't know why rocks are here.  As far as I can tell, without performing some philosophical and metaphysical loopdy loops, they are here "just because".  You have assigned meaning to them that isn't there.  That's what I was getting at with the comment on faith.  

Sam Harris said "If my reasons are good enough, you will helplessly believe".  Make your reasons good enough that there is a purpose for a rock existing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> .....
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  And, isn't it cool how the entire universe's existence is because of that.....dependency.



Ionization and the attractive nature of dislike polarities.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> .....
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  And, isn't it cool how the entire universe's existence is because of that.....dependency.




Yeah.  It's way cool.  But still not evidence of a creator......necessarily.  You believe that because you want to.  I won't dabble in anymore psychological profiling as to why that may be.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I know what we're talking about.   I don't know why rocks are here.  As far as I can tell, without performing some philosophical and metaphysical loopdy loops, they are here "just because".  You have assigned meaning to them that isn't there.  That's what I was getting at with the comment on faith.



The meaning they are there is because they were formed by the bonds that hold them together.  In many ways, you are held together the same way.  The entire universe is.

How it's a logical loopdy loop to think everything required to hold anything together to create everything we know was an act of assembly is beyond me.



ambush80 said:


> Make your reasons good enough that there is a purpose for a rock existing.



I'm looking at the rock and seeing two things.  First, it will never be alive.  Second, it's an assembly of much, much smaller pieces.  

If it and I got here the same way, why is the first true?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> You believe that because you want to.  I won't dabble in anymore psychological profiling as to why that may be.



To do so you would have to assume you have found an answer I have missed or am not capable of finding.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> The meaning they are there is because they were formed by the bonds that hold them together.  In many ways, you are held together the same way.  The entire universe is.
> 
> How it's a logical loopdy loop to think everything required to hold anything together to create everything we know was an act of assembly is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking at the rock and seeing two things.  First, it will never be alive.  Second, it's an assembly of much, much smaller pieces.
> 
> If it and I got here the same way, why is the first true?



You're gonna have to explain that to me in more detail.

Your particles were influenced by different forces than that of the rock and if they had been a little more different then you would be a salamander or a piece of iron ore.  Where's the magic in that?  

I don't think you grasp how much we don't know about how things are put together.  It's simply too early to assume an assembler.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> To do so you would have to assume you have found an answer I have missed or am not capable of finding.




It's actually more like a non-answer.  "I don't know".  It appears to be a position that you're incapable of adopting.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> You're gonna have to explain that to me in more detail.



A very basic explanation of what I'm getting to:

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistrystudentfaqs/f/bondtypes.htm


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> It's actually more like a non-answer.  "I don't know".  It appears to be a position that you're incapable of adopting.





Is it superior to a person looking at a thing, and believing the thing was assembled?

There are plenty of things that I don't know Ambush.  I just disagree that you have found the best possible answer to the "great question."


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Is it superior to a person looking at a thing, and believing the thing was assembled?
> 
> There are plenty of things that I don't know Ambush.  I just disagree that you have found the best possible answer to the "great question."



With the little amount of evidence that we have about how things came into being I think that is the more intellectually honest answer to say "I don't know if that's design or not".   I think we honor intellectual honesty in similar ways.  I know that it's important to you.  

The only answer to the great question has to be, from where we are now," I don't know".  That's not a value judgement.

Have you ever seen the movie _The God's Must Be Crazy_?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever seen the movie _The God's Must Be Crazy_?



A very long time ago.  I honestly don't remember much about it.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> Just repeat after me:  Man HF, my bad.  You're right.  I tried to make a case that wasn't there.



Well, not with you.
I was just following in the footsteps.
http://www.creationtips.com/ribs.html

Didn't realize you were one of THOSE type Christians. 

There is plenty of cases to make with the bible, I don't need to focus on that one since you are not one of the less rib believers.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> A very long time ago.  I honestly don't remember much about it.




....The tribe in Africa that finds a Coke bottle?   

Anyway, do you see any parallels between how lightning was attributed to god(s) and present day man attributing covalent bonds to god(s)?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> ....The tribe in Africa that finds a Coke bottle?



I do remember the coke bottle.



ambush80 said:


> ....Anyway, do you see any parallels between how lightning was attributed to god(s) and present day man attributing covalent bonds to god(s)?



I see the parallel.  But, I am not ruling out lightning either.   It's all part of it.  Sceince explains why we have lightning, and how it happens.  That does not mean that God did not create the nature which creates the atmosphere which caused the lightning.  I see it as an understanding of how more than why.  Just like rocks.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I do remember the coke bottle.
> 
> 
> 
> I see the parallel.  But, I am not ruling out lightning either.   It's all part of it.  Sceince explains why we have lightning, and how it happens.  That does not mean that God did not create the nature which creates the atmosphere which caused the lightning.  I see it as an understanding of how more than why.  Just like rocks.


 

And when science says "We don't know what happened before the Big Bang" _reason_ necessarily points to god?  

Which of these statements is absolutely true?

"God for certain caused the Big Bang".
"No one knows for certain what happened before the Big Bang".

Which one is absolutely true for all people on the Earth.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> And when science says "We don't know what happened before the Big Bang" _reason_ necessarily points to god?
> 
> Which of these statements is absolutely true?
> 
> "God for certain caused the Big Bang".
> "No one knows for certain what happened before the Big Bang".
> 
> Which one is absolutely true for all people on the Earth.



Good luck. If he answered this question the way you'd like him to, this forum wouldn't exist.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Good luck. If he answered this question the way you'd like him to, this forum wouldn't exist.



I'd like to see everyone admit that they don't _really_ know what happened before the Big Bang.  

That would be progress. 

If everyone were to do that we would still be able to talk about why someone would prefer to think that they know what happened before the BB from either side of the issue.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I'd like to see everyone admit that they don't _really_ know what happened before the Big Bang.
> 
> That would be progress.
> 
> If everyone were to do that we would still be able to talk about why someone would prefer to think that they know what happened before the BB.



To be fair, the BB is just science's current best fit model right now. It could change tomorrow. 

A better way to say that would be that we don't know how any of this was created, but we have some very good theories.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To be fair, the BB is just science's current best fit model right now. It could change tomorrow.
> 
> A better way to say that would be that we don't know how any of this was created, but we have some very good theories.



I can go along with that.  No one was there.  No one knows exactly how the universe was created.

If you'll include the theory that "God said...", then we can have a discussion.  

No one will EVER prove what happened at time zero.  It's not humanly possible unless somebody invents a time machine.

All we can do is look at the evidence and move toward the idea that the evidence seems to best support.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> I'd like to see everyone admit that they don't _really_ know what happened before the Big Bang.



I don't know what happened before the big bang.

I also don't know why my dog barks at folks on tv that are moving in slow motion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> I can go along with that.  No one was there.  No one knows exactly how the universe was created.
> 
> If you'll include the theory that "God said...", then we can have a discussion.
> 
> No one will EVER prove what happened at time zero.  It's not humanly possible unless somebody invents a time machine.
> 
> All we can do is look at the evidence and move toward the idea that the evidence seems to best support.



I do include the possibility that "God said..." but it's not on par with scientific theory. 



> A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.



Just calling a spade a spade here, but God falls way short of this definition of theory.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> If you'll include the theory that "God said...", then we can have a discussion.



Happens all the time.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...efore-super-bowl-performance/?intcmp=features


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I can go along with that.  No one was there.  No one knows exactly how the universe was created.
> 
> If you'll include the theory that "God said...", then we can have a discussion.
> 
> No one will EVER prove what happened at time zero.  It's not humanly possible unless somebody invents a time machine.
> 
> All we can do is look at the evidence and move toward the idea that the evidence seems to best support.



Basically this ^^^^


----------



## stringmusic

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I do include the possibility that "God said..." but it's not on par with scientific theory.


That's because it's a _scientific_ theory.



> Just calling a spade a spade here, but God falls way short of this definition of theory.


That's because it's a _scientific_ theory.


----------



## stringmusic

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To be fair, the BB is just science's current best fit model right now. It could change tomorrow.
> 
> A better way to say that would be that we don't know how any of this was created, but we have some very good theories.



Based on your post I quoted above, you seem to indicate that only scientific theories are worth noting?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Based on your post I quoted above, you seem to indicate that only scientific theories are worth noting?




Where else should one look for information about how the world works or that better describes what is actually going on in nature?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Either God is or he ain't.  I see punishment / reward as irrelevant to the fact.
> 
> Would you believe more if there were no idea of he11?  Why would I believe less if there were no idea of heaven?



Either God is or he isn't...I can go along with that.

The idea of h3ll is a tool for organized religion to keep people in line so to speak. It might be more to get people into church than into Heaven.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> I'll simply say this in response.  I have yet to read the story of a martyr who willingly went to his death because he refused to renounce the existence of jolly old Saint Nick.


All Martyr's prove is that people are willing to die for what they believe.



Huntinfool said:


> Martyrs are not proof of a god.  They are proof that faith in a deity and a belief that Santa Clause is the person responsible for the gifts are entirely different concepts and, as I said, is the oldest of most tired of the comparisons that are made.


It must be a CLOSE finish of old tired comparisons with Martyrs hitting the finish line about .001 later.
You know for a fact we have discussed these "martyrs" in here before. 
Unless you have come up with a new list of names the tired old disciples as martyrs argument has been proven to be nothing more than legend and folklore with some of them dying MULTIPLE times!!! In MULTIPLE ways!!!
Many people died or were killed. VERY FEW actually were purposely killed for being Christian...they just happened to be Christians.
It is like saying a drive by mall shooting that killed two innocent people happened specifically because they were Christians... or of Irish Decent....or because they were Dallas Cowboy fans. All that MAY have some truth to it...but they are not the reasons they were killed!



Huntinfool said:


> There is no rational adult testimony that Santa exists; no historical texts that seem to substantiate the version of him that delivers presents all over the world.  There are no martyrs who met horrifying deaths in defense of the fat guy, and there are no people anywhere who grew up without believing in Santa, but were suddenly convinced of his existence as adults.  Faith does not, necessarily imply blind faith.  Believers in a god look at the evidence and conclude there is no Santa.  Many also look at the evidence and conclude that there is a god.


Most of that is not true for your God either.
And there are multiple reasons that were given why Adults believe in a God and those reasons picked up where the Santa beliefs left off as children got older.



Huntinfool said:


> I will grant you that there are likely millions of believers in a god all over the world whose response to "Why do you believe?" is "Because my daddy told me so".  There is no argument against that.  That, IMO, is 100% true and factual.  However, there are also millions whose answer is "Because I've examined the evidence and it confirms my faith."


I gave you multiple reasons besides "My Daddy told me so" but you only seem to use the one that you think makes your best case.
 "evidence" ? Like a sunrise? Pic of Jesus in toast? Prayer answered when there was a 50/50 chance of one outcome or the other happening? Medical miracles that happen all over the world to believers in every religion?



Huntinfool said:


> There are also children all over the world who grow up in atheist homes.  Guess what....they generally believe there is no god (shocker).


Don't tell me you are using the "My Daddy told me defense"??


Huntinfool said:


> Somehow, the first example is viewed as indoctrination into a lie and the second is not held to the same standard.  It is viewed as raising them with the truth or (even less honest) letting them "find their own truth" (whatever that means).


Each are equally their own indoctrination.
But I have three Boys...well Young Men.
Two graduated from Catholic High School and One of those taught at a Catholic Grade school for 2 years.
Yeah, you better believe it, letting them find their own truth is not a bad thing.



Huntinfool said:


> To answer your last question, no, I am not making the case that the fact that intelligent people believe in a god is proof of the existence of a god.  I am making the case that you cannot use the belief in god to prove that believers are not thinkers or to attack their capacity to see beyond what their parents told them.  Brilliant people throughout all of human existence prove that wrong.


But I never made the point that believers are not thinkers..You said it AS IF I Did!

I gave multiple reasons other than "what their parents told them" ..YOU just keep bringing that one up and ignoring all the others to which you cannot counter.

Brilliant people throughout all of human existence prove nothing wrong. Brilliance has nothing to do with it!  That is why I gave you many other reasons and examples of why Brilliant people do things that do not require the use of Brilliance... Or use Brilliance to do negative or bad things!
Brilliance does not make everything a person does "right"!
Lots of "brilliant" people embezzle old folks out of their life savings.
Lots of brilliant people do drugs.
Lots of brilliant people are alcoholics.
Smart guys smack their wives around. What does that prove?
People with 140+IQs are in Prison.
Lots of "thinkers" are in inner city gangs and are sleeping around on their spouses and are scamming the elderly on the phones....
You are using "Brilliance" like you use "Christians" for martyrs. They do their actions and are the result of actions no matter if they are Smart or Christian...it just so happens they might be one or the other or both.

Using your logic What does it say for the Christian with a 157 IQ that diddles kids?
***ADDED THOUGHT****
What if the 157IQ Kiddie Diddling Christian killed a few kids too and gets the death penalty?
Is he a Martyr in your eyes?
Was he killed for being Christian?



Huntinfool said:


> Being personally emancipated from a belief in a deity makes an athiest no more enlightened than the rest of us regardless of what Richard Dawkins thinks.


Take that up with Dicky Dawkins....it is not my argument.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Or, another way to look at this:
> 
> Either life was created, or created itself.  Given what we know about life, which seems more logical?



Cells multiply
Species evolve
Male and Female procreate.

Life gives life.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Cells multiply
> Species evolve
> Male and Female procreate.
> 
> Life gives life.



That's where I get stuck here.....life needs life to perpetuate and sustain itself.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I do remember the coke bottle.
> 
> 
> 
> I see the parallel.  But, I am not ruling out lightning either.   It's all part of it.  Sceince explains why we have lightning, and how it happens.  That does not mean that God did not create the nature which creates the atmosphere which caused the lightning.  I see it as an understanding of how more than why.  Just like rocks.



Rocks and humans have many of the same elements. A little more elements in one and a little less in the other and a couple elements that one has and the other doesn't makes them what they are.
One can't be alive without the right chemistry.

As far as what is powerful enough to create.....
Energy.(Created?Destroyed theory)
Some blast of energy happened 14 Billion years ago and is STILL powerful enough to expand from it's original point now. From that blast came matter, non matter and elements and the right combo of each is the makeup of "us" and everything else as it is. Break it down and we are all stardust.


----------



## welderguy

I'm thinking those of you who don't believe there's a God or an afterlife might want to spend less time arguing and re-hashing worn out arguments on the internet and get on with living because, according to you, this is all you got.And the clock is ticking away.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> That's where I get stuck here.....life needs life to perpetuate and sustain itself.



Since I do not know what life may have existed before the Big Bang or what existed at all before the BB I am not stuck on anything and I do not just insert an answer like "GOD" to fill in what I most likely will never ever know.
Using our current cycles of life....to the best we can tell...and because it is the best that we "Know" at this time...Life just keeps on going as long as conditions are right and the chemicals are present.
While not popular....our previous universe may have expanded to a point and then condensed through black holes swallowing everything until the last two black holes try to swallow each other and condense to a point where every speck of matter and energy is down to one singular point and Ka-Boom...it happens again.
Our current universe is expanding...for now.
A previous universe may have expanded for a hundred billion years until the right conditions caused it not to expand.
Really I don't know.
But Including God did it...there are many more complex theories besides one or two possibilities.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm thinking those of you who don't believe there's a God or an afterlife might want to spend less time arguing and re-hashing worn out arguments on the internet and get on with living because, according to you, this is all you got.And the clock is ticking away.



Thank you for your limited insight and advice.
Now... if this type of activity is "living" for some.... life might be VERY good and going exactly as hoped.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Thank you for your limited insight and advice.
> Now... if this type of activity is "living" for some.... life might be VERY good and going exactly as hoped.



According to 2 Peter 1:9, You sir are the one with limited insight.It says you are blind and cannot see afar off.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> According to 2 Peter 1:9, You sir are the one with limited insight.It says you are blind and cannot see afar off.



I don't know Pete. Never met him. Never knew anyone that met him.
This may be a surprise to you but I do not put any stock in what 'Ol Pete had to say.

Look in your book and find out what it says about pointing fingers at others or for casting the first stone...or something along those lines.
I know nothing of the Bible so I'll let you look em up and get back with us.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm thinking those of you who don't believe there's a God or an afterlife might want to spend less time arguing and re-hashing worn out arguments on the internet and get on with living because, according to you, this is all you got.And the clock is ticking away.


On the flip side you could be praying instead of posting.
If its ok with you we will decide for ourselves what to do with our time. You know free will and all.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I don't know Pete. Never met him. Never knew anyone that met him.
> This may be a surprise to you but I do not put any stock in what 'Ol Pete had to say.
> 
> Look in your book and find out what it says about pointing fingers at others or for casting the first stone...or something along those lines.
> I know nothing of the Bible so I'll let you look em up and get back with us.



Ha.No need to get all testy.Uhh? You were the first to mention "limited insight".


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> According to 2 Peter 1:9, You sir are the one with limited insight.It says you are blind and cannot see afar off.



I remember a few of these from a book I once read that was in a drawer in a Hotel room.
I do not think it was Sports Illustrated but I may be wrong there too...
And forgive me if I am paraphrasing or if these things do not apply to you or your beliefs...



Matthew 7:1-5 
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.



1 Corinthians 13:4-7 
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.



Ephesians 4:32 
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.



Galatians 5:14 
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”



John 13:34-35 
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> That's where I get stuck here.....life needs life to perpetuate and sustain itself.


Serious question -
Would you consider God to be "alive"?
And keep in mind all the attributes given to him (seeing, speaking, creating, personal relationships etc).
"Alive" as we know it or "dead" as we know it?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Ha.No need to get all testy.Uhh? You were the first to mention "limited insight".



And I stand by my limited insight saying.
I do not think at all that you thought that anyone might be living their life to the fullest by posting on this site. Or that it may make someone happy to contribute.
Limited indeed.

Me....I frequent the site to learn.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I remember a few of these from a book I once read that was in a drawer in a Hotel room.
> I do not think it was Sports Illustrated but I may be wrong there too...
> And forgive me if I am paraphrasing or if these things do not apply to you...
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:1-5
> “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
> Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
> 
> 
> 
> Ephesians 4:32
> Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
> 
> 
> 
> Galatians 5:14
> For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
> 
> 
> 
> John 13:34-35
> A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”



Hey! I'm impressed! Now that's what I call a good post.Keep up the good work my friend.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Hey! I'm impressed! Now that's what I call a good post.Keep up the good work my friend.



Sometimes ya gotta throw Pokemon cards when the only game known to the other person is Pokemon.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> On the flip side you could be praying instead of posting.
> If its ok with you we will decide for ourselves what to do with our time. You know free will and all.



Walt, come on, you know I'm not a free will guy.
I'm only trying to remind you that the clock is ticking. What you do with the dwindling clock ticks is totally up to you.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Sometimes ya gotta throw Pokemon cards when the only game known to the other person is Pokemon.



I don't like pokemon.Pokemon is from the devil.jk


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt, come on, you know I'm not a free will guy.
> I'm only trying to remind you that the clock is ticking. What you do with the dwindling clock ticks is totally up to you.


Sure but its obvious you feel that us participating here is a waste of our clock ticks. However -
I'm learning about you.
I'm learning about the others participating here.
I'm learning about the folks I'm sharing this planet with.
I'm learning about Christians and their differences.
I'm learning not to divide people up into "us" and "them".
I have hunted and fished with a couple of the Christians Ive met through discussion/debate here and learned they are great guys despite the fact we don't agree on this particular subject and I hope to hunt and fish with them again.
I can go on if needed.
Waste of clock ticks?
I'm thinking all these things are a positive use of clock ticks.


----------



## ambush80

How does this:



welderguy said:


> I'm not a free will guy.





Reconcile with this:




welderguy said:


> What you do with the dwindling clock ticks is totally up to you.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> How does this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reconcile with this:



Free will regarding one's salvation is what I was refering to.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Free will regarding one's salvation is what I was refering to.



Are you trying to say man has free will for everything else but salvation is the lone predestined event?
How could God will my birth, will my election, and will my death but not control the things in between?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you trying to say man has free will for everything else but salvation is the lone predestined event?
> How could God will my birth, will my election, and will my death but not control the things in between?



We have a responsibility to obey God's will.Sometimes, just as our own children do, we disobey.We then must be chastened.This is His way of correcting us and bringing us back to close fellowship with Him.He does it in love.He never stops loving us.Rom.8 confirms this.See, we are not puppets on strings,having our every move manipulated by Him.He has written His laws in our hearts and we have His written word.(most of the world does but not all).So, in this sense, we have some free will.
 But, concerning salvation, we don't have the same free will.God elected His people before the foundation of the world.None of us had anything to do with that.It happened before any of us were born.We are all born in sin, whether elect or not, and would deserve eternal torment, if it wasn't for Jesus' blood that was shed for the atonement of the elect.Sometime between conception and death, God calls His elect with His effectual call(regeneration).After this happens,He begins to change our will.He causes us to want to follow Him instead of run from Him.
Hope this helps Art.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Serious question -
> Would you consider God to be "alive"?
> And keep in mind all the attributes given to him (seeing, speaking, creating, personal relationships etc).
> "Alive" as we know it or "dead" as we know it?



Alive.  But, it would have to be in a sense other than organically.....otherwise, the same rules would apply.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Walt, come on, you know I'm not a free will guy.
> I'm only trying to remind you that the clock is ticking. What you do with the dwindling clock ticks is totally up to you.



If you are not a "free will guy" then aren't we all doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing?
Why are you suggesting we do something else...are you trying to change god's will?


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> ...are you trying to change god's will?



Isn't that what most every prayer tries to do?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Isn't that what most every prayer tries to do?



No.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> We have a responsibility to obey God's will.Sometimes, just as our own children do, we disobey.We then must be chastened.This is His way of correcting us and bringing us back to close fellowship with Him.He does it in love.He never stops loving us.Rom.8 confirms this.See, we are not puppets on strings,having our every move manipulated by Him.He has written His laws in our hearts and we have His written word.(most of the world does but not all).So, in this sense, we have some free will.
> But, concerning salvation, we don't have the same free will.God elected His people before the foundation of the world.None of us had anything to do with that.It happened before any of us were born.We are all born in sin, whether elect or not, and would deserve eternal torment, if it wasn't for Jesus' blood that was shed for the atonement of the elect.Sometime between conception and death, God calls His elect with His effectual call(regeneration).After this happens,He begins to change our will.He causes us to want to follow Him instead of run from Him.
> Hope this helps Art.



Your beliefs aren't as I originally thought. Sorry about that. Most election believers don't believe we have any free will. You are saying we have choices, just not for salvation. What about my death? Can I make bad choices in life and make my death come sooner than God's will?

There is no use in anyone watching the clock as it concerns their salvation if election is true. What good would it do?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Alive.  But, it would have to be in a sense other than organically.....otherwise, the same rules would apply.



Are ghosts and spirits alive in the same way as God?
Some claim to have pictures and voice recordings as evidence of their existence but nothing organic. 
"Experts" (whatever that means in this case) say ghosts and spirits manifest themselves through Energy. 
Maybe god is the name we give to the force of energy?


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> No.



Really? 
So, when someone is on their death bed or seriously sick or injured, and prayers are sent, what are the prayers for? 
For God to continue as he wishes or for the 'someone' to get better?


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Maybe god is the name we give to the force of energy?



That is my theory. Space is a vacuum which has energy.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Really?
> So, when someone is on their death bed or seriously sick or injured, and prayers are sent, what are the prayers for?
> For God to continue as he wishes or for the 'someone' to get better?



You asked most or all prayers were relevant to changing God's will.  That is not the case.  I would guess the vast majority of prayers are to thank God for the food......after prayers of thanks, you have prayers seeking wisdom (show me your will, type prayers), then prayers of intervention.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Really?
> So, when someone is on their death bed or seriously sick or injured, and prayers are sent, what are the prayers for?
> For God to continue as he wishes or for the 'someone' to get better?



Does god just enjoy the begging?

Or are prayers just ways to cope because no matter  the outcome God gets a 5star rating.
If the person pulls through then God answered the prayer. If the person gets worse, suffers and dies then God wanted it that way..it was his will.
Why pray at all?


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> You asked most or all prayers were relevant to changing God's will.  That is not the case.  I would guess the vast majority of prayers are to thank God for the food......after prayers of thanks, you have prayers seeking wisdom (show me your will, type prayers), then prayers of intervention.



Oh. Got it. 
So, are prayers that ask to change God's will inappropriate?


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Does god just enjoy the begging?
> 
> Or are prayers just ways to cope because no matter  the outcome God gets a 5star rating.
> If the person pulls through then God answered the prayer. If the person gets worse, suffers and dies then God wanted it that way..it was his will.
> Why pray at all?



That has been my question to many religious types. Why pray at all? When related to sick, safety, etc. Like boxers before a fight. Does God hate one of them? 
No good answer.
I think it just makes them feel better in a time of high stress. In that way, it helps I guess.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Are ghosts and spirits alive in the same way as God?



You brought up a personal experience of yours involving such a thing......in your description, there did not seem to be an organic being involved.  If ghosts or spirits exist, I would think it has to be a form of energy.



bullethead said:


> Maybe god is the name we give to the force of energy?



I would agree to the extent that God would have to be the force and energy behind existence, I would only add a consciousness to the equation......and that takes it a step further than a skeptic might be willing to do.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Oh. Got it.
> So, are prayers that ask to change God's will inappropriate?



Not really.  There are multiple examples in the Bible of folks asking God to change his mind.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> I think it just makes them feel better in a time of high stress. In that way, it helps I guess.



It let's you know you are standing on something, even in hopeless situations.  It adds order to an existence that would be random and chaotic otherwise.

I'm not saying your existence is chaotic, I am saying all existence is chaotic if there is not a driver.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Alive.  But, it would have to be in a sense other than organically.....otherwise, the same rules would apply.


Is that how God is portrayed in Christianity? 
Aren't we made in his image?
Wont you sit at his right HAND?
How can he be a HIM?
I know you don't have those answers, just pointing out how the idea of God is tailor made for humans but when that's questioned he conveniently becomes something else.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Not really.  There are multiple examples in the Bible of folks asking God to change his mind.



Yea. That doesn't necessarily make it right. There are lots of examples in the bible of what not to do.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you trying to say man has free will for everything else but salvation is the lone predestined event?
> How could God will my birth, will my election, and will my death but not control the things in between?





welderguy said:


> We have a responsibility to obey God's will.Sometimes, just as our own children do, we disobey.We then must be chastened.This is His way of correcting us and bringing us back to close fellowship with Him.He does it in love.He never stops loving us.Rom.8 confirms this.See, we are not puppets on strings,having our every move manipulated by Him.He has written His laws in our hearts and we have His written word.(most of the world does but not all).So, in this sense, we have some free will.
> But, concerning salvation, we don't have the same free will.God elected His people before the foundation of the world.None of us had anything to do with that.It happened before any of us were born.We are all born in sin, whether elect or not, and would deserve eternal torment, if it wasn't for Jesus' blood that was shed for the atonement of the elect.Sometime between conception and death, God calls His elect with His effectual call(regeneration).After this happens,He begins to change our will.He causes us to want to follow Him instead of run from Him.
> Hope this helps Art.



Just another example of a poor soul trying to make sense of the nonsensical. 

Take that silliness upstairs and discuss it amongst your brethren and see how fast the thread gets shut down.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

stringmusic said:


> That's because it's a _scientific_ theory.
> 
> 
> That's because it's a _scientific_ theory.



Yes, true. 



stringmusic said:


> Based on your post I quoted above, you seem to indicate that only scientific theories are worth noting?



Basically, but that's only for me, and because they undergo rigorous skepticism and if they are found wanting in any way they are adjusted. Of course there are examples where that hasn't been the case, like climate change/global warming, but those, IMO, step out of the realm of science and more into religion and, I don't mean to denigrate here, that's because it ignores new facts and ideas in order to maintain a certain dogmatic view to support an agenda. 

That's not to say that religion doesn't flex, but relative to science being able to have a zero radius turn, given worthy evidence warranting it, religion handles like the Titanic with a jammed rudder.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by welderguy
> He never stops loving us


Riiiight.
Genocide is done out of love.
Eternal torment is done out of love.
Seriously?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> What about my death? Can I make bad choices in life and make my death come sooner than God's will?



ART, I don't have clear understanding about this.I'd like for you to read 1 Cor.11:30 and tell me if you think it applies here.Maybe you could council me on it.
I'm reminded of the consequences of David's sin with Bathsheba.David prayed for the sick infant for several days and would not eat.But as soon as the child died he rose up and ate.His servants asked why and He said whilethe child was yet alive he prayed because who knows Iif the Lord would show mercy and spare the child.


----------



## welderguy

I think what we must keep in mind is that death is actually a blessing for a child of God.It's a release from this world into paradise.Remember the thief on the cross?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I think what we must keep in mind is that death is actually a blessing for a child of God.It's a release from this world into paradise.Remember the thief on the cross?



Which makes me wonder why you guys don't take more risks. I get the taboo on suicide and not wanting to violate God's plan for you, but why not evangelize in Little 5 at 2AM on a Saturday night?


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> I know you don't have those answers, just pointing out how the idea of God is tailor made for humans but when that's questioned he conveniently becomes something else.



From what I understand, "in his image" is less a physical description and more a spiritual one.

As to the rest, if the point is to communicate that we would be in close proximity, how else could it have been explained, particularly if we are dealing with a non-organic force, and not an organic "critter" in the sky?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> From what I understand, "in his image" is less a physical description and more a spiritual one.
> 
> As to the rest, if the point is to communicate that we would be in close proximity, how else could it have been explained, particularly if we are dealing with a non-organic force, and not an organic "critter" in the sky?




He could turn into a burning bush or the form of a dead relative or Jim Morrison.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I think what we must keep in mind is that death is actually a blessing for a child of God.It's a release from this world into paradise.Remember the thief on the cross?



Legitimate question.
Then why is abortion a bad thing?


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which makes me wonder why you guys don't take more risks.



I have wondered and asked this very thing numerous times. If I actually believed I was going to a better place...well, let's just say I would have a much more exciting bucket list.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> From what I understand, "in his image" is less a physical description and more a spiritual one.
> 
> As to the rest, if the point is to communicate that we would be in close proximity, how else could it have been explained, particularly if we are dealing with a non-organic force, and not an organic "critter" in the sky?





> "in his image" is less a physical description and more a spiritual one.


Maybe. But Im going with "in his image" is meant for us to relate to him. Worshipping a mist would probably have a lot less followers.
And if we are meant be "spiritual" there are a whole lot of ways to do that other than just worshipping the Christian God or any god at all.


> As to the rest, if the point is to communicate that we would be in close proximity, how else could it have been explained, particularly if we are dealing with a non-organic force, and not an organic "critter" in the sky?


Why would it be necessary for us to be in close proximity?
If the Bible said God built leeches in his image would you stop worshipping him? Would you have worshipped a leech to begin with?
Its interesting that no one has a clue what God looks like but every image of him is "humanoid".
IMAGE -
1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible. 
2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface. 
3. a mental representation; idea; conception. 
4. Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus. 
5. form; appearance; semblance: 
"We are all created in God's image."
6. counterpart; copy: 
"That child is the image of his mother."
7. a symbol; emblem.
Unless "spiritual" looks human we aren't Gods spiritual image.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> I have wondered and asked this very thing numerous times. If I actually believed I was going to a better place...well, let's just say I would have a much more exciting bucket list.



Your life shouldn't be all about yourself:How many things I can collect, how much fun I can have, etc.It should be lived in denial of yourself as much as possible and in service to others.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Your life shouldn't be all about yourself:


Watch you talkin bout Willis? I helped raise 4 kids. They are out of the house now. Party on Garth!


> How many things I can collect, how much fun I can have, etc.It should be lived in denial of yourself as much as possible and in service to others.



Sounds like a blast. Just kidding. Serving others does make me feel good. I am a 'teach a man to fish...' kinda guy. However, denial of myself aint gonna happen. 
Guess it is good (for me) I don't believe.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Your life shouldn't be all about yourself:How many things I can collect, how much fun I can have, etc.It should be lived in denial of yourself as much as possible and in service to others.



That's why I couched it in doing two birds with one stone. If you go down there and evangelize to people who most likely need it very much, and nothing happens, then you've done as you were commanded and in the service of others. 

If the worst should happen then you still have A, AND you get to be in Heaven that much sooner. It's win/win if you use cold logic. 

But there is also the interesting part about what motivates people to do "selfless" acts, and it has very little to do with selflessness. You do it because it makes you feel good for having done it. It's the truly selfless person that does things for another that makes them feel bad about themselves in the commission of said act. Since that's a paradox I don't suspect it will soon be illustrated.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Your life shouldn't be all about yourself:How many things I can collect, how much fun I can have, etc.It should be lived in denial of yourself as much as possible and in service to others.


Think about that. If every time you helped others it made you feel good you would then have to stop doing it to deny yourself of the happiness you felt by doing it.
These "rules" that get made up don't have a lick of thought behind them.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Think about that. If every time you helped others it made you feel good you would then have to stop doing it to deny yourself of the happiness you felt by doing it.
> These "rules" that get made up don't have a lick of thought behind them.



I wouldn't say that. It's just that some people are capable of life with paradoxes and I think faithful people are one of them. They can have a personal relationship with an entity that they can't prove to anyone else actually exists. In the latter, it's about ends justifying, or outright erasing, the means. So if you do service to someone it negates the pleasure you get out of it, so it is completely selfless. 

It doesn't work that way for guys like you, me, and others, because we've delved deep into what truly motivates people in general, and ourselves specifically. There's nothing evil in getting that chill at helping someone, and there's nothing evil in using that chill to pursue helping the next person, either.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's nothing evil in getting that chill at helping someone, and there's nothing evil in using that chill to pursue helping the next person, either.



I must confess. I have helped a lot of people move...and I didn't like it. 

I didn't like it so much, I don't ask folks to help me move.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> I must confess. I have helped a lot of people move...and I didn't like it.
> 
> I didn't like it so much, I don't ask folks to help me move.



Apparently you got pleasure that outweighed the disdain from another source. Maybe his buddies Jack, Johnnie, and Jim showed up right after Papa John did, once the job was complete. I know they show up at my place whenever people help us out. They don't seem too off put by it.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Apparently you got pleasure that outweighed the disdain from another source. Maybe his buddies Jack, Johnnie, and Jim showed up right after Papa John did, once the job was complete. I know they show up at my place whenever people help us out. They don't seem too off put by it.



Not sure if it outweighed the disdain but, yes, they did show up. Thank God. oops! 

My obligation to friends outweighed the disdain. That was pretty much it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Not sure if it outweighed the disdain but, yes, they did show up. Thank God. oops!
> 
> My obligation to friends outweighed the disdain. That was pretty much it.



Selfish pig.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I wouldn't say that. It's just that some people are capable of life with paradoxes and I think faithful people are one of them. They can have a personal relationship with an entity that they can't prove to anyone else actually exists. In the latter, it's about ends justifying, or outright erasing, the means. So if you do service to someone it negates the pleasure you get out of it, so it is completely selfless.
> 
> It doesn't work that way for guys like you, me, and others, because we've delved deep into what truly motivates people in general, and ourselves specifically. There's nothing evil in getting that chill at helping someone, and there's nothing evil in using that chill to pursue helping the next person, either.





> So if you do service to someone it negates the pleasure you get out of it, so it is completely selfless


Is it?


> It should be lived in denial of yourself as much as possible and in service to others.


You'll have to show me the Christian who gets no joy or satisfaction or goodness or any other positive feeling out of serving the Lord and not the self, which is the basis of the statement, for me to buy into the completely selfless thing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Is it?
> 
> You'll have to show me the Christian who gets no joy or satisfaction or goodness or any other positive feeling out of serving the Lord and not the self, which is the basis of the statement, for me to buy into the completely selfless thing.



I'm arguing from, what might be, their point of view. I don't subscribe to it. All of human activity can be boiled down to selfishness.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's why I couched it in doing two birds with one stone. If you go down there and evangelize to people who most likely need it very much, and nothing happens, then you've done as you were commanded and in the service of others.
> 
> If the worst should happen then you still have A, AND you get to be in Heaven that much sooner. It's win/win if you use cold logic.
> 
> But there is also the interesting part about what motivates people to do "selfless" acts, and it has very little to do with selflessness. You do it because it makes you feel good for having done it. It's the truly selfless person that does things for another that makes them feel bad about themselves in the commission of said act. Since that's a paradox I don't suspect it will soon be illustrated.



You could have been raised in a culture where it is expected that you help or share with your neighbors like the Piraha. I like how when asked "Why don't you preserve the extra catch for a rainy day" the Piraha man said "I store it in my brothers belly".  The benefits of communal behavior for them might not be clearly understood in an intellectual way but it seems to work for them and probably has benefits that they don't associate with the act.

I suppose that you can say that it made them feel good that they followed the unwritten code of their culture and perhaps avoided being chastised for being selfish, but I think it might just be a reflexive behavior.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> You could have been raised in a culture where it is expected that you help or share with your neighbors like the Piraha. I like how when asked "Why don't you preserve the extra catch for a rainy day" the Piraha man said "I store it in my brothers belly".  The benefits of communal behavior for them might not be clearly understood in an intellectual way but it seems to work for them and probably has benefits that they don't associate with the act.
> 
> I suppose that you can say that it made them feel good that they followed the unwritten code of their culture and perhaps avoided being chastised for being selfish, but I think it might just be a reflexive behavior.



It could be reflexive behavior, but I'm skeptical, unless they also give to people who don't chip in when they're over full themselves. I don't know, but I would bet that they penalize people who don't contribute by not contributing back to them when they need it. 

Socialism works so long as everyone buys into it, and no one is above it. There have to be stiff penalties for violation or the whole thing collapses.


----------



## welderguy

"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. " John15:13.

Jesus did this, and we were His enemy.

It's our example to try to follow.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. " John15:13.
> 
> Jesus did this, and we were His enemy.
> 
> It's our example to try to follow.


I'm curious, do you spend time on creation.com?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. " John15:13.
> 
> Jesus did this, and we were His enemy.
> 
> It's our example to try to follow.



And yet he loved us, and wanted us to be better. So while we were HIS enemy, HE wasn't OURS. 

He did what he did out of love, which feeds back to doing it for himself at least as much as for us.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Your life shouldn't be all about yourself:How many things I can collect, how much fun I can have, etc.It should be lived in denial of yourself as much as possible and in service to others.



What internet provider do you have in your straw hut?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm arguing from, what might be, their point of view. I don't subscribe to it. All of human activity can be boiled down to selfishness.


That's my point. And thats what makes this no more than a "feel good" statement with no thought behind it -


> How many things I can collect, how much fun I can have, etc.It should be lived in denial of yourself as much as possible and in service to others.


Feel good from collecting = bad
Feel good from having fun = bad
Feel good from serving the Lord by denying myself = good of course

And then argue its logical and reasonable. 
Of course service to others is a good thing. Just leave it at that and leave out the nonsense.


----------



## welderguy

Never heard of creation.com

Don't live in a hut. Double wide

Striper, you pretty much nailed it with what you said.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> That's my point. And thats what makes this no more than a "feel good" statement with no thought behind it -
> 
> Feel good from collecting = bad
> Feel good from having fun = bad
> Feel good from serving the Lord by denying myself = good of course
> 
> And then argue its logical and reasonable.



And that's all that it's supposed to be. It's like the promise of eternal life with not much in the way of evidence to support it. 



welderguy said:


> Never heard of creation.com
> 
> Don't live in a hut. Double wide
> 
> Striper, you pretty much nailed it with what you said.



I'm sorry, you're gonna have to be a little more specific. I've said a lot today.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And yet he loved us, and wanted us to be better. So while we were HIS enemy, HE wasn't OURS.
> 
> He did what he did out of love, which feeds back to doing it for himself at least as much as for us.



Sorry Striper...^^ this^^

And I never said anything was wrong with collecting stuff or having fun.I said your life shouldn't be ALL about these things.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Sorry Striper...^^ this^^
> 
> And I never said anything was wrong with collecting stuff or having fun.I said your life shouldn't be ALL about these things.


I don't know anybody whose life is..... religious or not religious.
The point is its all the same.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Never heard of creation.com
> 
> Don't live in a hut. Double wide
> 
> Striper, you pretty much nailed it with what you said.



I did not mean it as an insult. I just figured that you practiced what you preached and other than a bible, robe some sandals and a sparse dwelling you didn't need anything else.
Then again without the luxury of internet and a home computer or smart phone you wouldn't be able to post here.....


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Sorry Striper...^^ this^^
> 
> And I never said anything was wrong with collecting stuff or having fun.I said your life shouldn't be ALL about these things.



But I just showed you how "the greatest gift" ever given to mankind can be reduced to an expression of selfishness.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Sorry Striper...^^ this^^
> 
> And I never said anything was wrong with collecting stuff or having fun.I said your life shouldn't be ALL about these things.



I cannot remember ever seeing anyone in here making a post bragging about material things.
It is like you are giving advice where none is needed or you are having a Captain Obvious moment.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I cannot remember ever seeing anyone in here making a post bragging about material things.
> It is like you are giving advice where none is needed or you are having a Captain Obvious moment.



It was in reference to Gris' post #1268, about his bucket list.What I said fits in that context but when it's taken out of context it gets distorted. I should have seen that coming.Didn't mean to give the wrong idea or sound condescending.I'm no better than anyone else.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It could be reflexive behavior, but I'm skeptical, unless they also give to people who don't chip in when they're over full themselves. I don't know, but I would bet that they penalize people who don't contribute by not contributing back to them when they need it.
> 
> Socialism works so long as everyone buys into it, and no one is above it. There have to be stiff penalties for violation or the whole thing collapses.



If that's how they've done it for so long then it's probably reflexive or just customary.  They're an interesting case study, particularly since they reject a concept of god outright.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> If that's how they've done it for so long then it's probably reflexive or just customary.  They're an interesting case study, particularly since they reject a concept of god outright.



Reflexive and customary aren't synonyms. Reflexive is instinctual, like your leg jerking when the doc hits it with the rubber mallet. 

Share, and share alike, is a learned behavior. Maybe an elder has grown so accustomed to it that he's compulsively generous, but I would doubt their babies are born with that innately.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

See? Our creation story is open to evolution. It will be tested, it will be examined, and only if it fits better will it be accepted.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
> 
> See? Our creation story is open to evolution. It will be tested, it will be examined, and only if it fits better will it be accepted.



The comments at the end of the article are worth the price of admission alone.
My head hurts but I cannot stop reading them.
Thanks for the link.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
> 
> See? Our creation story is open to evolution. It will be tested, it will be examined, and only if it fits better will it be accepted.


I been telling you guys God did it but noooooo you wouldn't listen.
I can hear the argument now - "How can something have always been"?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I been telling you guys God did it but noooooo you wouldn't listen.
> I can hear the argument now - "How can something have always been"?



From the comments section of the article
"The theist argue that everything comes from something, therefore there -must- be a God, which gives rise to the question, "who made God?". The whole question is a response to the inherent contradiction in the definition of God as the necessary first cause.

If you contend that something doesn't need to be caused by anything to exist, you actually destroy the theist argument; God as a creator, or creation itself as a single event, is no longer necessary for things to exist.

Unless you explain why God would be the only thing that can exist without a cause, everything can exist without God.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp"


----------



## bullethead

Then another:
Theist reply: This also appears to be a mathematical proof that it's possible for things to exist outside the universe, and that it's possible for infinite reality to exist, which is two key points atheists don't get; the "Who made God" question is actually answered by these equations, in that an infinite Being can in fact exist without cause. 


Rebuttal:
Sigh yet another who can not understand that atheism does not require an explanation of how it all began or a requirement to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theist.

If I am to play a game where the eternal disposition of my "soul" is at stake I will get the rules of the game directly from the game master, not some middleman with his or her own agenda. Until that day comes I will live my life the way I choose to and my choices do not require me to convince you that I am right about what I believe.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> From the comments section of the article
> "The theist argue that everything comes from something, therefore there -must- be a God, which gives rise to the question, "who made God?". The whole question is a response to the inherent contradiction in the definition of God as the necessary first cause.
> 
> If you contend that something doesn't need to be caused by anything to exist, you actually destroy the theist argument; God as a creator, or creation itself as a single event, is no longer necessary for things to exist.
> 
> Unless you explain why God would be the only thing that can exist without a cause, everything can exist without God.
> 
> Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp"


That's what I was eluding to by this -


> I can hear the argument now - "How can something have always been"?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> That's what I was eluding to by this -



I knowz it brudda...thats why I posted


----------



## Artfuldodger

What else is there besides the universe? What was it created from? Where did God exist before he created Heaven or the Universe?
Did God create Heaven or is it eternal?

From a scientific outlook  have you thought about how similar everything is. The same basic elements and scientific laws. Heat, vacuum, gravity, expansion, contraction, light, water, gases, solids, time, and on and on.
It all came from the same beginning, architect, creation, or eternal existence.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> What else is there besides the universe? What was it created from? Where did God exist before he created Heaven or the Universe?
> Did God create Heaven or is it eternal?
> 
> From a scientific outlook  have you thought about how similar everything is. The same basic elements and scientific laws. Heat, vacuum, gravity, expansion, contraction, light, water, gases, solids, time, and on and on.
> It all came from the same beginning, architect, creation, or eternal existence.


In some form the Universe may have always been.
What is the Universe expanding into?
To say it all came from the same beginning..architect..creation or external source is a guess.
Nobody knows.
But there is a very good chance...actually positive it is going to happen under their current courses...that the Milky Way Galaxy (ours) and the Andromeda Galaxy are going to collide. Hundreds of billions if not trillions of stars and trillions of planets are all on course to come together.
The crazy part is that both galaxies are so vast that many things will not actually collide into each other....BUT...the additional forces acting on the current gravitational pulls will most likely kill everything on the planet. We are observing them closing the distance on each other. It will happen.

How does that fit into having an intelligent creator?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> What else is there besides the universe? What was it created from? Where did God exist before he created Heaven or the Universe?
> Did God create Heaven or is it eternal?
> 
> From a scientific outlook  have you thought about how similar everything is. The same basic elements and scientific laws. Heat, vacuum, gravity, expansion, contraction, light, water, gases, solids, time, and on and on.
> It all came from the same beginning, architect, creation, or eternal existence.


People of all beliefs may very well be unknowingly  worshiping the Universe and or Energy but have given them human form in stories to help understand them  in ways humans can relate to.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Could the universe be an atom inside a larger molecule and the planets/stars the sub-atomic particles?


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> Could the universe be an atom inside a larger molecule and the planets/stars the sub-atomic particles?



We could be the who's down in whoville.

But, yes, beyond what is knowable, the possibilities are endless.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> We could be the who's down in whoville.
> 
> But, yes, beyond what is knowable, the possibilities are endless.



Or inside the Glade of "The Maze Runner."
Grievers are Satan's army  roaming the Maze at night.
The Maze is our trip through life if we want to try freewill.
Staying in the Glade represents the security of predestination.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Could the universe be an atom inside a larger molecule and the planets/stars the sub-atomic particles?



Honestly in my opinion, that is as good as most guesses.
I read an article that stated that all of the planets and stars (which equates to trillions upon trillions) plus comets and meteors put together or in other words all Matter only makes up less than 10% of the entire Universe. That is how large and vast the Universe is.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> People of all beliefs may very well be unknowingly  worshiping the Universe and or Energy but have given them human form in stories to help understand them  in ways humans can relate to.



Does that "Universe and or Energy" have an ineffable form of consciousness?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Does that "Universe and or Energy" have an ineffable form of consciousness?



And if it doesn't, what controls it? Even if this "universe and/or energy" didn't create, how does it operate within the parameters it is required to operate in?
Why is there a certain set of laws and elements common within the universe? 
It appears "something" is controlling the "order."


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> if i am to play a game where the eternal disposition of my "soul" is at stake i will get the rules of the game directly from the game master, not some middleman with his or her own agenda. Until that day comes i will live my life the way i choose to and my choices do not require me to convince you that i am right about what i believe.



amen!


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> And if it doesn't, what controls it? Even if this "universe and/or energy" didn't create, how does it operate within the parameters it is required to operate in?
> Why is there a certain set of laws and elements common within the universe?
> It appears "something" is controlling the "order."



What order?
Stars burning out and imploding?
Black holes swallowing everything within their paths and gravitational pull?
Galaxies on collision courses?
Asteroids slamming into planets?

What exact order are you talking about?


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> It appears "something" is controlling the "order."



It appears to me that we live on a razors edge.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> What order?
> Stars burning out and imploding?
> Black holes swallowing everything within their paths and gravitational pull?
> Galaxies on collision courses?
> Asteroids slamming into planets?
> 
> What exact order are you talking about?



Cancer invading good people, children dying. Brand new cars with blown engines.
The order of randomness?

I'm referring to the laws.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> What exact order are you talking about?



Not sure how you see chaos in it all.  You have brought up collisions and black holes, but these can also be part of the cyclical nature of existence.  Beginnings and endings.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm referring to the laws.



Natural laws are very convenient and, as it turns out, necessary to existence.  Lucky us


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Does that "Universe and or Energy" have an ineffable form of consciousness?



This is what I do know.
We get consciousness from within our brains. Our brains are made up of cells that run on electrical impulses or Energy.



> A nerve cell has a bulb-like cell body attached to a long nerve fiber, which is like a wire, and it actually carries very tiny electrical signals. These signals are the information that tell us what we feel, what we think, what we see, what we touch. They also tell our bodies how to move and how to function.CensoredAll this information is carried by nerve fibers to and from our brains.Censored
> 
> Our brains are a big bundle of nerve cells, which are gray, white, and a little pink in color and have a texture like tofu!
> 
> There is another type of cell in our brains calledCensoredglial cells. These cells don’t carry electrical signals, but they have a very important job of taking care of the nerve cells.CensoredThey protect nerve cells, hold them in place, get rid of any dead nerve cells and they provide nutrients. Censored



Being that we know it takes atoms to make cells and cells to make tissue and nerves and those ingredients to make organs like the brain and a brain to have consciousness it needs energy to operate.
According to the best available data a giant release of energy created things as we know. Various matter formed into elements and those elements formed chemicals and certain combinations of each in certain conditions formed everything that we know of and have been able to observe on our own planet and others.
Everything that makes up the result of that energy release is the Universe. It is no more conscious than New Jersey. It is a place. Everything within it makes it what it is.
Conditions dictate what forms what and why life as we know it thrives on this planet and these conditions but would not last three seconds on the conditions of Jupiter. Etc etc...

Now I do not see Energy needing consciousness to release enough force to create these things. All those particles intermingled over billions of years and formed what they could in the conditions that allowed it. Conditions and chemistry formed the needed concoction that makes up the brain which in turn makes consciousness.
So....NO.
I do not think there is any form of consciousness in energy. No more than what is in your wall sockets energy.
I think energy allows things to happen. And the results are what we see today. No plan needed.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> And if it doesn't, what controls it? Even if this "universe and/or energy" didn't create, how does it operate within the parameters it is required to operate in?
> Why is there a certain set of laws and elements common within the universe?
> It appears "something" is controlling the "order."





> how does it operate within the parameters it is required to operate in?


How could it be any other way?
Wouldn't the parameters determine what can operate inside them?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Natural laws are very convenient and, as it turns out, necessary to existence.  Lucky us


Same question - how could it be any other way?
Different laws would have produced different "existence". No?
Were we here first and then came the laws required to keep us here? Or the other way around?
If you mix together the ingredients for a cake, you get a cake. It wasn't luck. It was the results of the ingredients.
Different ingredients might get you a pizza. But not a cake.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Not sure how you see chaos in it all.  You have brought up collisions and black holes, but these can also be part of the cyclical nature of existence.  Beginnings and endings.



That kind does not mesh with a loving and protecting god that created us in his image only to throw us in a cosmic meat grinder.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Same question - how could it be any other way?
> Different laws would have produced different "existence". No?
> Were we here first and then came the laws required to keep us here? Or the other way around?
> If you mix together the ingredients for a cake, you get a cake. It wasn't luck. It was the results of the ingredients.
> Different ingredients might get you a pizza. But not a cake.



That is right Walt...and put those ingredients in a cake pan and stick it in the freezer you get something other than what you are used to having at a birthday party.
Put that same cake pan in the oven at the right temperature for the right amount of time and we have cake as we know it.
We can put all the ingredients together and we get something but conditions dictate how that something turns out.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> How could it be any other way?
> Wouldn't the parameters determine what can operate inside them?



True but why do we have these parameters? Why is nature and the way the universe limited to certain operational parameters? Why not have gravity on the earth but not in another solar system? 
Why have the element iron in our solar system and not have Collapsium in another?
Why are the laws the same? Why does the universe need laws? Why are some events random and some are controlled?
Many Atheists believe in predestination because of these scientific laws of operation. If the universe has to follow these rules then everything has to be predestined.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> This is what I do know.
> We get consciousness from within our brains. Our brains are made up of cells that run on electrical impulses or Energy.
> 
> Being that we know it takes atoms to make cells and cells to make tissue and nerves and those ingredients to make organs like the brain and a brain to have consciousness it needs energy to operate.
> According to the best available data a giant release of energy created things as we know. Various matter formed into elements and those elements formed chemicals and certain combinations of each in certain conditions formed everything that we know of and have been able to observe on our own planet and others.
> Everything that makes up the result of that energy release is the Universe. It is no more conscious than New Jersey. It is a place. Everything within it makes it what it is.
> Conditions dictate what forms what and why life as we know it thrives on this planet and these conditions but would not last three seconds on the conditions of Jupiter. Etc etc...
> 
> Now I do not see Energy needing consciousness to release enough force to create these things. All those particles intermingled over billions of years and formed what they could in the conditions that allowed it. Conditions and chemistry formed the needed concoction that makes up the brain which in turn makes consciousness.
> So....NO.
> I do not think there is any form of consciousness in energy. No more than what is in your wall sockets energy.
> I think energy allows things to happen. And the results are what we see today. No plan needed.



Some people believe this combined energy of everything is God. That when we die our energy just goes back into the mix/combination to be re-used. That we ourselves will become a part of God. 
I in you, you in me, God in us, us in God. 
Unity in spirit.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> True but why do we have these parameters? Why is nature and the way the universe limited to certain operational parameters? Why not have gravity on the earth but not in another solar system?
> Why have the element iron in our solar system and not have Collapsium in another?
> Why are the laws the same? Why does the universe need laws? Why are some events random and some are controlled?
> Many Atheists believe in predestination because of these scientific laws of operation. If the universe has to follow these rules then everything has to be predestined.



The universe is full of ingredients and different ingredients in different conditions create or allow different things.
The Universe it what it is. Man turns what we know as constants into "laws". Exact conditions along with exact elements will get you repeatable results. Similar might not cut it but it does get you something else or nothing.
The tries that result in nothing we never know about.


----------



## 660griz

To me, it seems that if there was a God, he could have made us to live outside of the restraints of nature. Why do we have to eat, breath, etc. Life would be easier if we didn't have the need to regulate body temp, take in oxygen. Couldn't he have just made us to exist...in any environment. Did he not know resources would run out, sun would explode, galaxies collide?
If he wanted us with him, why make a physical specimen at all? Just to watch us struggle to survive and suffer?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Some people believe this combined energy of everything is God. That when we die our energy just goes back into the mix/combination to be re-used. That we ourselves will become a part of God.
> I in you, you in me, God in us, us in God.
> Unity in spirit.



I totally understand that.
I can by into that.
It IS why I think no religion has it all figured out. 

It is why I personally think "GOD" can be nothing other than what an individual makes of it or understands GOD to be in their mind.

What you described above certainly is not what you learned from the Bible.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> True but why do we have these parameters? Why is nature and the way the universe limited to certain operational parameters? Why not have gravity on the earth but not in another solar system?
> Why have the element iron in our solar system and not have Collapsium in another?
> Why are the laws the same? Why does the universe need laws? Why are some events random and some are controlled?
> Many Atheists believe in predestination because of these scientific laws of operation. If the universe has to follow these rules then everything has to be predestined.


I'm certainly not qualified to answer those questions 
However keep in mind that "we" (humans) came up with these "laws" to describe what we think we see about the universe. If we weren't here to call them laws it would be "just the way it is".


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> To me, it seems that if there was a God, he could have made us to live outside of the restraints of nature. Why do we have to eat, breath, etc. Life would be easier if we didn't have the need to regulate body temp, take in oxygen. Couldn't he have just made us to exist...in any environment. Did he not know resources would run out, sun would explode, galaxies collide?
> If he wanted us with him, why make a physical specimen at all? Just to watch us struggle to survive and suffer?



Precisely.
If it was about "us" at all living in these conditions that allow life as we know it, Earth would be the only thing in the Universe.
All the rest is so unable to be understood that man has had to make stories up that explain the unexplainable in ways man can understand. All people are OK with whatever explanation seems to make the best sense in THEIR OWN MIND...but none of it is universal.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Some people believe this combined energy of everything is God. That when we die our energy just goes back into the mix/combination to be re-used. That we ourselves will become a part of God.
> I in you, you in me, God in us, us in God.
> Unity in spirit.


Or ....
This combined energy of everything is energy. That when we die our energy just goes back into the mix/combination to be re-used. That we ourselves will become a part of energy.
I in you, you in me, energy in us, us in energy.
Unity in energy.
They stick God in the mix because they believe in God.
Remove God and the whole thing becomes a lot more "factual".


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> That kind does not mesh with a loving and protecting god that created us in his image only to throw us in a cosmic meat grinder.



Are we going to be thrown in a cosmic meat grinder?  Is there a chance the earth exists 2 billion years from now.....or whenever we are gonna smack into the next galaxy over.

Somehow, in the cosmic chaos, in the lifeless, cold, indifferent universe, something smiled on our little planet and things seem to have worked out for now.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Are we going to be thrown in a cosmic meat grinder?  Is there a chance the earth exists 2 billion years from now.....or whenever we are gonna smack into the next galaxy over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, in the cosmic chaos, in the lifeless, cold, indifferent universe, something smiled on our little planet and things seem to have worked out for now.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean worked out FOR YOU for now.
> Those folks in Pompeii might not agree
Click to expand...


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> I totally understand that.
> I can by into that.
> It IS why I think no religion has it all figured out.
> 
> It is why I personally think "GOD" can be nothing other than what an individual makes of it or understands GOD to be in their mind.
> 
> What you described above certainly is not what you learned from the Bible.



I like to think outside the box.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Same question - how could it be any other way?



E didn't have to equal MC2, right?  Energy doesn't have to exist.  Matter doesn't have to exist.  Nothing we see or know about "has" to be there.  It just is.  And somehow, what it is has lead us to where we are.




WaltL1 said:


> Different laws would have produced different "existence". No?
> Were we here first and then came the laws required to keep us here? Or the other way around?



I think laws first, then us......part of the creation model.



WaltL1 said:


> If you mix together the ingredients for a cake, you get a cake. It wasn't luck. It was the results of the ingredients.
> Different ingredients might get you a pizza. But not a cake.



Again, isn't that fortunate for us that we got cake?


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> You mean worked out FOR YOU for now.
> Those folks in Pompeii might not agree



Generally speaking, very few would trade the ride to avoid the end.  Humanity, as a whole, enjoys a very blessed existence.  There are extreme outliers, but compared to everything we know of in our universe, we got it made.

Consider how lame life must be for a space rock.  If we are nothing but stardust, we are the luckiest stardust in the universe (with current understanding, of course, there could be some very cool things out there).


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> This is what I do know.
> We get consciousness from within our brains. Our brains are made up of cells that run on electrical impulses or Energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Being that we know it takes atoms to make cells and cells to make tissue and nerves and those ingredients to make organs like the brain and a brain to have consciousness it needs energy to operate.
> According to the best available data a giant release of energy created things as we know. Various matter formed into elements and those elements formed chemicals and certain combinations of each in certain conditions formed everything that we know of and have been able to observe on our own planet and others.
> Everything that makes up the result of that energy release is the Universe. It is no more conscious than New Jersey. It is a place. Everything within it makes it what it is.
> Conditions dictate what forms what and why life as we know it thrives on this planet and these conditions but would not last three seconds on the conditions of Jupiter. Etc etc...
> 
> Now I do not see Energy needing consciousness to release enough force to create these things. All those particles intermingled over billions of years and formed what they could in the conditions that allowed it. Conditions and chemistry formed the needed concoction that makes up the brain which in turn makes consciousness.
> So....NO.
> I do not think there is any form of consciousness in energy. No more than what is in your wall sockets energy.
> I think energy allows things to happen. And the results are what we see today. No plan needed.



"Abstract of Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory
The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990Ê¼s that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space–time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brainÊ¼s biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe."

So you accept Hameroff and Penrose’s conclusions that “consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe” and “its ultimate place in the universe are unknown” with the caveat that consciousness does not exist outside physical life forms?  Is that consistent with the nature of consciousness also being unknown?


----------



## Artfuldodger

660griz said:


> To me, it seems that if there was a God, he could have made us to live outside of the restraints of nature. Why do we have to eat, breath, etc. Life would be easier if we didn't have the need to regulate body temp, take in oxygen. Couldn't he have just made us to exist...in any environment. Did he not know resources would run out, sun would explode, galaxies collide?
> If he wanted us with him, why make a physical specimen at all? Just to watch us struggle to survive and suffer?



Oh yes, the meaning of life. I've asked myself this question many times. Why didn't God just make us as spirits without bodies?  We are made in the image of God.
I know we are made to glorify God but that still doesn't explain why he made us humans.
Even if he wanted to place us in something physical, it could have been bionic with no need of life/breath as we know it.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Are we going to be thrown in a cosmic meat grinder?  Is there a chance the earth exists 2 billion years from now.....or whenever we are gonna smack into the next galaxy over.
> 
> Somehow, in the cosmic chaos, in the lifeless, cold, indifferent universe, something smiled on our little planet and things seem to have worked out for now.



Nothing smiled on us. We are the result of the ingredients and conditions. No different or no better than what makes up every other planet. What is here and on them is EXACTLY what the conditions allow for.
We just want to make out as more than what it is.


It is like Michael Waddell at the Great American Sports Show all week....he stands there shaking hands and signing autographs for hours a day... And believe me I respect that he does it and he is a trooper and could not do a better job at really making everyone feel welcome and special.
After 10 days of that 20,000 people will have left feeling special in some way...unique that some TV celeb said something nice to them...they will brag to their buddies at work and friends from school and the women will tell their girlfriends about it,  they will all cherish it forever in their own unique way.
Michael won't remember three of them if any at all. It is all what we want to make of it.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Nothing smiled on us. We are the result of the ingredients and conditions. No different or no better than what makes up every other planet. What is here and on them is EXACTLY what the conditions allow for.
> We just want to make out as more than what it is.



Would you allow the same confidence from a conflicting opinion?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> E didn't have to equal MC2, right?  Energy doesn't have to exist.  Matter doesn't have to exist.  Nothing we see or know about "has" to be there.  It just is.  And somehow, what it is has lead us to where we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think laws first, then us......part of the creation model.
> Again, isn't that fortunate for us that we got cake?





> E didn't have to equal MC2, right?


E was just E and would still be just E if man hadn't decided to use a formula to try to describe it. 


> Energy doesn't have to exist.  Matter doesn't have to exist.  Nothing we see or know about "has" to be there.  It just is.  And somehow, what it is has lead us to where we are.


I think that's the point.


> I think laws first, then us......part of the creation model.


Again that's the point. 
But they weren't "laws" until we tried to describe what we think we see.
We are a result of it. Different laws and martians or maybe nothing would be walking around instead of us.


> Again, isn't that fortunate for us that we got cake?


From the human races point of view, yes.
For many folks life hasn't been all that "fortunate" though.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Generally speaking, very few would trade the ride to avoid the end.  Humanity, as a whole, enjoys a very blessed existence.  There are extreme outliers, but compared to everything we know of in our universe, we got it made.
> 
> Consider how lame life must be for a space rock.  If we are nothing but stardust, we are the luckiest stardust in the universe (with current understanding, of course, there could be some very cool things out there).


That's a good way of looking at it.
But I think its viewed through the eyes of one who isn't starving or a cancer ridden child etc etc.
When I put myself in the shoes of some of the people in this world I personally would end it all or wish I hadn't been born in the first place.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> I'm certainly not qualified to answer those questions
> However keep in mind that "we" (humans) came up with these "laws" to describe what we think we see about the universe. If we weren't here to call them laws it would be "just the way it is".



That is the same thing some Christians say about the laws of science. That God made the universal order but "man" is the one who is using science as a way to explain it. That there is no rules of science except in man's mind.
Man invented science as a way to explain "just the way it is."
Can't we say the same thing about most school subjects like math? God or Universal Energy doesn't use math. Math is just our way to explain "just the way it is."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Regardless of how we look at it there is an order or laws that we must operate within. God or this Universal Energy must operate within boundaries. Maybe they deemed it upon themselves to follow these rules of operation. Maybe even they had no choice. Maybe this is why we are in a human form instead of bionic. It still doesn't explain why we are in a physical form.

Now because of these rules a certain amount of determinism or predestination exists regardless if one is a Deist or Atheist.
Free will doesn't give us the ability to do things beyond universal rules of operation.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> That is the same thing some Christians say about the laws of science. That God made the universal order but "man" is the one who is using science as a way to explain it. That there is no rules of science except in man's mind.
> Man invented science as a way to explain "just the way it is."
> Can't we say the same thing about most school subjects like math? God or Universal Energy doesn't use math. Math is just our way to explain "just the way it is."


If in fact the Christian God made the universe then those Christians who say that would be exactly right.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> If in fact the Christian God made the universe then those Christians who say that would be exactly right.



I don't think it matters what we call it, the laws of nature still exist. We can explain birth as miraculous or scientific but it is still caused the same way.
I believe it's both and God uses science to maintain the universe. I call it science, God doesn't.
In that respect you are correct. Science was here before man was created or evolved, we just didn't know what it was called.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Would you allow the same confidence from a conflicting opinion?



If the conflicting opinion had the same amount of facts to back it up....sure.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> "Abstract of Consciousness in the universe: A review of the â€˜Orch ORâ€™ theory
> The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990Ê¼s that consciousness depends on biologically â€˜orchestratedâ€™ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósiâ€“Penrose (DP) scheme of â€˜objective reductionâ€™ (â€˜ORâ€™) of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity (â€˜Orch ORâ€™) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and spaceâ€“time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brainÊ¼s biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of â€˜beat frequenciesâ€™ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic (â€˜EEGâ€™) correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe."
> 
> So you accept Hameroff and Penroseâ€™s conclusions that â€œconsciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universeâ€� and â€œits ultimate place in the universe are unknownâ€� with the caveat that consciousness does not exist outside physical life forms?  Is that consistent with the nature of consciousness also being unknown?


My microtubules and brain neurons have completely shut down after reading that.
I don't know what I think.

Consciousness exists. We have a state of awareness. What role it plays I do not know.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> Precisely.
> If it was about "us" at all living in these conditions that allow life as we know it, Earth would be the only thing in the Universe.
> All the rest is so unable to be understood that man has had to make stories up that explain the unexplainable in ways man can understand. All people are OK with whatever explanation seems to make the best sense in THEIR OWN MIND...but none of it is universal.



Biblically speaking, it is not about "us".  So I'm not sure how this argument works in that context.  That's always one of the biggest issues that I can't resolve with people who believe God doesn't exist.  It's a 180 degree different perspective.  For the most part, I've found that they are trying to reconcile a God who wouldn't set things up to be perfectly comfortable for them personally.  That's not meant as an insult or cut.  It's just an observation that this type of comment seems to support.  

Am I reading right that you're saying that the Earth would be the only thing in the universe if the only point of creation was human life?  The sun isn't important to life on earth?  What about the moon?  What about the Earth's rotation around the sun.  Necessary to life?  What about the placement of the other planets?  Necessary to life on earth?

The beautiful thing about our solar system in particular is how amazingly so many things have to be exactly the way they are.  Even just almost infinitely small changes would totally preclude life on Earth.  Whether you believe a god is responsible for all of those very precise 'settings' or not....it's pretty amazing.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Biblically speaking, it is not about "us".  So I'm not sure how this argument works in that context.  That's always one of the biggest issues that I can't resolve with people who believe God doesn't exist.  It's a 180 degree different perspective.  For the most part, I've found that they are trying to reconcile a God who wouldn't set things up to be perfectly comfortable for them personally.  That's not meant as an insult or cut.  It's just an observation that this type of comment seems to support.
> 
> Am I reading right that you're saying that the Earth would be the only thing in the universe if the only point of creation was human life?  The sun isn't important to life on earth?  What about the moon?  What about the Earth's rotation around the sun.  Necessary to life?  What about the placement of the other planets?  Necessary to life on earth?
> 
> The beautiful thing about our solar system in particular is how amazingly so many things have to be exactly the way they are.  Even just almost infinitely small changes would totally preclude life on Earth.  Whether you believe a god is responsible for all of those very precise 'settings' or not....it's pretty amazing.



I have asked you at least 10 serious questions in past posts.
I quoted you and asked you based off of those quotes and you refuse to reply to anything that might have you in a bind.

But i will humor you here..

It is because of those things that make conditions "right"
We exist only because they allow it.
It is not because they were precisely put there for our benefit. It is because they were there billions of years before and those conditions allowed life to happen here.
Under those conditions life was inevitable.

No one is thrilled because Jupiter is so far away from the Sun that conditions are PERFECT for exactly what Jupiter consists of.
Remember...without Jupiter being EXACTLY where it is...they might call it Saturn.

Everything in the Universe IS exactly what it IS because perfect conditions exist to make it that way. Infinitely small changes would cause things to be something else....but those things that result from those small changes would be absolutely NORMAL under those new conditions.


Nobody did us a favor. We are the result of the available components in these conditions.
 Compared to the rest of the Universe Earth may be the red headed step child that no one talks about . 

Then again there could be a million planets JUST like us.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> Biblically speaking, it is not about "us".  So I'm not sure how this argument works in that context.  That's always one of the biggest issues that I can't resolve with people who believe God doesn't exist.  It's a 180 degree different perspective.  For the most part, I've found that they are trying to reconcile a God who wouldn't set things up to be perfectly comfortable for them personally.  That's not meant as an insult or cut.  It's just an observation that this type of comment seems to support.
> 
> Am I reading right that you're saying that the Earth would be the only thing in the universe if the only point of creation was human life?  The sun isn't important to life on earth?  What about the moon?  What about the Earth's rotation around the sun.  Necessary to life?  What about the placement of the other planets?  Necessary to life on earth?
> 
> The beautiful thing about our solar system in particular is how amazingly so many things have to be exactly the way they are.  Even just almost infinitely small changes would totally preclude life on Earth.  Whether you believe a god is responsible for all of those very precise 'settings' or not....it's pretty amazing.


I agree that it can be called amazing.
But -


> Even just almost infinitely small changes would totally preclude life on Earth.


How do you know it wouldn't be a different kind of life?
Wouldn't that then be also amazing?


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> I have asked you at least 10 serious questions in past posts.
> I quoted you and asked you based off of those quotes and you refuse to reply to anything that might have you in a bind.
> 
> But i will humor you here..
> 
> It is because of those things that make conditions "right"
> We exist only because they allow it.
> It is not because they were precisely put there for our benefit. It is because they were there billions of years before and those conditions allowed life to happen here.
> Under those conditions life was inevitable.
> 
> No one is thrilled because Jupiter is so far away from the Sun that conditions are PERFECT for exactly what Jupiter consists of.
> Remember...without Jupiter being EXACTLY where it is...they might call it Saturn.
> 
> Everything in the Universe IS exactly what it IS because perfect conditions exist to make it that way. Infinitely small changes would cause things to be something else....but those things that result from those small changes would be absolutely NORMAL under those new conditions.
> 
> 
> Nobody did us a favor. We are the result of the available components in these conditions.
> Compared to the rest of the Universe Earth may be the red headed step child that no one talks about .
> 
> Then again there could be a million planets JUST like us.


Yep.
This isn't a insult and Im not saying it applies to all Christians or just Christians but....
To me this argument carries a sort of inflated importance or "aren't we special" train of thought. I guess its based in the belief that God made this universe for "us".
Yet if God made all life and the perfect conditions for it, there would be no such thing as extinct species. It wasn't perfect for them so they aren't here any more.
But God made them.
And if those conditions change neither will we.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Yep.
> This isn't a insult and Im not saying it applies to all Christians or just Christians but....
> To me this argument carries a sort of inflated importance or "aren't we special" train of thought. I guess its based in the belief that God made this universe for "us".
> Yet if God made all life and the perfect conditions for it, there would be no such thing as extinct species. It wasn't perfect for them so they aren't here any more.
> But God made them.
> And if those conditions change neither will we.



I agree Walt.
It seems to some people that this specially made planet specifically tailored for Life is just perfect...I don't think they realize that more life has gone extinct than is living right now. With "perfect conditions" being the number one factor in their demise.
It seems as though those same people only really think human life (and the white picket fence everything is wonderful versions) are the only important life and examples that matter.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> My microtubules and brain neurons have completely shut down after reading that.
> I don't know what I think.
> 
> Consciousness exists. We have a state of awareness. What role it plays I do not know.



I misunderstood what you were referring to, my bad.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I misunderstood what you were referring to, my bad.



No problem.
I appreciate what you bring to the conversations


----------



## Artfuldodger

Huntinfool said:


> Biblically speaking, it is not about "us".  So I'm not sure how this argument works in that context.  That's always one of the biggest issues that I can't resolve with people who believe God doesn't exist.  It's a 180 degree different perspective.  For the most part, I've found that they are trying to reconcile a God who wouldn't set things up to be perfectly comfortable for them personally.  That's not meant as an insult or cut.  It's just an observation that this type of comment seems to support.
> 
> Am I reading right that you're saying that the Earth would be the only thing in the universe if the only point of creation was human life?  The sun isn't important to life on earth?  What about the moon?  What about the Earth's rotation around the sun.  Necessary to life?  What about the placement of the other planets?  Necessary to life on earth?
> 
> The beautiful thing about our solar system in particular is how amazingly so many things have to be exactly the way they are.  Even just almost infinitely small changes would totally preclude life on Earth.  Whether you believe a god is responsible for all of those very precise 'settings' or not....it's pretty amazing.



This was asked previously by an Atheist but I'm also interested.
Why do you suppose everything had to be exactly the way they are for God to make life? Why does life need the sun, water, air, etc? Why did God who created man from dust, need such a precise working environment?
I think it is because he based his creation on science. He created science before he created life. He was a science guy. Now I'm not saying he had to do it the way he did. He could have made us bionic or just spiritual. 
This mystery will be revealed later. Eventually it will be revealed why God uses science. 
Now it is true that the word science is from man but the things science explains are from God the Creator.


----------



## rmp

bullethead said:


> It is because of those things that make conditions "right"
> We exist only because they allow it.
> It is not because they were precisely put there for our benefit. It is because they were there billions of years before and those conditions allowed life to happen here.
> Under those conditions life was inevitable.
> 
> No one is thrilled because Jupiter is so far away from the Sun that conditions are PERFECT for exactly what Jupiter consists of.
> Remember...without Jupiter being EXACTLY where it is...they might call it Saturn.
> 
> Everything in the Universe IS exactly what it IS because perfect conditions exist to make it that way. Infinitely small changes would cause things to be something else....but those things that result from those small changes would be absolutely NORMAL under those new conditions.
> 
> 
> Nobody did us a favor. We are the result of the available components in these conditions.



Completely agree.  If we were sliding around on our bellies like slugs, or flying around with our own wings, or merely plankton on the sea floor....as long as we had the consciousness to acknowledge our condition, we'd still say it's all so "perfect".
We are a product of our environment. NOT our environment is a product made for us.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I have asked you at least 10 serious questions in past posts.
> I quoted you and asked you based off of those quotes and you refuse to reply to anything that might have you in a bind.
> 
> But i will humor you here..
> 
> It is because of those things that make conditions "right"
> We exist only because they allow it.
> It is not because they were precisely put there for our benefit. It is because they were there billions of years before and those conditions allowed life to happen here.
> Under those conditions life was inevitable.
> 
> No one is thrilled because Jupiter is so far away from the Sun that conditions are PERFECT for exactly what Jupiter consists of.
> Remember...without Jupiter being EXACTLY where it is...they might call it Saturn.
> 
> Everything in the Universe IS exactly what it IS because perfect conditions exist to make it that way. Infinitely small changes would cause things to be something else....but those things that result from those small changes would be absolutely NORMAL under those new conditions.
> 
> 
> Nobody did us a favor. We are the result of the available components in these conditions.
> Compared to the rest of the Universe Earth may be the red headed step child that no one talks about .
> 
> Then again there could be a million planets JUST like us.



What sustains this planet and this Galaxy? Remember, one little change, changes everything. After all those billions of tries over billions of years, as you claim, the conditions where right for life and all that we know, why haven't conditions changed in the last millions years?

If what you say is true, that there were many "tries" at life, it's seems as though once the conditions where right for life here in the Milky Way, "it" decided to stop changing the conditions.


----------



## stringmusic

WaltL1 said:


> Yep.
> This isn't a insult and Im not saying it applies to all Christians or just Christians but....
> To me this argument carries a sort of inflated importance or "aren't we special" train of thought. I guess its based in the belief that God made this universe for "us".
> Yet if God made all life and the perfect conditions for it, there would be no such thing as extinct species. It wasn't perfect for them so they aren't here any more.
> But God made them.
> And if those conditions change neither will we.





bullethead said:


> I agree Walt.
> It seems to some people that this specially made planet specifically tailored for Life is just perfect...I don't think they realize that more life has gone extinct than is living right now. With "perfect conditions" being the number one factor in their demise.
> It seems as though those same people only really think human life (and the white picket fence everything is wonderful versions) are the only important life and examples that matter.





rmp said:


> Completely agree.  If we were sliding around on our bellies like slugs, or flying around with our own wings, or merely plankton on the sea floor....as long as we had the consciousness to acknowledge our condition, we'd still say it's all so "perfect".
> We are a product of our environment. NOT our environment is a product made for us.



According to the Christian worldview, humans were created in God's image, nothing else was, so yea, we are considered special.

I'm sure you guys consider humans special in the grand scheme of things too. You might not want to admit it in the context of this conversation, but Id bet you do.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> What sustains this planet and this Galaxy? Remember, one little change, changes everything. After all those billions of tries over billions of years, as you claim, the conditions where right for life and all that we know, why haven't conditions changed in the last millions years?
> 
> 
> If what you say is true, that there were many "tries" at life, it's seems as though once the conditions where right for life here in the Milky Way, "it" decided to stop changing the conditions.



The conditions constantly change. Those that adapt survive. Those that do not adapt go extinct.
I'd bet you may be able to find some examples throughout history if you look.
The Earth is constantly changing.
Polar shifts, weather, earthquakes,volcanoes, asteroid strikes, enviornment changes...etc
Now you wont find many big strikes in recent history but again...if you research...you will see that in the billions of years of earths existence how these strikes impacted (pun intended) life on earth.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> According to the Christian worldview, humans were created in God's image, nothing else was, so yea, we are considered special.
> 
> I'm sure you guys consider humans special in the grand scheme of things too. You might not want to admit it in the context of this conversation, but Id bet you do.



If it comes down to humans vs apes I am fighting for humans. I kinda like being human.
What is wrong with thinking your species is special?
Yeah we are special...but maybe not for the same reasons you think we are special.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> The conditions constantly change. Those that adapt survive. Those that do not adapt go extinct.
> I'd bet you may be able to find some examples throughout history if you look.
> The Earth is constantly changing.
> Polar shifts, weather, earthquakes,volcanoes, asteroid strikes, enviornment changes...etc
> Now you wont find many big strikes in recent history but again...if you research...you will see that in the billions of years of earths existence and how these strikes impacted (pun intended) life on earth.



My point is the "main conditions" haven't changed, at least not enough to wipe away earth, the Galaxy, or life. It's hard to buy into what you're saying especially since it only takes a very very small change to wipe everything we see and know away.

It just doesn't make much sense to me why all those billions and billions of tries and changing of conditions suddenly stopped and now we are sustained perfectly.


----------



## bullethead

String,  my goodness man, noticeable condition changes take place from year to year.
If you are stating that nothing has changed in the last million years you should really  REALLY  look into things.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> If it comes down to humans vs apes I am fighting for humans. I kinda like being human.
> What is wrong with thinking your species is special?
> Yeah we are special...but maybe not for the same reasons you think we are special.



Nothing is wrong with thinking you're species is special, although a few posts above seem to indicate we aren't.

We've been over this before, but logically speaking from an A/A perspective, we can't be any more special than a pile of rocks.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> My point is the "main conditions" haven't changed, at least not enough to wipe away earth, the Galaxy, or life. It's hard to buy into what you're saying especially since it only takes a very very small change to wipe everything we see and know away.
> 
> It just doesn't make much sense to me why all those billions and billions of tries and changing of conditions suddenly stopped and now we are sustained perfectly.



Main condition changes....then small condition changes.... Which is it?
Give me some examples and what impacts you are looking for.
You may want to check into when the last ice age was.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> String,  my goodness man, noticeable condition changes take place from year to year.
> If you are stating that nothing has changed in the last million years you should really  REALLY  look into things.



Of course things change, I'm not saying they don't, but those things that change are irelevant to our planet, human life and even our galaxy to continue to sustain life. The things that can't change for earth to keep revolving and humans to continue living are staying the exact same. Why haven't those things changed?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Nothing is wrong with thinking you're species is special, although a few posts above seem to indicate we aren't.
> 
> We've been over this before, but logically speaking from an A/A perspective, we can't be any more special than a pile of rocks.



Lololol
I love how you guys make statements as if we make them.
From the A/A perspective. ...what the heck does that mean?
I am well aware of the differences between me and a rock. It is one of the reasons I do not throw a person in the fire for a while and then shove em in my sleeping bag for heat.
I realize the differences between rocks and myself...I just do not have to connect that God made rocks in the image of his landscaping in order to have it make sense to me.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Give me some examples and what impacts you are looking for.


Any of the thousands if not millions of things that could alter slightly and wipe away human life along with our entire galaxy.


----------



## stringmusic

I'll try to reply to post 1369 tomorrow when I'm at work and have a keyboard, it sucks typing on my phone.

I'm heading to bed, have a good one man.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Of course things change, I'm not saying they don't, but those things that change are irelevant to our planet, human life and even our galaxy to continue to sustain life. The things that can't change for earth to keep revolving and humans to continue living are staying the exact same. Why haven't those things changed?



String I hate to say it but you are overlooking all the changes that resulted in the total extinction of entire species.
You won't be satisfied until an asteroid smacks us and kills us all.
I can't say when that will happen but the odds are it will because it already has.
The Sun WILL burn out.
Galaxies WILL collide.
I am glad that I wont be around to say " waddup wit dat" to you. I don't wanna gloat over that.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Any of the thousands if not millions of things that could alter slightly and wipe away human life along with our entire galaxy.



I am asking for 5


----------



## bullethead

Like with evolution you expect immediate change.
Modern humans are a blip on the timeline...we are not here that long. And I am not looking for a catastrophic event to happen just to say I told you so.
The Earth is "only" 4.5 Billion years old and the Universe is 14 Billion  (rough estimates for both) so compared to the 250,000 years of modern human existence I do not think you can fathom the time between catastrophic events and the major changes and recovery to occur.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I'll try to reply to post 1369 tomorrow when I'm at work and have a keyboard, it sucks typing on my phone.
> 
> I'm heading to bed, have a good one man.


10/4
I've been using my phone too. Frustrating is an understatement and thank goodness for spell check.


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> According to the Christian worldview, humans were created in God's image, nothing else was, so yea, we are considered special.
> 
> I'm sure you guys consider humans special in the grand scheme of things too. You might not want to admit it in the context of this conversation, but Id bet you do.





> I'm sure you guys consider humans special in the grand scheme of things too. You might not want to admit it in the context of this conversation, but Id bet you do.


Special?
Different yes, dominant (for the most part) species yes, 
most intelligent as far as we know, yes.
Feeling special would be an individual thing to me.


> According to the Christian worldview, humans were created in God's image, nothing else was, so yea, we are considered special.


So which is it? Dirty rags? unworthy? Sin filled? Special?


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> I have asked you at least 10 serious questions in past posts.
> I quoted you and asked you based off of those quotes and you refuse to reply to anything that might have you in a bind.
> 
> 
> 
> Then again there could be a million planets JUST like us.



Right back at ya on the first part. 


On the second part, it would take an AWFUL lot of faith to believe that. You demand proof of all my claims or examples. Hold yourself to the same standard.


----------



## Huntinfool

WaltL1 said:


> I agree that it can be called amazing.
> But -
> 
> How do you know it wouldn't be a different kind of life?
> Wouldn't that then be also amazing?



Science...tells me not that life would be different but that life would not be possible if certain things changed.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> I am well aware of the differences between me and a rock. It is one of the reasons I do not throw a person in the fire for a while and then shove em in my sleeping bag for heat.



Well, that made me spit coffee.


----------



## 660griz

Huntinfool said:


> On the second part, it would take an AWFUL lot of faith to believe that. You demand proof of all my claims or examples. Hold yourself to the same standard.



He did say could be but, here you go.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/07/kepler-438b-earth-twin-habitable-planets-alien-life


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Well, that made me spit coffee.



This^^^^

One of the best one-liners posted here in a long time.


----------



## JB0704

I think we're special 'cause the mods haven't shut this thread down.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Right back at ya on the first part.
> 
> 
> On the second part, it would take an AWFUL lot of faith to believe that. You demand proof of all my claims or examples. Hold yourself to the same standard.



I answered everything you ever asked.

With millions of Galaxies containing Hundreds of Billions of Stars that have trillions of planets around them...I do not need faith. 
Plus I gave two scenarios. One being it is just us and the 2nd based of of the sheer numbers i said COULD. I didn't say I know for a fact and then give coordinates.

Go back and answer my replies to your martyr excuses.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Lololol
> I love how you guys make statements as if we make them.
> From the A/A perspective. ...what the heck does that mean?


It means that if one follows the logic of the way you say the we, and everything else, was created, then it is impossible for us to be any more special than a rock.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I think we're special 'cause the mods haven't shut this thread down.



I think the thread is super. One of the best ever that consists of in depth examples given by all.
Well.....mostly all anyway.
Why shut it down when it is going so well?
I hope it is allowed to continue.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I am asking for 5



You're asking for 5 examples of things that could change that would destroy earth and humans?


----------



## stringmusic

WaltL1 said:


> So which is it? Dirty rags? unworthy? Sin filled? Special?


They are two different subjects, if that makes any sense.

Yes, we are special because we are created in the image of God.

Yes, we are sinners and unworthy because sin entered our lives.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I hope it is allowed to continue.



X2, this has been one of the best threads in a long time.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> It means that if one follows the logic of the way you say the we, and everything else, was created, then it is impossible for us to be any more special than a rock.



I think that is just you putting words in others mouths.
It is blatantly obvious to this agnostic that I differ from a rock and the process of how the rock and myself came to be is totally different.
I do understand that both the rock and myself share elements but we all share elements with everything.
It is the difference of those elements and living cells that separate everything. 
Knowing that is why I do not eat yellow crayons thinking they are bananas.
Your logic on our logic is flawed.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Your logic on our logic is flawed.



No matter how many times it is explained, some still consider atheist/agnostic, to have no morals, no purpose, and we think all things on earth are the same.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Could the universe be an atom inside a larger molecule and the planets/stars the sub-atomic particles?



I've thought about this as well, considering how similar the structures at first seem to be. 

I don't rule anything out when it comes to this stuff, except for anyone who claims to "know for sure" any bit of it. 

It's my belief that, if there is a God, the Masons actually have it closer to the truth when they say Great Architect rather than God. While I see the existence of religions as a check in the yes column for a God, I don't see it in favor of any God, given the multitude that exist so I take a favorable view towards a generic term and being only attributed that which we can see, i.e. the Universe. Still, that's not enough for me to believe.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> You're asking for 5 examples of things that could change that would destroy earth and humans?



No. I know what could change and destroy.
I am asking for 5 that have happened that you think did not have any effect on the earth.
You were asking me why the earth is still standing against all odds in such a mean Universe with the earth shrugging off everything the Universe throws at it like bullets off SuperMans chest....seemingly with no effects to the earth or it's inhabitants. You want to know why humans still exist with all these hazards.
Give me 5 that happened that you think did not effect the earth and we can discuss what impact they actually made.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> I think that is just you putting words in others mouths.
> It is blatantly obvious to this agnostic that I differ from a rock and the process of how the rock and myself came to be is totally different.
> I do understand that both the rock and myself share elements but we all share elements with everything.
> It is the difference of those elements and living cells that separate everything.
> Knowing that is why I do not eat yellow crayons thinking they are bananas.
> Your logic on our logic is flawed.



Intrinsically I don't think we're any more special than a rock, as far as constructs go. The meaning, and thus the value, of our lives derives from our actions, IMO. Some people die being way less special than that rock, most die being a great deal more special.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I think that is just you putting words in others mouths.
> It is blatantly obvious to this agnostic that I differ from a rock and the process of how the rock and myself came to be is totally different.


We aren't discussing the biological differences between you and a rock.


> I do understand that both the rock and myself share elements but we all share elements with everything.


OK 


> It is the difference of those elements and living cells that separate everything.


OK  you're not a rock, I think we can agree on that.


> Knowing that is why I do not eat yellow crayons thinking they are bananas.


OK 


> Your logic on our logic is flawed.


You're gonna have to show me how my logic is flawed.

Walk me through, step by step, how human life is any more special than a rock from your worldview, and because we can walk and talk and think isn't the answer.


----------



## stringmusic

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Intrinsically I don't think we're any more special than a rock


And coming from your worldview, or any other worldview that doesn't see humans as divinely created, there's no other way to look at it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I've thought about this as well, considering how similar the structures at first seem to be.
> 
> I don't rule anything out when it comes to this stuff, except for anyone who claims to "know for sure" any bit of it.
> 
> It's my belief that, if there is a God, the Masons actually have it closer to the truth when they say Great Architect rather than God. While I see the existence of religions as a check in the yes column for a God, I don't see it in favor of any God, given the multitude that exist so I take a favorable view towards a generic term and being only attributed that which we can see, i.e. the Universe. Still, that's not enough for me to believe.



I forgot about the atoms nucleus. Maybe each solar system's sun is the nucleus, each solar system is an atom, and the universe is a molecule. The planets would relate to electrons.
Not that everything is atoms and molecules but related in structure with some type of nucleus and planet revolving around this nucleus. 
It's weird that everything has to keep moving to keep it in place.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> Science...tells me not that life would be different but that life would not be possible if certain things changed.


Science tells you that OUR (human) life would not be possible not All life.
That science is looking for life on planets very different from ours confirms that science doesn't believe a planet has to be just like ours to have life.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> No. I know what could change and destroy.
> I am asking for 5 that have happened that you think did not have any effect on the earth.
> You were asking me why the earth is still standing against all odds in such a mean Universe with the earth shrugging off everything the Universe throws at it like bullets off SuperMans chest....seemingly with no effects to the earth or it's inhabitants. You want to know why humans still exist with all these hazards.
> Give me 5 that happened that you think did not effect the earth and we can discuss what impact they actually made.


I'm not sure where you're getting that from?

1. Millions of tries and millions of changes= life, Earth, galaxy etc. 

2. There are millions of very tiny intricate things that could change that would destroy us and the Earth.

3. We are here and so is the Earth.

4. For some reason those millions of tries and changes seemed to have stopped. 

There's my logic in a nutshell.


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> No matter how many times it is explained, some still consider atheist/agnostic, to have no morals, no purpose, and we think all things on earth are the same.



You're reading some words in my mouth I think. I didn't say any of that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

stringmusic said:


> And coming from your worldview, or any other worldview that doesn't see humans as divinely created, there's no other way to look at it.



I can't say that. I don't know how you can, either. 



Artfuldodger said:


> I forgot about the atoms nucleus. Maybe each solar system's sun is the nucleus, each solar system is an atom, and the universe is a molecule. The planets would relate to electrons.
> Not that everything is atoms and molecules but related in structure with some type of nucleus and planet revolving around this nucleus.
> It's weird that everything has to keep moving to keep it in place.



It is an interesting corollary. Except that instead of gravity and motion at those scales it's electromagnetism and the nuclear forces simultaneously binding and repelling the constituent parts. Of course the GUT could one day resolve them to different expressions of the same root force.


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> They are two different subjects, if that makes any sense.
> 
> Yes, we are special because we are created in the image of God.
> 
> Yes, we are sinners and unworthy because sin entered our lives.





> They are two different subjects, if that makes any sense.


Yes it makes sense and I can see your point. 
Here's where I don't think I agree -


> Yes, we are special because we are created in the image of God.





> Yes, we are sinners and unworthy because sin entered our lives.


Those two sentences oppose each other. Im assuming God cant have sin enter his life. So that's opposite. 
I understand what Christianity tells you about being created in the image of God. And if you leave it at that, no problem. But if you break it down you run into some issues.
Do this - make a list of all the attributes given to God. Then make a list of all the attributes given to you. Then compare them. You will find that you are not an image of him but in fact the exact opposite of him.
That's not an image of something.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I think we're special 'cause the mods haven't shut this thread down.


Maybe the mods are special because they recognize the fact that there is no good reason to shut it down


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> You're reading some words in my mouth I think. I didn't say any of that.



Sorry.
What did you mean by:


> then it is impossible for us to be any more special than a rock.



I do think we are more special( distinguished by some unusual quality) than a rock. We can think, we have feelings, we can move, etc. Are you not following flawed logic or putting words in our(A/A's) mouth?

If your only litmus test is that, if we don't believe we were created by a mythical being to be special therefor, we cannot be special then, that is your opinion and yours alone, doesn't make it a fact.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe the mods are special because they recognize the fact that there is no good reason to shut it down



I'm thinking about the 1K post limit that was exceeded about 400 posts ago.  Aside from that, discussion has been fantastic on all sides.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Do this - make a list of all the attributes given to God. Then make a list of all the attributes given to you. Then compare them. You will find that you are not an image of him but in fact the exact opposite of him.
> That's not an image of something.



A very valid point.  I do not think "image" means "exact."  Obviously it can't in this sense, or the entire concept can be tossed.  We are not "god-like."

I tend to believe it is relevant to those things which set aside from the animals, insects, trees, and rocks.  Conciousness, spirit, etc.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I'm thinking about the 1K post limit that was exceeded about 400 posts ago.  Aside from that, discussion has been fantastic on all sides.



Agreed, this has to be one of the best threads I've ever seen in here. 

I like that it wasn't killed at 1k, but I don't think that would have killed the conversation, either.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> A very valid point.  I do not think "image" means "exact."  Obviously it can't in this sense, or the entire concept can be tossed.  We are not "god-like."
> 
> I tend to believe it is relevant to those things which set aside from the animals, insects, trees, and rocks.  Conciousness, spirit, etc.





> We are not "god-like."


That's what is tripping me up about the being an "image".
So I figured I was using the meaning of "image" wrong.
Went to some Christian websites and yes the explenations were more along the lines of what you said but the focus was mainly on sin and how you have the OPPORTUNITY to be more like God by removing/avoiding sin from your life.
Which brought me back to -
1. The OPPORTUNITY to be like God in that aspect merely confirms the point that we are NOT an image.
2. If we are innately sinful, dirty rags, whatever description you want to use then you CANT accomplish that. HE has to do it.
I just cant get through the thing without finding something else that opposes it.
Which to be honest is the common theme for me throughout religion.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I'm thinking about the 1K post limit that was exceeded about 400 posts ago.  Aside from that, discussion has been fantastic on all sides.


I could be completely wrong but - in general what threads go to 1000 posts?
Dog eradication from your deer land threads.
Gay threads
Which Bible threads.
By the thousandth post people are ripping each others throats out so the cutoff might be a "relieve the pressure" type rule.
Or it could be something as a simple as bandwidth type thing.
Either way maybe we should shutup about it before we back a mod into a corner and he has to do something about it


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I could be completely wrong but - in general what threads go to 1000 posts?
> Dog eradication from your deer land threads.
> Gay threads
> Which Bible threads.
> By the thousandth post people are ripping each others throats out so the cutoff might be a "relieve the pressure" type rule.
> Or it could be something as simple as bandwidth type thing.
> Either way maybe we should shutup about it before we back a mod into a corner and he has to do something about it



Weather threads in the Campfire frequently do. We're on thread #2 and this has been a quiet season. Last year we went 7 deep on it.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Weather threads in the Campfire frequently do. We're on thread #2 and this has been a quiet season. Last year we went 7 deep on it.


Seriously? Weather threads?
Like is it raining out? Or global warming etc?
God forbid I ever get that bored


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Seriously? Weather threads?
> Like is it raining out? Or global warming etc?
> God forbid I ever get that bored



No, like is it forecast to snow, or throw tornadoes, in the near future. 

You should check them out, there's some good information amongst the drivelers.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Science tells you that OUR (human) life would not be possible not All life.
> That science is looking for life on planets very different from ours confirms that science doesn't believe a planet has to be just like ours to have life.



That would be cool to find life very different than life on earth. Maybe a form with no eyes and ears. A form that has completely different senses than we have. A form that doesn't even need certain gases or an atmosphere.
Something that is alive that we wouldn't even consider as a life form.


----------



## JB0704

Useless Billy gets locked up around 1K almost every time.

But, Walt's right......should prolly be quiet about it while this'ns going good.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> It's weird that everything has to keep moving to keep it in place.



Not true.In Hezekiah's day, God turned the earth's rotation backwards ten degrees.

And in Joshua's day God made the earth's rotation stop for a whole day.

He held everything in place.The universe didn't explode or nothing. 

God is awesome!


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> That's what is tripping me up about the being an "image".
> So I figured I was using the meaning of "image" wrong.
> Went to some Christian websites and yes the explenations were more along the lines of what you said but the focus was mainly on sin and how you have the OPPORTUNITY to be more like God by removing/avoiding sin from your life.
> Which brought me back to -
> 1. The OPPORTUNITY to be like God in that aspect merely confirms the point that we are NOT an image.
> 2. If we are innately sinful, dirty rags, whatever description you want to use then you CANT accomplish that. *HE has to do it.*I just cant get through the thing without finding something else that opposes it.
> Which to be honest is the common theme for me throughout religion.



That is going into the realm of freewill v predes mindsets.  And, it is hard to reconcile the items you explained above.  I'm gonna avoid that debate as much as possible.

I don't know why the websites focused on sin, I would have to visit them to understand.  But, I think some folks believe it is a literal physical picture, as in, God has hands and feet, some believe it is spiritual, in that, we have a soul and an intellect.

The only thing I know 100% for sure is that we are not God, so it can't be "exact image."  This can be a stumbling block for the folks who tend to view scripture literally.  Otherwise, if we were "wicked dirty rags," but also an exact image of God, what would that say about God? 

This is why I think it's a loose term to get in the ballpark of the point, we have a soul (or you would call it conscience).   But, I'm not sure, and I don't claim to have all the answers when it comes to scripture interpretations.  I just look at what they say, and see if I can determine the meaning.  Often, I have to toss out everything I was ever told about the subject in order to develop a clear understanding.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> Something that is alive that we wouldn't even consider as a life form.



The movie Avatar digs into that a little, kind-a new age mother earth type stuff (with a LOT of anti-american empirialsim sentiment layered in).


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Not true.In Hezekiah's day, God turned the earth's rotation backwards ten degrees.
> 
> And in Joshua's day God made the earth's rotation stop for a whole day.
> 
> He held everything in place.The universe didn't explode or nothing.
> 
> God is awesome!




Most Christians turn an embarrassed cheek to those claims.  I really can't believe that someone, a fully grown adult, could believe that those things ever happened much less proclaim the veracity of them.  

I'm astounded.

I'm speechless.

I'm profoundly sad for all humanity.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> I answered everything you ever asked.



Good grief.




> Go back and answer my replies to your martyr excuses.



I suppose, based on the above, I should say I've answered all your questions as well?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> That is going into the realm of freewill v predes mindsets.  And, it is hard to reconcile the items you explained above.  I'm gonna avoid that debate as much as possible.



Why the aversion?  It seems like it's a VERY important thing that a believer should have a stance on.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Not true.In Hezekiah's day, God turned the earth's rotation backwards ten degrees.
> 
> And in Joshua's day God made the earth's rotation stop for a whole day.
> 
> He held everything in place.The universe didn't explode or nothing.
> 
> God is awesome!




This just made me profoundly sad for the future of my daughter.  I thought we were getting somewhere.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Not true.In Hezekiah's day, God turned the earth's rotation backwards ten degrees.
> 
> And in Joshua's day God made the earth's rotation stop for a whole day.
> 
> He held everything in place.The universe didn't explode or nothing.
> 
> God is awesome!


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Why the aversion?  It seems like it's a VERY important thing that a believer should have a stance on.



  I ain't going there.......


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I ain't going there.......



Have you read Sam Harris' book _Freewill_ or watched him talk about it.  It's very interesting (it was to me, anyway).


----------



## Huntinfool

WaltL1 said:


> Science tells you that OUR (human) life would not be possible not All life.
> That science is looking for life on planets very different from ours confirms that science doesn't believe a planet has to be just like ours to have life.



Not just life....but meaningful life.  If all solar systems in the universe were created with one giant burst of energy, then they have all been generating the possibility of life for the same amount of time.

After billions of year, we are wearing computers on our wrists, driving cars and speaking hundreds of languages.

I'm not talking about the possibility of another planet having a pool of water somewhere that has a single celled organism in it.  That is meaningless compared to the supposed development that Earth has seen since the big bang.

This planet had/has perfect conditions for life as we know it right now.  For some reason, this planet developed life so quickly that it is literally billions of years ahead of any other planet that we've ever observed.  Just having life is not the issue.  It's the relative development of life. To even allow for the possibility that another planet is where we are (or even close) takes giant hopes/faith/dreams...whatever you want to call it.  To, then, in the same breath reject out of hand the possibility that a creator created is at the very least hypocritical.

I am with you.  I agree that it is at least possible that there's another planet out there that might have life.  But we have quite literally zero evidence to confirm that.  So let's not go down a road that has zero evidence to confirm when we staunchly reject another road that we claim has zero evidence as well.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Have you read Sam Harris' book _Freewill_ or watched him talk about it.  It's very interesting (it was to me, anyway).



I haven't, but I would be open to reading it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Not just life....but meaningful life.  If all solar systems in the universe were created with one giant burst of energy, then they have all been generating the possibility of life for the same amount of time.
> 
> After billions of year, we are wearing computers on our wrists, driving cars and speaking hundreds of languages.
> 
> I'm not talking about the possibility of another planet having a pool of water somewhere that has a single celled organism in it.  That is meaningless compared to the supposed development that Earth has seen since the big bang.
> 
> This planet had/has perfect conditions for life as we know it right now.  For some reason, this planet developed life so quickly that it is literally billions of years ahead of any other planet that we've ever observed.  Just having life is not the issue.  It's the relative development of life. To even allow for the possibility that another planet is where we are (or even close) takes giant hopes/faith/dreams...whatever you want to call it.  To, then, in the same breath reject out of hand the possibility that a creator created is at the very least hypocritical.
> 
> I am with you.  I agree that it is at least possible that there's another planet out there that might have life.  But we have quite literally zero evidence to confirm that.  So let's not go down a road that has zero evidence to confirm when we staunchly reject another road that we claim has zero evidence as well.



There's an evolution to the universe, the way we currently understand it. Bang, poof, Earth isn't it. 

But I applaud your last statement, though.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Most Christians turn an embarrassed cheek to those claims.  I really can't believe that someone, a fully grown adult, could believe that those things ever happened much less proclaim the veracity of them.
> 
> I'm astounded.
> 
> I'm speechless.
> 
> I'm profoundly sad for all humanity.



True believers would not be embarrassed.
But, since you have such disdain for bible references, it's also recorded in the book of Jasher.

Pretty sure the Mayans mentioned it also.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I haven't, but I would be open to reading it.



I haven't read it.  I watched him talk about it.  I watched it in three sittings.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> True believers would not be embarrassed.
> But, since you have such disdain for bible references, it's also recorded in the book of Jasher.
> 
> Pretty sure the Mayans mentioned it also.



I don't know if we've asked before now, but are you an "earth is 6000 years old" kinda guy?


----------



## JB0704

I'll watch it, and maybe buy the book too......I enjoy reading that type of thing.

But, I would like to point something out, read the label on the podium: "Festival of Dangerous Ideas."  That gave me a chuckle because one thing I have noticed in common with almost all skeptics is a rebel streak, and calling the ideas "dangerous" kind-a feeds that mentality


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I'll watch it, and maybe buy the book too......I enjoy reading that type of thing.
> 
> But, I would like to point something out, read the label on the podium: "Festival of Dangerous Ideas."  That gave me a chuckle because one thing I have noticed in common with almost all skeptics is a rebel streak, and calling the ideas "dangerous" kind-a feeds that mentality



In a world populated by a majority of people who believe that questioning  god(s) word is heresy, it's rebellious and sometimes deadly-dangerous to ask questions.

I'm not sure how I feel about Sam's argument.  I'm still processing it.  Maybe you can give me some insight.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about Sam's argument.  I'm still processing it.  Maybe you can give me some insight.



I'll try to watch this weekend (if it took you 3 sittings, I likely wont have time till then).  Maybe we can start a new thread on it then :cheer:


----------



## JB0704

....afraid to watch stuff like that at work.  I'm in a very PC office, and don't wanna offend any sensibities.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> I haven't read it.  I watched him talk about it.  I watched it in three sittings.



Would be an interesting discussion on its own.  I've watched the first 15 minutes so far.  

The first issue I have is just one of observation.  He comes off as a very self-righteous and smug man right at the very beginning of his speach.  He does himself a disservice by acting that way.  But, I suppose, when people continually tell you how amazingly brilliant you are, it's hard to act differently (especially given the next thing I'm about to post).

Second is this point that he made to set up his entire speach.  It goes something like this:  

"We live in a world of cause and effect.  So, everything that could possibly constititute your will is either the product of a long chain of prior causes (and you're not responsible for them), or it's the products of randomness (and you're not responsible for that).  Or it's some combination of both......but however you combine them, free will makes no sense."

I'm interested to see where he goes with this idea.  Based on the above, it's difficult for me to want to continue on but I will (or I guess my long chain of causes force me to).

If the above is true, then there is no need for a court system.  We are all Not Guilty by reason of no responsibility.  "Of course I murdered that woman.  I could not possibly have acted differently"  I'm hoping he, somehow turns the ship a bit through the rest of the talk.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> We aren't discussing the biological differences between you and a rock.
> 
> OK
> 
> OK  you're not a rock, I think we can agree on that.
> 
> OK
> 
> You're gonna have to show me how my logic is flawed.
> 
> Walk me through, step by step, how human life is any more special than a rock from your worldview, and because we can walk and talk and think isn't the answer.



Is this going to be one of your patented "get answers but do not accept them and keep on going till I get the answers I want" series of replies?

I am self aware and I have emotions and feelings and the makeup of MY parts differ than the makeup of the Rocks and the differences make me what I am.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure where you're getting that from?
> 
> 1. Millions of tries and millions of changes= life, Earth, galaxy etc.


Correct



stringmusic said:


> 2. There are millions of very tiny intricate things that could change that would destroy us and the Earth.


This would have been the time to give examples and tell us the effect they would have.



stringmusic said:


> 3. We are here and so is the Earth.


Correct



stringmusic said:


> 4. For some reason those millions of tries and changes seemed to have stopped.


No they have not. You have been given examples but none have been of the magnitude needed to wipe out Life or the Planet......Yet. But all of those examples have made huge impacts on Life and the Planet.
History has shown how catastrophic events have wiped out species and have caused hardships on many versions of life. 
Evolution still is ongoing.
New species are being discovered.
Species are going extinct DAILY.

The Sun WILL burn out.
Asteroids have hit the Planet and odds are they will hit again.
Galaxies are on collision courses.



stringmusic said:


> There's my logic in a nutshell.


Your Logic fits your beliefs. It it not necessarily correct logic. Just correct for you.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose, based on the above, I should say I've answered all your questions as well?



I have replied to everything you have asked me.
IF I missed something show me.. I will answer.

I have showed you and you dance around it.
You don't have to answer it....but don't pretend you did because I can bump them up in quotes and show you.


----------



## Huntinfool

> I have showed you and you dance around it.
> You don't have to answer it....but don't pretend you did because I can bump them up in quotes and show you.



Show me again.  There are lots of questions I've asked that no one has responsed to.  

If you have a question specific to me, I'm glad to answer it.  I'd say I've proven that given the pushing 100 posts I've made in this thread.  My suspicion that I have answered just about everything you've asked.  You just choose not to accept my answers and call it dancing.  You certainly have the right to do so.  But don't mistake your rejection of my answer for it being false.


----------



## Huntinfool

> It it not necessarily correct logic. Just correct for you.



If this statement were ever true in any context, there would be no cause to ever debate anything.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Show me again.  There are lots of questions I've asked that no one has responsed to.
> 
> If you have a question specific to me, I'm glad to answer it.  I'd say I've proven that given the pushing 100 posts I've made in this thread.  My suspicion that I have answered just about everything you've asked.  You just choose not to accept my answers and call it dancing.  You certainly have the right to do so.  But don't mistake your rejection of my answer for it being false.


If you have asked me directly I have responded.

Post # 1217


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> If this statement were ever true in any context, there would be no cause to ever debate anything.



I think it is precisely the reason we debate anything.
When someone totally disregards the evidence given to them and continues on their already refuted path saying it is correct Logic....then the Logic must only be correct to them...or not Logic at all.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't know if we've asked before now, but are you an "earth is 6000 years old" kinda guy?



Yes, 6000, roughly give or take a thousand or so.I believe this , based on the geneology given in the bible from Adam to Christ and then add 2015 more to get to present day.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Would be an interesting discussion on its own.  I've watched the first 15 minutes so far.
> 
> The first issue I have is just one of observation.  He comes off as a very self-righteous and smug man right at the very beginning of his speach.  He does himself a disservice by acting that way.  But, I suppose, when people continually tell you how amazingly brilliant you are, it's hard to act differently (especially given the next thing I'm about to post).
> 
> Second is this point that he made to set up his entire speach.  It goes something like this:
> 
> "We live in a world of cause and effect.  So, everything that could possibly constititute your will is either the product of a long chain of prior causes (and you're not responsible for them), or it's the products of randomness (and you're not responsible for that).  Or it's some combination of both......but however you combine them, free will makes no sense."
> 
> I'm interested to see where he goes with this idea.  Based on the above, it's difficult for me to want to continue on but I will (or I guess my long chain of causes force me to).
> 
> If the above is true, then there is no need for a court system.  We are all Not Guilty by reason of no responsibility.  "Of course I murdered that woman.  I could not possibly have acted differently"  I'm hoping he, somehow turns the ship a bit through the rest of the talk.




OOOOhhhh.  You're gonna like it.  As he said once before "If my reasons are good, you will helplessly believe".

As to his "smugness", I find him kind of dry (he does make a few jokes).  I get a sense that he's trying to be dispassionate maybe to allow the _words_ to be the thing to be focused on.  He would be a bad preacher.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Yes, 6000, roughly give or take a thousand or so.I believe this , based on the geneology given in the bible from Adam to Christ and then add 2015 more to get to present day.




I weep.....


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I weep.....



I knew a fella who was convinced, and considered opposing beliefs as heresy, that it was in the 4K range.  He had an exact #, but I can't remember what it was.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> Not just life....but meaningful life.  If all solar systems in the universe were created with one giant burst of energy, then they have all been generating the possibility of life for the same amount of time.
> 
> After billions of year, we are wearing computers on our wrists, driving cars and speaking hundreds of languages.
> 
> I'm not talking about the possibility of another planet having a pool of water somewhere that has a single celled organism in it.  That is meaningless compared to the supposed development that Earth has seen since the big bang.
> 
> This planet had/has perfect conditions for life as we know it right now.  For some reason, this planet developed life so quickly that it is literally billions of years ahead of any other planet that we've ever observed.  Just having life is not the issue.  It's the relative development of life. To even allow for the possibility that another planet is where we are (or even close) takes giant hopes/faith/dreams...whatever you want to call it.  To, then, in the same breath reject out of hand the possibility that a creator created is at the very least hypocritical.
> 
> I am with you.  I agree that it is at least possible that there's another planet out there that might have life.  But we have quite literally zero evidence to confirm that.  So let's not go down a road that has zero evidence to confirm when we staunchly reject another road that we claim has zero evidence as well.





> Not just life....but meaningful life.





> Eubacteria are responsible for many human diseases, but also help maintain health and form vital parts of all of Earth's ecosystems.


Seems pretty meaningful to me.


> I'm not talking about the possibility of another planet having a pool of water somewhere that has a single celled organism in it.


Now apply a liberal does of evolution and time.


> Just having life is not the issue.  It's the relative development of life.


So only developed life has meaning?
Got kids? Was that little undeveloped life meaningless when you found out it existed?


> This planet had/has perfect conditions for life as we know it right now.


Its not perfect. Think of all the things in nature that can kill of you. Including malaria which is a single celled organism. See above. From the beginning of man we have had to invent and create things to keep nature from killing us. We still are. And we are still dying from it.


> For some reason, this planet developed life so quickly that it is literally billions of years ahead of any other planet that we've ever observed.


We haven't even gotten out of the driveway yet in terms of observing other planets.


> To even allow for the possibility that another planet is where we are (or even close) takes giant hopes/faith/dreams...whatever you want to call it.


I'll call it logic.
When you consider how little we know about whats out there its logical that if we can at least one of them can.
Life does not = humans.


> To, then, in the same breath reject out of hand the possibility that a creator created is at the very least hypocritical.


I don't reject it out of hand. I don't have a problem in thinking that something created the universe. What I reject is that we know what that something is at this point. I also don't reject out of hand that something didn't create us. Because we don't know that either.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I weep.....



I don't know why these things bother you, though.  It's not as if there is much of an impact on our daily lives if somebody believes one thing or another relevant to the earth's age.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> ....afraid to watch stuff like that at work.  I'm in a very PC office, and don't wanna offend any sensibities.


Smart.
Or get some headphones and keep it minimized.
The smartest is being afraid and watching it at home


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> Post # 1217



If you care to point out the meaningful questions (as opposed to the rhetorical ones in there) that you think I haven't answered for you already, I'm glad to answer them.  As I said, more than likely already have and you just don't approve of the answer.

The post is.......lengthy.  Not sure exactly what you think I haven't responded to.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Yes, 6000, roughly give or take a thousand or so.I believe this , based on the geneology given in the bible from Adam to Christ and then add 2015 more to get to present day.



Okay. How do you reconcile the difference between light speed and the 14.6 billion year age of the observable universe, with the 6000 year age from the bible? 

Human error? Since Creation story can't be a metaphor, and your 1000 over/under still doesn't approach what science says, I don't see a lot of options to resolve the difference.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I don't know why these things bother you, though.  It's not as if there is much of an impact on our daily lives if somebody believes one thing or another relevant to the earth's age.


Yeah in the grand scheme of things its not even a speed bump to me.
Of course if that person and then all their like minded friends somehow gain power........
Without being insulting those days are over as far as this particular religion is concerned so I can afford to feel that way.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I weep.....



And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;neither shall there be any more death, nor sorrow,nor crying; neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.Rev.21:4


That's shoutin ground right there!

The big question is: Does this apply to you?......??


----------



## Huntinfool

> Now apply a liberal does of evolution and time.



Great numbers of other planets have had exactly equal amounts of time to develop life.....

Time is not the issue.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I don't know why these things bother you, though.  It's not as if there is much of an impact on our daily lives if somebody believes one thing or another relevant to the earth's age.



Seeing as how the age of the universe is told in the same book that defines, not shapes or informs, many people's views on morals and what other people can, or can't, do within their own lives, I consider it to be of foundational importance. 

Science says 14.6 billion. Bible scholars say 6000. That's not something a margin of error can excuse. That's a woefully different value depending on your viewpoint, and I'm wondering if one will ignore evidence to the contrary, rationalize it away as unimportant, or explain it away as a parable, as I once did, that how does one define a day for God who is supposedly eternal? 

The Bible starts at Genesis, as do most Christian's faiths, so let's take something so granular and explore every facet.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay. How do you reconcile the difference between light speed and the 14.6 billion year age of the observable universe, with the 6000 year age from the bible?
> 
> Human error? Since Creation story can't be a metaphor, and your 1000 over/under still doesn't approach what science says, I don't see a lot of options to resolve the difference.



If you want to pick one, it might be easier to ask how light appeared before the sun.  Or maybe that makes your question more complicated (or possibly answers it?).


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Great numbers of other planets have had exactly equal amounts of time to develop life.....
> 
> Time is not the issue.



They just haven't had stable orbits, or the right ones. 
Or a strong magnetosphere, at least at the right time or for long enough. 
Any one of myriad conditions results in no life, or frequently obliterated simple forms of life. 

But the point of view that the universe is sterile is similarly arrogant as standing in a barren salt flat and proclaiming the earth to be void.


----------



## 660griz

God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night.
Anybody see a flaw with that statement?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> If you want to pick one, it might be easier to ask how light appeared before the sun.  Or maybe that makes your question more complicated (or possibly answers it?).



Because there were more stars in the sky than our sun. Stellar formation occurred in the first few hundred million years, where Sol didn't come into play but in the last 4.6 billion. That's 10 billion years of other stars to give light. 

Not to mention that the primitive particles formed out of the conversion of energy to mass would have been extremely hot, and probably glowing in the visible spectrum.


----------



## WaltL1

Huntinfool said:


> Great numbers of other planets have had exactly equal amounts of time to develop life.....
> 
> Time is not the issue.


So?
You are using what happened to this planet in terms of time, results etc to define what SHOULD happen to all the other planets.


> Time is not the issue


And you know that how?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

But here's a paradox for you, since we have such a narrow scope of the electromagnetic spectrum that we call light, who defines "light" for God? It'd be a shame if he was as limited as ours was, and would make him less than all powerful, so even infrared, something we can't see, would still be visible to him and thus, there would be light.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I don't know why these things bother you, though.  It's not as if there is much of an impact on our daily lives if somebody believes one thing or another relevant to the earth's age.



It's the willingness to accept those kinds of things happened in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.  It's symptomatic of a mindset that dismisses reason and logic on terrible grounds.  It's a mindset that lobbies for the suppression of human advancement and well being.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> It's the willingness to accept those kinds of things happened in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.  It's symptomatic of a mindset that dismisses reason and logic on terrible grounds.  It's a mindset that lobbies for the suppression of human advancement and well being.


Or some have knowledge that far exceeds the evidence.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Or some have knowledge that far exceeds the evidence.


Or think they do


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Or some have knowledge that far exceeds the evidence.



Well, that's that then, isn't it?

What's the point of trying to reason then?  None.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> It's the willingness to accept those kinds of things happened in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.  It's symptomatic of a mindset that dismisses reason and logic on terrible grounds.  It's a mindset that lobbies for the suppression of human advancement and well being.


In their minds they are advancing it not suppressing it.
But either way its an empty gun.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Mankind must do what mankind must do.


I agree.
I place no blame on one who tries to advance/further their beliefs when done in the proper way.
If nobody ever did we would be stagnant.


----------



## JB0704

I was at my boy's HS baseball practice all evening, come back, and there are about 20 posts in here I wanna respond to


----------



## JB0704

I'll start with Griz 



660griz said:


> God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night.
> Anybody see a flaw with that statement?



Only folks who never hunted on a full moon see the flaw in that statement........knew a fella who shot a raccoon for a pig once, said there was plenty of light.

(fwiw, I see your point, just think it's splitting hairs)


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Science says 14.6 billion. Bible scholars say 6000. That's not something a margin of error can excuse. That's a woefully different value depending on your viewpoint, and I'm wondering if one will ignore evidence to the contrary, rationalize it away as unimportant, or explain it away as a parable, as I once did, that how does one define a day for God who is supposedly eternal?
> 
> The Bible starts at Genesis, as do most Christian's faiths, so let's take something so granular and explore every facet.



I'll take this one step further for ya, most who believe it is only 6K years old are taking somebody else's word for it, and never calculated it out themselves.

And the same can be said for most who believe it is 4 billion years old.

My point is that it is completely irrelevant how old the Earth is when discussing our daily lives and scientific advancement.  Would it matter much if a scientist discovers a cure to a horrible illness believed the Earth was 6K..........or, an extremely good lawyer who also happened to be fundamentalist?  

I just fail to see the aversion to this.......


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Of course if that person and then all their like minded friends somehow gain power........
> Without being insulting those days are over as far as this particular religion is concerned so I can afford to feel that way.



I also think this country did some great and wonderful things for mankind when it was dominated by such a belief.  We changed the world through a bunch of puritans.  Not all founding fathers were fundamentalist, but even the ones who were recognized mans natural desire to be free.  This freedom led to exploration, capitalism, and many amazing scientific achievements.

I guess I'm just beating a dead horse here, but, I think the fear of believers is a little heightened where it ought not be.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> It's the willingness to accept those kinds of things happened in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.  It's symptomatic of a mindset that dismisses reason and logic on terrible grounds.  It's a mindset that lobbies for the suppression of human advancement and well being.



See my response to Walt.

These are not scary people.  They just believe the Earth is 6K years old.  I'm sure y'all know that I'm more of an "old Earth" believer, but, I don't turn my nose up or think I am enlightened more than those who think it's only 6K.  

If we want to debate the merit of legislating religion (blue laws, and laws prohibiting certain behaviors) and their impact on society, then I will jump on board with you.  But, a fella believing his preacher when the preacher says it's a really young planet isn't hurting anybody.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I also think this country did some great and wonderful things for mankind when it was dominated by such a belief.  We changed the world through a bunch of puritans.  Not all founding fathers were fundamentalist, but even the ones who were recognized mans natural desire to be free.  This freedom led to exploration, capitalism, and many amazing scientific achievements.
> 
> I guess I'm just beating a dead horse here, but, I think the fear of believers is a little heightened where it ought not be.


Im not sure fear is the correct word.
More like non-believers feel there would be laws etc made for no other reason than what your religion tells you is right or wrong.
We are just now eradicating some of them so I think its a pretty reasonable view point.
And of course this applies to any dominating "organization".


> I was at my boy's HS baseball practice all evening, come back, and there are about 20 posts in here I wanna respond to


You obviously need to get your priorities in order.
Practice will go on without you


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Im not sure fear is the correct word.
> More like non-believers feel there would be laws etc made for no other reason than what your religion tells you is right or wrong.
> We are just now eradicating some of them so I think its a pretty reasonable view point.
> And of course this applies to any dominating "organization".



I see the point if we are discussing applying religion to law, and the reverse (prohibiting free practice of religion, which is a much bigger problem these days.......see Colorado baker for a primary example).  That is a valid concern, and one I think we are moving beyond, and are at a point of "over correcting."



WaltL1 said:


> You obviously need to get your priorities in order.
> Practice will go on without you



  I'm just realistic, and recognize that he will likely be done with baseball when he finishes High School, so I am enjoying it as much as I possibly can as long as it lasts......


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I see the point if we are discussing applying religion to law, and the reverse (prohibiting free practice of religion, which is a much bigger problem these days.......see Colorado baker for a primary example).  That is a valid concern, and one I think we are moving beyond, and are at a point of "over correcting."
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just realistic, and recognize that he will likely be done with baseball when he finishes High School, so I am enjoying it as much as I possibly can as long as it lasts......


Yup cant think of much else more important than that.
And yes examples like the bakery thing are a slippery slope.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> I'll start with Griz
> 
> 
> 
> Only folks who never hunted on a full moon see the flaw in that statement........knew a fella who shot a raccoon for a pig once, said there was plenty of light.
> 
> (fwiw, I see your point, just think it's splitting hairs)



Image of God---Reflection of light. 
Two totally different things of the same source.
Jesus is the image of the invisible God.
The moon is the reflection of the sun. 
Jesus isn't God just by being his image no more than the moon is the sun by reflecting it's light.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> See my response to Walt.
> 
> These are not scary people.  They just believe the Earth is 6K years old.  I'm sure y'all know that I'm more of an "old Earth" believer, but, I don't turn my nose up or think I am enlightened more than those who think it's only 6K.
> 
> If we want to debate the merit of legislating religion (blue laws, and laws prohibiting certain behaviors) and their impact on society, then I will jump on board with you.  But, a fella believing his preacher when the preacher says it's a really young planet isn't hurting anybody.



What about when his preacher says to not let gays get married?  What about when his preacher tells him that stem cell research is murder?  What about when someone's Pope tells them not to use condoms?


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Only folks who never hunted on a full moon see the flaw in that statement........knew a fella who shot a raccoon for a pig once, said there was plenty of light.


 Yea. But the moon can be full...in the day.



> (fwiw, I see your point, just think it's splitting hairs)


 Unless you were writing factual statements in a book...with facts...or taking a test. 

Can anyone else access pages 57 or 58? I can't...today or yesterday. I am sure there is some good stuff on there.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> What about when his preacher says to not let gays get married?  What about when his preacher tells him that stem cell research is murder?  What about when someone's Pope tells them not to use condoms?



Each position should be taken on it's merit.  The difference between these things and the earth's age is the impact such a position has on other individuals.  

If a "young earth" believer was demanding such a position be taught in public schools, then I have a good feeling you and I would be on the same team.  But, until it becomes an issue which infringes on others, it is harmless.

BTW, all 3 items you mentioned are big ol cans of worms on their own......hoping they don;t get opened in this htread


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Yea. But the moon can be full...in the day.



True.  But when is it noticed?  I think you are trying to make the statement more than it is.  The people who wrote the Bible likely knew a heck of a lot more about astrology than you and I, and, I think it's a given they had seen the moon during daylight hours.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> True.  But when is it noticed?


 I can't answer for everyone. I see it both times.


> I think you are trying to make the statement more than it is.


 I understand your concern.  





> The people who wrote the Bible likely knew a heck of a lot more about astrology than you and I, and, I think it's a given they had seen the moon during daylight hours.


 Yet they didn't seem to know that the moon was not a light and it spent a lot of time in the day. 
It is just one example in the bible. There are more. If that was the only example, yes, it would be trivial.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I'll take this one step further for ya, most who believe it is only 6K years old are taking somebody else's word for it, and never calculated it out themselves.
> 
> And the same can be said for most who believe it is 4 billion years old.
> 
> My point is that it is completely irrelevant how old the Earth is when discussing our daily lives and scientific advancement.  Would it matter much if a scientist discovers a cure to a horrible illness believed the Earth was 6K..........or, an extremely good lawyer who also happened to be fundamentalist?
> 
> I just fail to see the aversion to this.......



Depends, as it always does, in how that faith and belief is applied. I wasn't trying to categorically insult the man for believing it is only 6k. I was asking one question that has a huge margin for discrepancy and wondering how he squares that, if he does, with the discrepancy. 

We can argue things from one side of the veil to the other and there's nothing for evidence either way. However, the age of the earth is something both "belief" systems have worked on and come to vastly different conclusions. Seems, since it is also the very first chapter of the very first book, a good place to start to me.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Yet they didn't seem to know that the moon was not a light and it spent a lot of time in the day.



At night, it acts as a light, during the day, it's a cool looking thing in the sky.  It does seem as if they didn't know why it was a light.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> We can argue things from one side of the veil to the other and there's nothing for evidence either way. However, the age of the earth is something both "belief" systems have worked on and come to vastly different conclusions. Seems, since it is also the very first chapter of the very first book, a good place to start to me.



I think (and this is only my personal opinion based on my own observations and personal reflections) that a young earth position comes from a fundamental distrust of science and a literal view of Genesis.

Often, it seems science is used to attack religion, faith, etc.  While I understand that science is a great thing, and has led to a more comfortable and enlightened life for humanity, I also understand that it will never answer "the great question" because there are logical boundaries to what is knowable.  So, it is not a thing to be feared.  Instead, I think it should be embraced by religion.......those deep space pics from our telescopes show some absolutely amazing things, and, for a believer, it reflects on an amazing creator.  Same can be said for biological discovery.  Life is amazing....can't be duplicated.  Your body runs on food and water, and your brain is an incredibly ellaborate system which learns as it goes.  Again, life and biology reflect an amazing creator.

As far as the literal view, there is a theme amongst believers to not show doubt.  If you are taught the Genesis story reflects a literal 7 24 hour periods, then to question that is to question your own faith........and this means you may be destined for the hot place.  In reality, it does not mean that, it just means you want to have another look at the information to see if what you were taught squares with what we know, and what it actually says.  Two men can have an equal level of faith, and see Genesis completely differently.  It does not diminish one's view of God whether you believe creation happened in 7 days or 14 billion years.........either way, creating this is an incredible act not possible by anything less than God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> At night, it acts as a light, during the day, it's a cool looking thing in the sky.  It does seem as if they didn't know why it was a light.



And they didn't  know the difference between the functions of the heart and brain. 
Why can Christians now accept both views? We now know the earth revolves around the sun, the moon reflects light from the sun, and we don't perform mental functions with our heart.
When science showed these things, people didn't accept them. Now they do. Why do they?
Why not creation through evolution?


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> I think (and this is only my personal opinion based on my own observations and personal reflections) that a young earth position comes from a fundamental distrust of science and a literal view of Genesis.
> 
> Often, it seems science is used to attack religion, faith, etc.  While I understand that science is a great thing, and has led to a more comfortable and enlightened life for humanity, I also understand that it will never answer "the great question" because there are logical boundaries to what is knowable.  So, it is not a thing to be feared.  Instead, I think it should be embraced by religion.......those deep space pics from our telescopes show some absolutely amazing things, and, for a believer, it reflects on an amazing creator.  Same can be said for biological discovery.  Life is amazing....can't be duplicated.  Your body runs on food and water, and your brain is an incredibly ellaborate system which learns as it goes.  Again, life and biology reflect an amazing creator.
> 
> As far as the literal view, there is a theme amongst believers to not show doubt.  If you are taught the Genesis story reflects a literal 7 24 hour periods, then to question that is to question your own faith........and this means you may be destined for the hot place.  In reality, it does not mean that, it just means you want to have another look at the information to see if what you were taught squares with what we know, and what it actually says.  Two men can have an equal level of faith, and see Genesis completely differently.  It does not diminish one's view of God whether you believe creation happened in 7 days or 14 billion years.........either way, creating this is an incredible act not possible by anything less than God.



Amen, very well said. I wish more Christians felt this way about science.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I think (and this is only my personal opinion based on my own observations and personal reflections) that a young earth position comes from a fundamental distrust of science and a literal view of Genesis.
> 
> Often, it seems science is used to attack religion, faith, etc.  While I understand that science is a great thing, and has led to a more comfortable and enlightened life for humanity, I also understand that it will never answer "the great question" because there are logical boundaries to what is knowable.  So, it is not a thing to be feared.  Instead, I think it should be embraced by religion.......those deep space pics from our telescopes show some absolutely amazing things, and, for a believer, it reflects on an amazing creator.  Same can be said for biological discovery.  Life is amazing....can't be duplicated.  Your body runs on food and water, and your brain is an incredibly ellaborate system which learns as it goes.  Again, life and biology reflect an amazing creator.
> 
> As far as the literal view, there is a theme amongst believers to not show doubt.  If you are taught the Genesis story reflects a literal 7 24 hour periods, then to question that is to question your own faith........and this means you may be destined for the hot place.  In reality, it does not mean that, it just means you want to have another look at the information to see if what you were taught squares with what we know, and what it actually says.  Two men can have an equal level of faith, and see Genesis completely differently.  It does not diminish one's view of God whether you believe creation happened in 7 days or 14 billion years.........either way, creating this is an incredible act not possible by anything less than God.





> As far as the literal view, there is a theme amongst believers to not show doubt.  If you are taught the Genesis story reflects a literal 7 24 hour periods, then to question that is to question your own faith........and this means you may be destined for the hot place.


Yup. God gave you a brain and organized religion tells you not to use it under penalty of torment.
I just don't know how you guys square that concept.
I couldn't.
Truth isnt afraid of questions.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> I just don't know how you guys square that concept.



I recognize the concept is not a God mandate, but instead, a religious position, and I can seperate the two.  In short, religion and faith are two completely different things.



WaltL1 said:


> Truth isnt afraid of questions.



Agreed.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I think (and this is only my personal opinion based on my own observations and personal reflections) that a young earth position comes from a fundamental distrust of science and a literal view of Genesis.



I agree. I'm curious how far that distrust of science goes. I know you can't answer that for everyone, so it's rhetorical for the most part.



JB0704 said:


> Often, it seems science is used to attack religion, faith, etc.  While I understand that science is a great thing, and has led to a more comfortable and enlightened life for humanity, I also understand that it will never answer "the great question" because there are logical boundaries to what is knowable.  So, it is not a thing to be feared.  Instead, I think it should be embraced by religion.......those deep space pics from our telescopes show some absolutely amazing things, and, for a believer, it reflects on an amazing creator.  Same can be said for biological discovery.  Life is amazing....can't be duplicated.  Your body runs on food and water, and your brain is an incredibly ellaborate system which learns as it goes.  Again, life and biology reflect an amazing creator.



You can't say it won't answer the ultimate question any more than I can say it will. That kind of statement depends on an already closed timeline. Since there is a future, and we don't know what it will bring, there is the possibility for both. If God came down from Heaven tomorrow, then both science and religion would be able to speak about him intelligently, IMO. Without that, though, neither can. 



JB0704 said:


> As far as the literal view, there is a theme amongst believers to not show doubt.  If you are taught the Genesis story reflects a literal 7 24 hour periods, then to question that is to question your own faith........and this means you may be destined for the hot place.  In reality, it does not mean that, it just means you want to have another look at the information to see if what you were taught squares with what we know, and what it actually says.  Two men can have an equal level of faith, and see Genesis completely differently.  It does not diminish one's view of God whether you believe creation happened in 7 days or 14 billion years.........either way, creating this is an incredible act not possible by anything less than God.



But the assertion of going to Hades over questioning your faith contradicts the salvation through grace, and places a check in the meritocracy of salvation. Which is it? It's relative to you as to which one you accept and espouse, so again, it's a rhetorical question. 



> In reality, it does not mean that, it just means you want to have another look at the information to see if what you were taught squares with what we know, and what it actually says.


 Expound please? I'm basing this question on the fact that the difference between 14 billion and 6000 can't be squared because they're in no way equal. You can rationalize the difference as Creation being a parable rather than literal, but that only introduces another conundrum. Where does that parable begin and where does it end in the book? At what point can we abandon the parable as no longer necessary, and adopt a literal position? 

And we're just going to have to disagree on that last part, for now anyway. You used God as a noun, which I take to refer to the Christian God, and there's absolutely no proof of that outside the one book.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I recognize the concept is not a God mandate, but instead, a religious position, and I can seperate the two.  In short, religion and faith are two completely different things.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.


Couple of tough questions which you can feel free not to answer in public or at all maybe just give it some thought -
Sure, but if you ask yourself why you have to separate them, what do you personally come up with?
And if you have to separate them wouldn't Theist be a more accurate definition to describe you instead of Christian?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I recognize the concept is not a God mandate, but instead, a religious position, and I can seperate the two.  In short, religion and faith are two completely different things.



Now on this, we are in 100% agreement. I wish we could divorce religion from faith. I honestly feel that the world would be better off if we could.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You can't say it won't answer the ultimate question any more than I can say it will. That kind of statement depends on an already closed timeline. Since there is a future, and we don't know what it will bring, there is the possibility for both. If God came down from Heaven tomorrow, then both science and religion would be able to speak about him intelligently, IMO. Without that, though, neither can.



Is it logically possible to see prior to the BB, or the intial creative event?



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Expound please? I'm basing this question on the fact that the difference between 14 billion and 6000 can't be squared because they're in no way equal. You can rationalize the difference as Creation being a parable rather than literal, but that only introduces another conundrum. Where does that parable begin and where does it end in the book? At what point can we abandon the parable as no longer necessary, and adopt a literal position?



I don't know for certain, and honestly, I would probably debate a believer on the lines as well, so having the same debate with a skeptic would be problematic.  However, it does not cause a conundrum for me.  

Day one, heavens and the Earth.  Does it diminish God if it took 24 hours and didn't just happen in an instant?  If not, does it diminish God if he took the God particle, exploded it, and watched as the universe evolved over billions of years (as we understand time)?



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And we're just going to have to disagree on that last part, for now anyway. You used God as a noun, which I take to refer to the Christian God, and there's absolutely no proof of that outside the one book.



You overlooked the qualifier....."creating."  If this was "created," wouldn't the "creator" have to be God by definition?


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Sure, but if you ask yourself why you have to separate them, what do you personally come up with?



Religion seems to be a set of man made rules.  For instance, music first, then offering, then preaching, then invitation.  Faith is a set of beliefs.....such as my Christianity which has two parts.  The first is my logical conclusion there is a God.  The second is my faith in the teachings of the Bible, which answers the follow up.....



WaltL1 said:


> And if you have to separate them wouldn't Theist be a more accurate definition to describe you instead of Christian?



Because I have faith in Jesus.  And I believe, and try to live according to his teachings.  That defines me as a Christian.  

If I rejected Jesus, I would be a theist.  I do not.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I wish we could divorce religion from faith. I honestly feel that the world would be better off if we could.



If you mean, religion doesn't exist but, faith does. I agree.
Aint no money in that though.


----------



## JB0704

Does one need religion to believe in God?  Same can be said for Jesus.  I do not need men to tell me how to think, what to ask, how to act.  I can make my own conclusions according to my own beliefs........that's how I seperate the two.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Is it logically possible to see prior to the BB, or the intial creative event?



Not with our current understanding of science. But that could all change tomorrow. The last 100 years have revealed to us things that were previously invisible. 





JB0704 said:


> I don't know for certain, and honestly, I would probably debate a believer on the lines as well, so having the same debate with a skeptic would be problematic.  However, it does not cause a conundrum for me.
> 
> Day one, heavens and the Earth.  Does it diminish God if it took 24 hours and didn't just happen in an instant?  If not, does it diminish God if he took the God particle, exploded it, and watched as the universe evolved over billions of years (as we understand time)?



How does it not cause a conundrum? I think we've established that you hold Creation to be metaphor, please correct me if I'm wrong. Where does the literal part of the Bible begin? Which stories are parable, and which are historical documentaries? 

I'd also like our young Earth Creationists to answer the same, please. 





JB0704 said:


> You overlooked the qualifier....."creating."  If this was "created," wouldn't the "creator" have to be God by definition?



A god, maybe. God of the Bible is not at all the default position. As I've said before, it's much more likely that no one is right about the specific nature of God than any one of them being right, given all of the differences between the faiths. Therefore, if there were ever found to be one, I would think it would be best classified as Creator, rather than God.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Religion seems to be a set of man made rules.  For instance, music first, then offering, then preaching, then invitation.  Faith is a set of beliefs.....such as my Christianity which has two parts.  The first is my logical conclusion there is a God.  The second is my faith in the teachings of the Bible, which answers the follow up.....
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have faith in Jesus.  And I believe, and try to live according to his teachings.  That defines me as a Christian.
> 
> If I rejected Jesus, I would be a theist.  I do not.


I'm definitely not going to argue with you as obviously the way you look at it is right for you.
But I do have a question -


> If I rejected Jesus, I would be a theist.  I do not.


As I understand Theism it is simply the belief in one or more deities. Note that their is no "religion" involved.
So you could be a Theist without rejecting Jesus?
And Im not saying Im asking.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> If you mean, religion doesn't exist but, faith does. I agree.
> Aint no money in that though.



I'm fine with religion existing, but marrying it with faith results in all sorts of problems. 

If we gathered all of the religious people in the world, and did a blind census of beliefs I really do believe you'd see that very few of them believe the exact same things. And yet, it's the religious structuring of that which makes them overlook the internal differences while castigating those who deviate from the herd. It's hypocritical and dangerous, IMO. 

If we could awaken people to the fact that faith within themselves, and letting it guide _their_ lives, is perfectly normal while religion is still responsible for the subjugation of "lesser" or "sinning" peoples, and sometimes the outright murder of same, I think the world would get out of its xenophobic tendencies and really make something of itself. 

We're all different from each other, as are our belief structures. Religion tries to create the fallacy that there are large groups of people who believe the same way, and it's just not true.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Does one need religion to believe in God?  Same can be said for Jesus.  I do not need men to tell me how to think, what to ask, how to act.  I can make my own conclusions according to my own beliefs........that's how I seperate the two.



Excellent question, and I'm sure we'll draw a multitude of answers from the people of faith. Some will say as you do, some will say you absolutely do need the religion since that's foundational to your education on the matter, while still others will say it's best for a mix of the two. 

There is no one true answer. 

I really want to do this blind census now.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How does it not cause a conundrum? I think we've established that you hold Creation to be metaphor, please correct me if I'm wrong. Where does the literal part of the Bible begin? Which stories are parable, and which are historical documentaries?



I don't know if I am saying it is metaphorical.  I do believe it is literally saying that God created everything.  So, to say there is a line where one stops and one begins is kind-a difficult.

There are lots of questions about the Bible where some firm believers think the story is a literal history, and some do not.  My best example is Job......many, many believers think it is a literal history, I do not.  But, I do not view this as questioning God, instead, I am just looking at it as if it was never intended to tell a historical fact.

Again, I absolutely see no point in this debate, particularly with a person who rejects the Bible in it's entirety.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A god, maybe. God of the Bible is not at all the default position. As I've said before, it's much more likely that no one is right about the specific nature of God than any one of them being right, given all of the differences between the faiths. Therefore, if there were ever found to be one, I would think it would be best classified as Creator, rather than God.



God and creator are interchangable descriptions in this scenario.  I say this about every time I get into a discussion down here.......the whole "which God" question assumes there are multiple Gods.  We are discussing God, creator, etc.  Whose right and whose wrong about the rest is a whole 'nother debate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I don't know if I am saying it is metaphorical.  I do believe it is literally saying that God created everything.  So, to say there is a line where one stops and one begins is kind-a difficult.
> 
> There are lots of questions about the Bible where some firm believers think the story is a literal history, and some do not.  My best example is Job......many, many believers think it is a literal history, I do not.  But, I do not view this as questioning God, instead, I am just looking at it as if it was never intended to tell a historical fact.
> 
> Again, I absolutely see no point in this debate, particularly with a person who rejects the Bible in it's entirety.
> 
> I'd also like our young Earth Creationists to answer the same, please.
> 
> 
> 
> God and creator are interchangable descriptions in this scenario.  I say this about every time I get into a discussion down here.......the whole "which God" question assumes there are multiple Gods.  We are discussing God, creator, etc.  Whose right and whose wrong about the rest is a whole 'nother debate.



Each faith has their own God, which you're saying is basically an interpretation of the same one. There could be multiple gods, there could be one God, there could be no God. There's no hard evidence to support any claim. 

You drew a line in your first paragraph. Whether it's a hard line or not, I don't know and won't presume. 

"God created," that much you say is literal. Where does the remainder fall? You're right, in that it bears no difference on God, if there is one or if there are 17, but it matters on Earth because it's the lens through which you're viewing and using your faith. 

I get the core point you're trying to make. My calling this pen blue has no bearing on the color that it actually is. So how we interpret Creation has no bearing on the actuality of God, or Gods, or the "nothing." But if one aspect of the Bible is parable, or metaphor, then when does that stop being so, and become literal. It's important because, as Christians are so fond of saying, America was founded on Judeo-Christian mandates and I think it's important to analyze which of those are parable and which of those are literal, and how are we to know either for sure? 

It's not just a philosophical exercise. I'm trying to derive where the rubber meets the road with people of faith. As to how I square my own subscription with those same laws, I've been over it, and it's a projection of the "Do unto others" philosophy which, much to the chagrin of a few Christians, they don't hold the patent on.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> As I understand Theism it is simply the belief in one or more deities. Note that their is no "religion" involved.
> So you could be a Theist without rejecting Jesus?
> And Im not saying Im asking.



I am not sure about the definitions of theist, but, I accept the deity of Jesus, and follow his teachings.  That seems to fit with the definition of Christian.



> Chris·tian/ËˆkrisCHÉ™n/
> adjective
> of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
> 
> noun
> a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.



I think if anything, a Christian is a theist, but a theist does not mean Christian.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by JB0704 View Post
> Does one need religion to believe in God? Same can be said for Jesus. I do not need men to tell me how to think, what to ask, how to act. I can make my own conclusions according to my own beliefs........that's how I seperate the two.


What trips me up about that viewpoint is I consider the Bible, due to the historical facts of how it was created, to be a part or product of the "religion", not God, aspect of it.
When I remind myself that for you the religion aspect of it starts AFTER that point a lot of my questions about how you separate it goes away.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I am not sure about the definitions of theist, but, I accept the deity of Jesus, and follow his teachings.  That seems to fit with the definition of Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> I think if anything, a Christian is a theist, but a theist does not mean Christian.


Yes that is a fact.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> When I remind myself that for you the religion aspect of it starts AFTER that point a lot of my questions about how you separate it goes away.



Cool, very glad I was able to articulte it.....I usually get tripped up trying to explain myself on that one


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Does one need religion to believe in God?


 I think that would depend on if you worshipped that God or not. Believing in a God does not need religion. 


> Same can be said for Jesus.  I do not need men to tell me how to think, what to ask, how to act.  I can make my own conclusions according to my own beliefs........that's how I seperate the two.



How does that reconcile with following the Bible? It can be touted as the word of God but, most know it was written by men. Do you use the Bible in your following or Jesus or the way you live your life?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Do you use the Bible in your following or Jesus or the way you live your life?



Sure.  Without it, I wouldn't really have much of a way to do so.......unless there was another work out there which I trusted.  It's all about where you see God's influence end, and man's begin.  That's where faith ends and religion begins, regardless of what one's faith/religion is.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  Without it, I wouldn't really have much of a way to do so.......unless there was another work out there which I trusted.  It's all about where you see God's influence end, and man's begin.  That's where faith ends and religion begins, regardless of what one's faith/religion is.



So, "I do not need men to tell me how to think, what to ask, how to act." 
You kinda do. Right?
 Unless Jesus speaks directly to you.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> So, "I do not need men to tell me how to think, what to ask, how to act."
> You kinda do. Right?
> Unless Jesus speaks directly to you.



Deosn't that depend on what I believe Jesus is?


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Deosn't that depend on what I believe Jesus is?



Sorry. Does what depend? (It is a hectic morning.) 
Jesus speaking to you or you needing man (aka the Bible) to tell you what to do?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Sorry. Does what depend? (It is a hectic morning.)
> Jesus speaking to you or you needing man (aka the Bible) to tell you what to do?



Assume for a second that Jesus really did give the sermon on the mount.....when you read it, who is speaking to you, the speaker, or the person who wrote down what the speaker said.

Obviously, there is faith in the deity of Jesus, and that there hasn't been too much lost in translation.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Assume for a second that Jesus really did give the sermon on the mount.....when you read it, who is speaking to you, the speaker, or the person who wrote down what the speaker said.


 It was a man speaking to a group. Emphasis on man. 

If a man did that today, would you do what he said?
Wasn't Jesus a man telling folks what to do, how to think?

"God created the heavens and the earth." Did God admit to this or did a man figure it out?


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> It was a man speaking to a group. Emphasis on man.



Now we are getting back to my other statement.....it all depends on what I beleive Jesus was.  We disagree on that, and that will prevent us from agreeing on the subject at hand (whether my faith equates to religion).


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Now we are getting back to my other statement.....it all depends on what I beleive Jesus was.  We disagree on that, and that will prevent us from agreeing on the subject at hand (whether my faith equates to religion).



I guess so. I really didn't think there was a dispute of him being a man at that time.
Didn't Jesus pray to God?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Now we are getting back to my other statement.....it all depends on what I beleive Jesus was.  We disagree on that, and that will prevent us from agreeing on the subject at hand (whether my faith equates to religion).



I don't think it's whether your faith equates to religion. It's that your faith is based on the product of religion, namely the Bible, and is still filtered through it. That's why he asked if you still used it or if you've been able to maintain your faith through other means. At least that's what I think was going on. I could be wrong.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't think it's whether your faith equates to religion. It's that your faith is based on the product of religion, namely the Bible, and is still filtered through it. That's why he asked if you still used it or if you've been able to maintain your faith through other means. At least that's what I think was going on. I could be wrong.



You are correct.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> I guess so. I really didn't think there was a dispute of him being a man at that time.
> Didn't Jesus pray to God?



Kind-of.  It's tricky.

When I was a teenager, in my youthful arrogance, I asked my preacher "was Jesus God?"  He assured me that JEsus was God.  That led to my follow up "Then how did he forsake himself on the cross?"

Please don't assume that the questions you ask are not also questions I have pondered and considered in reaching my conclusions.  Aside from that, there is no point in discussing this, considering you don't believe in God at all, let alone the possible descriptions of Jesus.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Aside from that, there is no point in discussing this, considering you don't believe in God at all, let alone the possible descriptions of Jesus.



Pointless discussions are out. Got it.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Pointless discussions are out. Got it.





My point is, and I think we can agree, that no matter what I say you will continue believing Jesus' teachings are that of man, and I will not.  Me trying to convince you otherwise will likely lead to another 1500 posts.

I enjoy pointless discussions to some extent.  But, I think that one is less an exercise in philosophical debate and more of a "yea so!" "Uhn-uh!" kind-a conversation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> My point is, and I think we can agree, that no matter what I say you will continue believing Jesus' teachings are that of man, and I will not.  Me trying to convince you otherwise will likely lead to another 1500 posts.
> 
> I enjoy pointless discussions to some extent.  But, I think that one is less an exercise in philosophical debate and more of a "yea so!" "Uhn-uh!" kind-a conversation.



But one last thing, and a hope to bring some "point" to this particular topic: 

How are you so certain that Jesus actually said those things considering they weren't written down until much later? If  faith in Jesus is the answer then I'll accept it as such and let the topic drop, but I'm a technician so I approach everything mechanically minded. I'm interested in the constituent parts of things and how they interoperate.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But one last thing, and a hope to bring some "point" to this particular topic:
> 
> How are you so certain that Jesus actually said those things considering they weren't written down until much later? If  faith in Jesus is the answer then I'll accept it as such and let the topic drop, but I'm a technician so I approach everything mechanically minded. I'm interested in the constituent parts of things and how they interoperate.



Faith.  I have said on here a bunch, belief in God is a logical conclusion, belief in Jesus is an exercise in faith.

I used to be an IT tech.  Now I'm an accountant.  I know all about having an analytical perspective and wanting to understand how things interoperate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Faith.  I have said on here a bunch, belief in God is a logical conclusion, belief in Jesus is an exercise in faith.



This baffles me, but I don't want to seem like I'm pestering.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> This baffles me, but I don't want to seem like I'm pestering.



I have articulated on here a bunch why I have concluded everything is a result of a creator.  You don't need a Bible to see that.  It's just one logical view of existence.

But, Jesus........where's the logic in that?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I have articulated on here a bunch why I have concluded everything is a result of a creator.  You don't need a Bible to see that.  It's just one logical view of existence.
> 
> But, Jesus........where's the logic in that?



That's clear enough. Thanks.


----------



## Huntinfool

> But, Jesus........where's the logic in that?



So, it is illogical to believe in Jesus?

(directed at JB only...I know what the AA's think!)


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> So, it is illogical to believe in Jesus?
> 
> (directed at JB only...I know what the AA's think!)



Do you? Because to me it would be more logical to believe in Jesus since he probably existed. But I digress. I look forward to the discussion you two are about to have.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> So, it is illogical to believe in Jesus?
> 
> (directed at JB only...I know what the AA's think!)



No.

Thinking a person can walk on water, raise from the dead, heal illnesses, tell the future (Peter denying him 3 x's) is not logical unless that person is a deity.  You have to have faith that Jesus is a deity in order to believe that because there is no logical way to understand the miraculous otherwise (dead people don't come back, and people can't walk on water, let alone ascend into heaven).

And, no, faith is not illogical, but you have to accept things on faith to believe in Jesus.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Do you? Because to me it would be more logical to believe in Jesus since he probably existed. But I digress. I look forward to the discussion you two are about to have.



Jesus' existence is one of the more reasonably acceptable aspects of Christianity.  Very well documented.  It's believing in the deity that I am discussing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Jesus' existence is one of the more reasonably acceptable aspects of Christianity.  Very well documented.  It's believing in the deity that I am discussing.



True, but having Jesus' existence documented elsewhere is one point of credibility towards the deity aspect. I wish we only had skeptic's accounts of his miracles. 

Can you image what twitter and Facebook would look like if Jesus started performing miracles today?

"omg this doo from Nazareth totally resurrected some guy! I was literally 2 feet from them."


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> "omg this doo from Nazareth totally resurrected some guy! I was literally 2 feet from them."



  I just got this mental image of college kids taking selfies at the ascension......


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I just got this mental image of college kids taking selfies at the ascension......



#selfieswithJesus


----------



## Huntinfool

> "omg this doo from Nazareth totally resurrected some guy! I was literally 2 feet from them."





#walkingdead4realz


----------



## Huntinfool

> True, but having Jesus' existence documented elsewhere is one point of credibility towards the deity aspect.



Kind of where I was going as well.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> No.
> 
> Thinking a person can walk on water, raise from the dead, heal illnesses, tell the future (Peter denying him 3 x's) is not logical unless that person is a deity.  You have to have faith that Jesus is a deity in order to believe that because there is no logical way to understand the miraculous otherwise (dead people don't come back, and people can't walk on water, let alone ascend into heaven).
> 
> And, no, faith is not illogical, but you have to accept things on faith to believe in Jesus.



Please to explain?


----------



## JB0704

You guys are killin me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> Kind of where I was going as well.



It just doesn't prove anything.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Please to explain?



He already did, read back a little bit.


----------



## Huntinfool

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It just doesn't prove anything.



I suppose that depends on whether or not you are willing to affirm the Bible as a valid historical document.

The a priori exclusion of eyewitness accounts would certainly make your statement accurate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Huntinfool said:


> I suppose that depends on whether or not you are willing to affirm the Bible as a valid historical document.
> 
> The a priori exclusion of eyewitness accounts would certainly make your statement accurate.



Partially valid historical document, is how I view it, in that there was a Jesus of Nazareth. Most outside of that is largely debated.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Is it logically possible to see prior to the BB, or the intial creative event?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know for certain, and honestly, I would probably debate a believer on the lines as well, so having the same debate with a skeptic would be problematic.  However, it does not cause a conundrum for me.
> 
> Day one, heavens and the Earth.  Does it diminish God if it took 24 hours and didn't just happen in an instant?  If not, does it diminish God if he took the God particle, exploded it, and watched as the universe evolved over billions of years (as we understand time)?
> 
> 
> 
> You overlooked the qualifier....."creating."  If this was "created," wouldn't the "creator" have to be God by definition?



These were all hurdles that I crossed and was I thinking exactly along the lines you are thinking now when I was in the twilight of my Christianity.
I separated the religion from God and found a place where it was comfortable for a while. 
Then my last hurdle was God. Is he or Isn't he? I have been going over those obstacles ever since.
In short my faith kept me in a belief in God while allowing me to get around all the religious hurdles. Then I lost my faith because without the stories(which I did not believe anymore) I had nothing to "know" my God by.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He already did, read back a little bit.



I'm sorry.  I must be dense.  I thought I was following along intently but I missed the part where faith is logical.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> These were all hurdles that I crossed and was I thinking exactly along the lines you are thinking now when I was in the twilight of my Christianity.
> I separated the religion from God and found a place where it was comfortable for a while.
> Then my last hurdle was God. Is he or Isn't he? I have been going over those obstacles ever since.
> In short my faith kept me in a belief in God while allowing me to get around all the religious hurdles. Then I lost my faith because without the stories(which I did not believe anymore) I had nothing to "know" my God by.



I quit believing in the stories in my pre-teens but I hung onto God well into my college years. I ran the regression and realized that there didn't _have_ to be a first cause.  When there was no necessity for a first cause, trying to fit one in seemed sentimental.

It still confounds me that anyone would think that they have any idea what a first cause might be like in any sense.  It's such a giant leap.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I suppose that depends on whether or not you are willing to affirm the Bible as a valid historical document.



That's why believing in Jesus requires faith.

Ambush, faith is a logical if you have concluded a creator also exists.  The first cause must first exist in order to have faith in anything.  But, if the first cause does exist, faith is a natural progression from that point.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> These were all hurdles that I crossed and was I thinking exactly along the lines you are thinking now when I was in the twilight of my Christianity.
> I separated the religion from God and found a place where it was comfortable for a while.
> Then my last hurdle was God. Is he or Isn't he? I have been going over those obstacles ever since.
> In short my faith kept me in a belief in God while allowing me to get around all the religious hurdles. Then I lost my faith because without the stories(which I did not believe anymore) I had nothing to "know" my God by.


Pretty much exactly the same for me.
Except -


> Is he or Isn't he? I have been going over those obstacles ever since.


I don't go over the obstacles any more. I have settled on "since we don't we know for sure there isn't, there could be".
I'm never going to be able to prove his existence or not so at this point if he's there its all up to him.
Im quite comfortable with that position.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Jesus' existence is one of the more reasonably acceptable aspects of Christianity.  Very well documented.  It's believing in the deity that I am discussing.


Yeah I don't have a problem with Jesus the man existing. Although there are a number of arguments that even he was made up character.
As for the miracles? Nah. I think its another case of hero worship that man has done throughout our history. For example Daniel Boone being famous for killing Indians,
for Custer making a heroic last stand with all his men gathered around him and on and on.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Pretty much exactly the same for me.
> Except -
> 
> I don't go over the obstacles any more. I have settled on "since we don't we know for sure there isn't, there could be".
> I'm never going to be able to prove his existence or not so at this point if he's there its all up to him.
> Im quite comfortable with that position.



Well...let's say that is the reason I come in here...for the hurdles. I get to hear other opinions and appreciate the ones that i hear and had not thought of on my own.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Well...let's say that is the reason I come in here...for the hurdles. I get to hear other opinions and appreciate the ones that i hear and had not thought of on my own.


Yeah that too. Its a very interesting subject.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> When you said that the "first" christians were labeled atheists (which I haven't researched) did it have something to do with the perceptions of them being free of the constraints and obligations of overt practices of religious pieties in which others indulged?
> 
> I have often come across the accusations of "idolatry"...the perceptions that christians seek to make a man into God, often leveled by certain religious groups...but I have hitherto been unaware of the label atheist being ascribed.
> Either way, it's interesting.


It was the Roman government that labeled them Atheists because since they didnt worship Roman gods they therefore weren't "religious".


> And when finally he was brought up, there was a great tumult on hearing that Polycarp had been arrested.  Therefore, when he was brought before him, the proconsul asked him if he were Polycarp.  And when he confessed that he was, he tried to persuade him to deny [the faith], saying, “Have respect to your age” — and other things that customarily follow this,  such as, “Swear by the fortune of Caesar; change your mind; say ‘Away with the atheists!'”
> But Polycarp looked with earnest face at the whole crowd of lawless heathen in the arena, and motioned to them with his hand.  Then, groaning and looking up to heaven, he said, “Away with the atheists!”
> But the proconsul was insistent and said: “Take the oath, and I shall release you.  Curse Christ.”Polycarp said: “Eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any wrong.  How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?”





> Here’s what Justin said in ‘The First Apology of Justin’ before Caesar: “For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue. Hence, are we (Christians) called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from impurity.”


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Thanks Walt.


No problem.
How times change huh?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Suppose all the "stories" are just to help one come to a place where they see they can no more avoid God, than summon him?
> I get the attraction of imagining one has the "inside track"...and when I was enamored of a "better" pole position (and whatever may remain of that)...I find myself kept at a remove from life, locked up both unwilling, and unable, to see my brother as he is...maybe a little bit like "trees walking". To whatever degree, I _kept my own experience as the truer..and therefore myself, as the truer._
> 
> I have had to see in the gospel is the allowance for _the man who has it all wrong._
> 
> No penalty leveled for that man...unless he proclaims "I have it all right"
> One may say...Why any penalty (so to speak) at all?
> I see now two very salient points. By speaking we express a something. If it be not "of the truth"...it will surely yield a harvest "not" of the truth, and to the extent we may contaminate others to their harm, there is a justice to be served.
> The second could be a little more difficult to relate as succinctly. But as simply put as possible...the God I have sensed through the mist in Christ will not let anyone fall short of seeing all as a gift. Not to humiliate him in being _only a recipient_, but it is that truth alone that can set him free from ever trying to have to be anything.
> The "good" one, the "giving" one, the "sacrificing" one, the one of which can never know rest in trying of himself...to reconcile himself.
> That I understand this picture may say more of me than a thousand words.
> "drop your weapon!"
> No, you first.
> For me, finding out the order of the speakers is all there is to know.
> In Christ, I hear.
> I am "allowed" my preference...Father...or cop.
> In that sense, it is too much freedom for me to bear without help.



I had myself fooled into thinking I understood it and could explain it too. The former apologetic in me used to apologize with the best of em.
I feel much better admitting that I don't know anything of what a god wants or how a god thinks.
I am almost convinced that "what isn't " may very well be " what is".


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I had myself fooled into thinking I understood it and could explain it too. The former apologetic in me used to apologize with the best of em.
> I feel much better admitting that I don't know anything of what a god wants or how a god thinks.
> I am almost convinced that "what isn't " may very well be " what is".



Don't give up on God because there's great hope for you.Matt.12:20 says "A bruised reed shall he not break,and smoking flax shall he not quench,till he send forth judgement unto victory."  If he called you in your early years,even though your faith is "bruised" and barely "smoking",he will not break you,nor will he quench your smoldering faith.Seek him with all your heart and you will find him.Jer.29:13


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Don't give up on God because there's great hope for you.Matt.12:20 says "A bruised reed shall he not break,and smoking flax shall he not quench,till he send forth judgement unto victory."  If he called you in your early years,even though your faith is "bruised" and barely "smoking",he will not break you,nor will he quench your smoldering faith.Seek him with all your heart and you will find him.Jer.29:13



Yeah but I am more comfortable now. Not just with my faith but inside. I feel real good.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yeah but I am more comfortable now. Not just with my faith but inside. I feel real good.



I get that.But I also know that satan loves to make us feel comfortable as he entices us into his trap.Remember the lies he tried to tempt Jesus with, promising Him "all the kingdoms of the world if He would just fall down and worship him".


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I get that.But I also know that satan loves to make us feel comfortable as he entices us into his trap.Remember the lies he tried to tempt Jesus with, promising Him "all the kingdoms of the world if He would just fall down and worship him".



Satan....
Are you serious? 
If a god can't handle his own counter ego then that god is not worthy if worship.
The satan excuse is one in a long line of things that really bug me about a supposed all powerful deity.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Satan....
> Are you serious?
> If a god can't handle his own counter ego then that god is not worthy if worship.
> The satan excuse is one in a long line of things that really bug me about a supposed all powerful deity.



I want to be as clear and as serious as I possibly can when I say this. Satan is already defeated.He was defeated at the cross when Jesus gave His life.Satan knows his time is drawing near and he will soon be banished into everlasting torment.But God's not finished with His work on this earth.He has His redeemed possession that He must bring to knowledge of Him.He will not lose any of them.Make no mistake.God's in full control.He's already victorious over all that would oppose Him.And He is definately worthy of worship.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Satan....
> Are you serious?
> If a god can't handle his own counter ego then that god is not worthy if worship.
> The satan excuse is one in a long line of things that really bug me about a supposed all powerful deity.


Yep and its something we don't usually discuss.
You always get the same 'ol -


> Make no mistake. God's in full control


Which of course is the opposite of -


> But I also know that satan loves to make us feel comfortable as he entices us into his trap


The only way both can be true at the same time is if God allows Satan to do these things.
Which brings us full circle to why doesn't God just eliminate him when you consider all the suffering, murder etc etc because the devil made them do it.
Why cant we just be responsible grown ups and admit we do good things and we do bad things and take responsibility for our own actions?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> The only way both can be true at the same time is if God allows Satan to do these things.



**BINGO** YAY!! Someone finally gets it!                                    BTW satan cannot MAKE you do anything that you don't allow him to do.He doesn't have that power.James4:7 says "resist the devil and he will flee from you".We try to use that as a copout-"the devil made me do it".That's balogna!


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> **BINGO** YAY!! Someone finally gets it!                                    BTW satan cannot MAKE you do anything that you don't allow him to do.He doesn't have that power.James4:7 says "resist the devil and he will flee from you".We try to use that as a copout-"the devil made me do it".That's balogna!


I find it interesting that God will exterminate a planet full of people yet let this Satan dude hang around.
Maybe its all a mind job. If you get indoctrinated that this villain Satan is hanging around it sure is nice having God the Super Hero on speed dial.
Job security.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I want to be as clear and as serious as I possibly can when I say this. Satan is already defeated.He was defeated at the cross when Jesus gave His life.Satan knows his time is drawing near and he will soon be banished into everlasting torment.But God's not finished with His work on this earth.He has His redeemed possession that He must bring to knowledge of Him.He will not lose any of them.Make no mistake.God's in full control.He's already victorious over all that would oppose Him.And He is definately worthy of worship.



You can make all the clear and serious statements that you wish. You can keep cranking out bible verses. The only thing that separates you from having any credibility is proof.
I am more skeptical of the person that presents themselves as knowing what an unknowable god wants and speaks for a silent god and also now brings another dark deity into the mix in order to explain why such a good loving all powerful god allows such bad things to happen to the creatures he created.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I find it interesting that God will exterminate a planet full of people yet let this Satan dude hang around.
> Maybe its all a mind job. If you get indoctrinated that this villain Satan is hanging around it sure is nice having God the Super Hero on speed dial.
> Job security.



Although that is a very crude,irreverent way to put it.In a nutshell,that's it. Walt,you act as if all of this is just a game or a fairytale,but God is very real and satan is too.I just hope you don't learn this the hard way.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Although that is a very crude,irreverent way to put it.In a nutshell,that's it. Walt,you act as if all of this is just a game or a fairytale,but God is very real and satan is too.I just hope you don't learn this the hard way.



Are you saying that God wants/needs the devil?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Are you saying that God wants/needs the devil?



God doesn't "need" anything.He's all-sufficient,just as He was before He created everything. I am saying He has a purpose for everything. And I firmly believe that all things work together for good to them that love God,to them who are the called according to His purpose.Even those "bad" things Bullet spoke of.They are for His good purpose.Many times we don't understand why,but that's because we don't see the big picture like He does.It requires us to trust Him,even in the dark times of our life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> God doesn't "need" anything.He's all-sufficient,just as He was before He created everything. I am saying He has a purpose for everything. And I firmly believe that all things work together for good to them that love God,to them who are the called according to His purpose.Even those "bad" things Bullet spoke of.They are for His good purpose.Many times we don't understand why,but that's because we don't see the big picture like He does.It requires us to trust Him,even in the dark times of our life.



Okay, so he doesn't need the devil. That means he wants the devil, right? He could destroy him right now, or never had allowed him to be created, according to what I've seen and understand. 

Why do you think the devil was allowed to exist, and continues to exist? I'm not going to troubleshoot your answer, I'm just curious as to your thoughts on it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Although that is a very crude,irreverent way to put it.In a nutshell,that's it. Walt,you act as if all of this is just a game or a fairytale,but God is very real and satan is too.I just hope you don't learn this the hard way.



It is a fairytale.
How else do you explain that a god who knows everything that is going to happen before it even happens allows his right hand angel to rebel?
How does an all powerful god not see angels breeding with humans ahead of time?  Why does he kill 20 plus million innocent people because god allowed it to happen in the first place.
Why does the bible say god was displeased when he is all powerful and all knowing and if either if those things are true...he would know the outcome before it ever happened so how could he be upset at an outcome?
Why does your god punish people for their actions when by his will alone those actions are carried out?

I think the best thing that ever happened to me and some others is that we DID learn the hard way and it set us free from the religious run around.


----------



## welderguy

Like I just said,it's for His purpose.It's also for His glory.We don't have to understand it all to believe it.You guys have this mindset that if you don't have a clear explaination of something,that it must be false or at least diminished down to a state of ridiculousness.God's wisdom is infinite.Ours is finite.He chooses to only let us know certain things about His purpose.He requires us to trust Him for the rest.He enables His children to trust Him with the faith that He gives them.He doesn't give this faith to everyone,only His elect.That is why some cannot believe.That is why some mock and question and ridicule constantly everything about Him.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Like I just said,it's for His purpose.It's also for His glory.We don't have to understand it all to believe it.You guys have this mindset that if you don't have a clear explaination of something,that it must be false or at least diminished down to a state of ridiculousness.God's wisdom is infinite.Ours is finite.He chooses to only let us know certain things about His purpose.He requires us to trust Him for the rest.He enables His children to trust Him with the faith that He gives them.He doesn't give this faith to everyone,only His elect.That is why some cannot believe.That is why some mock and question and ridicule constantly everything about Him.



Then I and others like me are EXACTLY what your god intended. And yet he instructs you to constantly try to spread the word to people he knows will not change because he made us this way in the first place. 
That is either one mind mess of a god or evidence that the writers of these stories never thought it all through and left these head scratching conundrums for us all to argue over.
If what you say is true I am doing exactly as planned and nothing you or I can do will change the outcome so you are wasting your time trying to change me.
If what I say is true then you have been wasting your time worshiping something that is man made.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Then I and others like me are EXACTLY what your god intended. And yet he instructs you to constantly try to spread the word to people he knows will not change because he made us this way in the first place.
> That is either one mind mess of a god or evidence that the writers of these stories never thought it all through and left these head scratching conundrums for us all to argue over.
> If what you say is true I am doing exactly as planned and nothing you or I can do will change the outcome so you are wasting your time trying to change me.
> If what I say is true then you have been wasting your time worshiping something that is man made.



You are only hearing the parts you want to hear.You apparently didn't hear the part saying none of us know the full purpose of God.I don't know and you don't know.We both must trust Him for the rest.The basic question to you and to me is "Are you able to believe?" If you've been made ABLE,you will also be made willing.Only you can answer that for yourself.  Job was in a very similar "conundrum" after all the bad things came on him.But he said in Job13:15 "though He slay me,yet will I trust in Him."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Like I just said,it's for His purpose.It's also for His glory.We don't have to understand it all to believe it.You guys have this mindset that if you don't have a clear explaination of something,that it must be false or at least diminished down to a state of ridiculousness.God's wisdom is infinite.Ours is finite.He chooses to only let us know certain things about His purpose.He requires us to trust Him for the rest.He enables His children to trust Him with the faith that He gives them.He doesn't give this faith to everyone,only His elect.That is why some cannot believe.That is why some mock and question and ridicule constantly everything about Him.



Or, I'm curious how you've internalized such a thing. It's true that if there is a God I can't know anything about him, but I can know you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You are only hearing the parts you want to hear.You apparently didn't hear the part saying none of us know the full purpose of God.I don't know and you don't know.We both must trust Him for the rest.The basic question to you and to me is "Are you able to believe?" If you've been made ABLE,you will also be made willing.Only you can answer that for yourself.  Job was in a very similar "conundrum" after all the bad things came on him.But he said in Job13:15 "though He slay me,yet will I trust in Him."



The truth is that you and I are in the same boat. Each of us are only hearing what we want to hear.

Where we differ is on evidence.
I use the evidence available to me as truth.
You use belief in what you hope to be true.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Although that is a very crude,irreverent way to put it.In a nutshell,that's it. Walt,you act as if all of this is just a game or a fairytale,but God is very real and satan is too.I just hope you don't learn this the hard way.





> Walt,you act as if all of this is just a game or a fairytale


I act as if I believe religion is a man made institution that indoctrinates you to believe these things. When you are not or no longer indoctrinated, all the opposing ideas, all the conflicting stories, all the hypocricy jump out and scream at you.
Again-
I believe the Bible and the religion of Christianity are both  completely man made, inspired by the interest of advancing Christianity's power and wealth.
However I leave open the possibility of a god because the above doesn't disprove a god and as of yet science hasn't proven the origin of life.


> God is very real and satan is too.I just hope you don't learn this the hard way


Either God is going to change my mind which he could easily do or Im going to learn it the hard way.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Either God is going to change my mind which he could easily do or Im going to learn it the hard way.



^^Walt said it best^^  Nothing I say can or will convince you guys to believe.I'm not even sure some huge miracle could either.Remember the pharisees how they witnessed firsthand the many miracles Jesus did and still couldn't believe.They only hated Jesus more and wanted to kill him.Even so,that doesn't excuse me from telling everybody I come into contact with about the great things my God has shown me.I can't hide my candle under a basket.I don't want to do that.I want to shout it from the highest mountain.can you fault a guy for that?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> ^^Walt said it best^^  Nothing I say can or will convince you guys to believe.I'm not even sure some huge miracle could either.Remember the pharisees how they witnessed firsthand the many miracles Jesus did and still couldn't believe.They only hated Jesus more and wanted to kill him.Even so,that doesn't excuse me from telling everybody I come into contact with about the great things my God has shown me.I can't hide my candle under a basket.I don't want to do that.I want to shout it from the highest mountain.can you fault a guy for that?



Actually, yes, but only when you're asked a direct question about your beliefs and choose to ignore it in favor of shouting from said mountain. That's not a discussion.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Actually, yes, but only when you're asked a direct question about your beliefs and choose to ignore it in favor of shouting from said mountain. That's not a discussion.



What was your direct question that I ignored?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, so he doesn't need the devil. That means he wants the devil, right? He could destroy him right now, or never had allowed him to be created, according to what I've seen and understand.
> 
> Why do you think the devil was allowed to exist, and continues to exist? I'm not going to troubleshoot your answer, I'm just curious as to your thoughts on it.





welderguy said:


> What was your direct question that I ignored?



See above.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> ^^Walt said it best^^  Nothing I say can or will convince you guys to believe.I'm not even sure some huge miracle could either.Remember the pharisees how they witnessed firsthand the many miracles Jesus did and still couldn't believe.They only hated Jesus more and wanted to kill him.Even so,that doesn't excuse me from telling everybody I come into contact with about the great things my God has shown me.I can't hide my candle under a basket.I don't want to do that.I want to shout it from the highest mountain.can you fault a guy for that?


Don't forget, what God could easily do is change my mind about his existence only.
Then he's going to have to tell me he's the God of the Bible.
If that's true, Im heading to he11 anyway because I disagree with a lot of it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> ^^Walt said it best^^  Nothing I say can or will convince you guys to believe.I'm not even sure some huge miracle could either.Remember the pharisees how they witnessed firsthand the many miracles Jesus did and still couldn't believe.They only hated Jesus more and wanted to kill him.Even so,that doesn't excuse me from telling everybody I come into contact with about the great things my God has shown me.I can't hide my candle under a basket.I don't want to do that.I want to shout it from the highest mountain.can you fault a guy for that?



No I actually do not remember the pharisees. I was not there. I remember reading about it in the bible which is of no more accuracy to me than Poo and Tigger having conversations.
Tell me again which disciple followed Jesus around and transcribed each of his conversations?  Which disciple was around when it was just Jesus and Satan doing the talking? Which disciple was with the Roman tomb guards and witnessed their conversations with the Jewish priests and pharisees? 
You use what is written in the bible to make your case.
I use what is written in the bible to make mine.


----------



## welderguy

Striper,I answered your question the best I could with my limited insight.The only answer I can give is because it pleased Him to do so.I know you don't like that answer but it's all we have.Like I said before,He doesn't let us know His whole entire purpose about everything.Our little brains would probably explode if He told us everything He knows. We couldn't contain it all.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Striper,I answered your question the best I could with my limited insight.The only answer I can give is because it pleased Him to do so.I know you don't like that answer but it's all we have.Like I said before,He doesn't let us know His whole entire purpose about everything.Our little brains would probably explode if He told us everything He knows We couldn't contain it all.



Okay, "it pleases Him to have the devil" is as far as you've gotten with it and you're okay with that.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, "it pleases Him to have the devil" is as far as you've gotten with it and you're okay with that.



I'd like to know more,but I have to wait until I have a perfect body and mind.Then He will reveal it all to me."We will know Him as we are known"


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Striper,I answered your question the best I could with my limited insight.The only answer I can give is because it pleased Him to do so.I know you don't like that answer but it's all we have.Like I said before,He doesn't let us know His whole entire purpose about everything.Our little brains would probably explode if He told us everything He knows. We couldn't contain it all.



You are convinced your brain would explode so you have a set limit that you are willing to stop at and choose not question anything that you think is above your thought process.

I am open and willing for answers....straight from your god if necessary. I'll take the chance of an exploding brain.

The answer you give is not all we have...it is all you have.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> No I actually do not remember the pharisees. I was not there. I remember reading about it in the bible which is of no more accuracy to me than Poo and Tigger having conversations.
> Tell me again which disciple followed Jesus around and transcribed each of his conversations?  Which disciple was around when it was just Jesus and Satan doing the talking? Which disciple was with the Roman tomb guards and witnessed their conversations with the Jewish priests and pharisees?
> You use what is written in the bible to make your case.
> I use what is written in the bible to make mine.



The bible is not just a book.It is actually the "inspired word of God" He didn't need eye witness accounts to pen down the things in it.HE'S GOD.It's all true.It's all perfectly accurate.It's all relevant to every age of time.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You are convinced your brain would explode so you have a set limit that you are willing to stop at and choose not question anything that you think is above your thought process.
> 
> I am open and willing for answers....straight from your god if necessary. I'll take the chance of an exploding brain.
> 
> The answer you give is not all we have...it is all you have.



The brain exploding thing was just a joke.haha.But you're right,it's all I have.It's not all He has though.He knows everything.He just chooses to only show part of it right now.That's not my choice,it's His.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The bible is not just a book.It is actually the "inspired word of God" He didn't need eye witness accounts to pen down the things in it.HE'S GOD.It's all true.It's all perfectly accurate.It's all relevant to every age of time.





> It's all relevant to every age of time.


That couldn't be more false.
In our time we know that donkeys cant talk, water doesn't turn into wine, staffs don't turn into snakes, some loaves of bread and a couple of fish doesn't feed 5000 people, man cant live in whales.....................
In our time we call those type of stories fairy tales and they are not relevant to what we consider to be factual or possible.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The bible is not just a book.It is actually the "inspired word of God" He didn't need eye witness accounts to pen down the things in it.HE'S GOD.It's all true.It's all perfectly accurate.It's all relevant to every age of time.


Of all the things god is capable of....writing is not one if them.
I don't hold it against you that you believe the stuff you say only because you have to make those excuses out of need and not fact.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The brain exploding thing was just a joke.haha.But you're right,it's all I have.It's not all He has though.He knows everything.He just chooses to only show part of it right now.That's not my choice,it's His.



He chooses.....
So how do you know that?
Tell us more about your inside knowledge


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The bible is not just a book.It is actually the "inspired word of God" He didn't need eye witness accounts to pen down the things in it.HE'S GOD.It's all true.It's all perfectly accurate.It's all relevant to every age of time.



Reality does not coincide with your fantasy.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That couldn't be more false.
> In our time we know that donkeys cant talk, water doesn't turn into wine, staffs don't turn into snakes, some loaves of bread and a couple of fish doesn't feed 5000 people, man cant live in whales.....................
> In our time we call those type of stories fairy tales and they are not relevant to what we consider to be factual or possible.



If you can't believe those things happened,how in the world are you gonna believe it when the sky rips open and Jesus appears in the clouds with a loud shout and a trumpet sounds?And bodies begin to come up out of the ground and ascend into the sky.You're gonna see it.But will you believe it?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> If you can't believe those things happened,how in the world are you gonna believe it when the sky rips open and Jesus appears in the clouds with a loud shout and a trumpet sounds?And bodies begin to come up out of the ground and ascend into the sky.*You're gonna see it*.But will you believe it?



When is the rapture going to occur? Soon, by the tone of this.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> When is the rapture going to occur? Soon, by the tone of this.



Nobody knows.But this I do know.It won't be before ALL His elect have been regenerated.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> He chooses.....
> So how do you know that?
> Tell us more about your inside knowledge



Read Deut.29:29


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> If you can't believe those things happened,how in the world are you gonna believe it when the sky rips open and Jesus appears in the clouds with a loud shout and a trumpet sounds?And bodies begin to come up out of the ground and ascend into the sky.You're gonna see it.But will you believe it?


You made the claim the stories were relevant for all time. I showed they aren't relevant today as we don't include them as being factual or possible.


> You're gonna see it. But will you believe it?


That's kind of silly don't you think? Well apparently you don't or you wouldn't ask. 
If we keep harping about evidence and proof I think witnessing that event would probably strike us as being evidence and proof of at least that particular story.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You made the claim the stories were relevant for all time. I showed they aren't relevant today as we don't include them as being factual or possible.
> 
> That's kind of silly don't you think? Well apparently you don't or you wouldn't ask.
> If we keep harping about evidence and proof I think witnessing that event would probably strike us as being evidence and proof of at least that particular story.



Why don't you believe they are possible? All things are possible with God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Nobody knows.But this I do know.It won't be before ALL His elect have been regenerated.



I wish I understood worldwide election and regeneration better. I can understand election in the Christian nations because we were indoctrinated into Christianity but I don't understand God's plan or method of electing in other nations.
It can't depend on man as God gives salvation to whom he wants. I can't see God sitting back waiting on man to spread his message to the whole world before he ends it. That would put God waiting on man to make his plan. Can you picture God saying "come on men, get on with it. I'm ready to reach my sheep so that I can end the world?"


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Why don't you believe they are possible? All things are possible with God.


Tell you what, NOT using a story in the Bible, show me that they are possible and I will reevaluate.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> I wish I understood worldwide election and regeneration better. I can understand election in the Christian nations because we were indoctrinated into Christianity but I don't understand God's plan or method of electing in other nations.
> It can't depend on man as God gives salvation to whom he wants. I can't see God sitting back waiting on man to spread his message to the whole world before he ends it. That would put God waiting on man to make his plan. Can you picture God saying "come on men, get on with it. I'm ready to reach my sheep so that I can end the world?"



Ive said this many times before,God doesn't need man to be able to reveal Himself.He does it by His Spirit.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Ive said this many times before,God doesn't need man to be able to reveal Himself.He does it by His Spirit.



Just not to all, but fear not, he still loves you. Just not enough to save you.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> That couldn't be more false.
> In our time we know that donkeys cant talk, water doesn't turn into wine, staffs don't turn into snakes, some loaves of bread and a couple of fish doesn't feed 5000 people, man cant live in whales.....................
> In our time we call those type of stories fairy tales and they are not relevant to what we consider to be factual or possible.


In our time... we call them miracles.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Tell you what, NOT using a story in the Bible, show me that they are possible and I will reevaluate.


The faith He has put inside me is my evidence.I hope you see it in me but I realize you don't know me.(just from the internet)It takes faith.without it we are blind.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Just not to all, but fear not, he still loves you. Just not enough to save you.



He doesn't love everybody.Rom.9 tells us that He hated Esau even before he was born.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> He doesn't love everybody.Rom.9 tells us that He hated Esau even before he was born.



Ah ha. Now we get back to that old nut. One Christian tells us he loves us all, another tells us he doesn't. And yet they all claim to know the one, true, God. If there's one God, and they both know Him, which one is right?


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> In our time... we call them miracles.


Well you would have to I suppose.
Although some of you call them parables.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ah ha. Now we get back to that old nut. One Christian tells us he loves us all, another tells us he doesn't. And yet they all claim to know the one, true, God. If there's one God, and they both know Him, which one is right?


I'd go with the Apostle Paul.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Well you would have to I suppose.
> Although some of you call them parables.


Yes, and some of us don't believe any of it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> I'd go with the Apostle Paul.



How so?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The faith He has put inside me is my evidence.I hope you see it in me but I realize you don't know me.(just from the internet)It takes faith.without it we are blind.


Yes your faith is obvious I assure you.
So you cant show me they are possible outside of the Bible correct?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ah ha. Now we get back to that old nut. One Christian tells us he loves us all, another tells us he doesn't. And yet they all claim to know the one, true, God. If there's one God, and they both know Him, which one is right?



"beloved,believe not every spirit but try the spirits,whether they are of God:because many false prophets are gone out into the world."1 John4:1.                                                          We must see if what they say is consistent with the word of God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> "beloved,believe not every spirit but try the spirits,whether they are of God:because many false prophets are gone out into the world."1 John4:1.                                                          We must see if what they say is consistent with the word of God.



Where can I find direct word of God? All of it is derived from Prophets of, according to this, dubious accuracy.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Yes, and some of us don't believe any of it.


Hey I fit in that category!
Of course calling it a parable means you don't believe it either. Its just a story with a lesson.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Hey I fit in that category!
> Of course calling it a parable means you don't believe it either. Its just a story with a lesson.



But isn't the point of a story the lesson, whether literal or not?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But isn't the point of a story the lesson, whether literal or not?


Depends on the story I suppose.
Doesn't change the difference between a parable, a miracle, a story or the claim of it being a fact.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Yes your faith is obvious I assure you.
> So you cant show me they are possible outside of the Bible correct?



Walt,I can't show you anything.I can't even show you things that ARE in the bible,because you do not believe them.They are spiritually discerned.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Depends on the story I suppose.
> Doesn't change the difference between a parable, a miracle, a story or the claim of it being a fact.



I agree, once you hold it out to be factual you've set yourself up for failure because there's very little there that can be proven, other than the existence of some of the people.


----------



## welderguy

I love you guys but I honestly don't know what else I can say to you that hasn't been said.I just hope God will have mercy and draw you to Himself and reveal these things to your heart in a way that you will have no more doubts.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Yes your faith is obvious I assure you.
> So you cant show me they are possible outside of the Bible correct?


Be honest Walt. If we have a talking donkey paraded in front of us today or tomorrow, wouldn't you absorb it into your worldview as natural phenomenon?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> Be honest Walt. If we have a talking donkey paraded in front of us today or tomorrow, wouldn't you absorb it into your worldview as natural phenomenon?



Depends on what it says.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Depends on what it says.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Ive said this many times before,God doesn't need man to be able to reveal Himself.He does it by His Spirit.



I understand God doesn't need man to reveal himself to the world. What about Jesus? How does the spirit of God reveal Jesus to the Hindu? How can God elect and give salvation to someone that has never heard about Jesus?
I could understand worldwide revealing and election better if it didn't need to include Jesus.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Read Deut.29:29



Sorry but that does not have any merit to me.
You might as well give me a page number and paragraph from ANY other religious text or fiction novel.
That book is loaded with nonsense and is no more credible than any other fiction novel. Folklore and legend cannot exist without a blend of real people and places and events. It is the actions in between that are embellished to make up what you are trying to pass off as factual.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Be honest Walt. If we have a talking donkey paraded in front of us today or tomorrow, wouldn't you absorb it into your worldview as natural phenomenon?


I'll be honest about this - if a talking donkey, preferably speaking English but not a requirement, is paraded in front of me, I will give the Bible a little more credit than I give it now.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> In our time... we call them miracles.



Can you give some examples of these miracles?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I love you guys but I honestly don't know what else I can say to you that hasn't been said.I just hope God will have mercy and draw you to Himself and reveal these things to your heart in a way that you will have no more doubts.


Why don't you just stop trying to convince us ?
Note there are other Christians here that we converse with every day. Once you get the trying to convince anybody of anything out of the way you can just discuss what you believe and why. 
We don't do this to "win" or to "convert" or to "convince".


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Can you give some examples of these miracles?


Same examples. We still, today, call them miracles.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


>



I mean, if it started speaking of God and stuff, I'd ask it where it heard about all that, or if it was imbued with it. If it says things like, "I like hay," well that's pretty mundane.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Same examples. We still, today, call them miracles.



Can you please be more specific?

I do not hear of any talking donkeys today.
I do not see anyone swallowed by whales and are able to live within the whales stomach.
I do not see or hear of anyone that is dead and buried for three days coming back to life.

Are you able to provide any examples?
Are you talking about the tidal wave that kills 7,000, has 488 missing, but one old lady that sits untouched in her street level apartment is the miracle?
Or the tornado that kills an entire family except for their dog that was in the bathtub?
Or...people from all religions that "die" on the operating table and come back? Or beat a disease?
I gotta tell you that while strange they are not miraculous. While very small in quantity worldwide there are enough of those things that happen that take them out of the miracle category and into a survivable statistic.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I mean, if it started speaking of God and stuff, I'd ask it where it heard about all that, or if it was imbued with it. If it says things like, "I like hay," well that's pretty mundane.


Your bar is higher than mine. I would be impressed with "whats happenin"?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Your bar is higher than mine. I would be impressed with "whats happenin"?



Impressed, yes. Convinced of anything, no.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Impressed, yes. Convinced of anything, no.


See that's where you are being unreasonable. Only horses can have full conversations, everybody knows that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> See that's where you are being unreasonable. Only horses can have full conversations, everybody knows that.



Now you're just being racist.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now you're just being racist.


Yeah but Mr. Ed is REAL.
Donkey is obviously a cartoon.


----------



## ambush80

Gem,

What are the modern day miracles that you are talking about?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah but Mr. Ed is REAL.
> Donkey is obviously a cartoon.



But voiced by a very real jack---


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Gem,
> 
> What are the modern day miracles that you are talking about?



As our ability to communicate and accurately record history increased the amount of miracles decreased both in frequency and grandeur.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Ive said this many times before,God doesn't need man to be able to reveal Himself.He does it by His Spirit.



Then what is the purpose of the Bible?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Gem,
> 
> What are the modern day miracles that you are talking about?


I never mentioned modern day miracles. I was referring to the Biblical accounts.

About to leave for work, but I will offer one in the morning. I know how it will be attacked, but I will present it.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> I never mentioned modern day miracles. I was referring to the Biblical accounts.
> 
> About to leave for work, but I will offer one in the morning. I know how it will be attacked, but I will present it.



Every religion has their equivalent of "biblical accounts".


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Walt,I can't show you anything.I can't even show you things that ARE in the bible,because you do not believe them.They are spiritually discerned.



welderguy, what would change YOUR mind about things that are in the Bible or the existence of a God?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> welderguy, what would change YOUR mind about things that are in the Bible or the existence of a God?



Only God himself could change it, but only to correct my errors.Not to take my faith away.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I just hope God will have mercy...



You hope that a merciful God, according to the Bible, will have mercy?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Only God himself could change it, but only to correct my errors.Not to take my faith away.



Every A/A in here and every one of them that I have had in depth conversations with elsewhere say EVIDENCE to the contrary of what they believe now would or could change their minds. 


You and the majority of believers in religions show that you are so set into your beliefs and indoctrination that you are unwilling to accept any evidence to the contrary.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Only God himself could change it, but only to correct my errors.Not to take my faith away.



Did god himself actually contact you and that is why you believe?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Did god himself actually contact you and that is why you believe?



Actually, yes He did.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Actually, yes He did.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> You hope that a merciful God, according to the Bible, will have mercy?



"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion"Rom.9:15


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion"Rom.9:15



Seems to make a case for salvation not being based on merit.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


>



Apparently, you don't know about His effectual calling.?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Seems to make a case for salvation not being based on merit.



That's exactly correct.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Apparently, you don't know about His effectual calling.?



Actually, I'm aware of it. Never experienced it myself, and I'm also quite familiar with many of the people who claim that God speaks directly to them being of questionable sanity. Not saying you are, just that those other people also have animals talking to them, and can carry on a conversation with a street light.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> That's exactly correct.



So why walk the straight and narrow then?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Actually, I'm aware of it. Never experienced it myself, and I'm also quite familiar with many of the people who claim that God speaks directly to them being of questionable sanity. Not saying you are, just that those other people also have animals talking to them, and can carry on a conversation with a street light.



Well, Ive never had a conversation with animals or streetlights or anything of that nature.And God has never spoken to me in an audible voice either that I know of, but when He called me out of darkness into His light, it was unmistakable to me.It wasn't with words either.It was more like an attraction kinda like two magnets attract to one another.But it was an overwhelming sense of love that was doing it.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So why walk the straight and narrow then?



Because when He called me, He also made me understand how much He loves me.He changed my will from wanting to avoid Him to wanting to follow Him.He put His love in my heart.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Well, Ive never had a conversation with animals or streetlights or anything of that nature.And God has never spoken to me in an audible voice either that I know of, but when He called me out of darkness into His light, it was unmistakable to me.It wasn't with words either.It was more like an attraction kinda like two magnets attract to one another.But it was an overwhelming sense of love that was doing it.



Sounds a lot like what other people have said. 



welderguy said:


> Because when He called me, He also made me understand how much He loves me.He changed my will from wanting to avoid Him to wanting to follow Him.He put His love in my heart.



Okay.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Because when He called me, He also made me understand how much He loves me.He changed my will from wanting to avoid Him to wanting to follow Him.He put His love in my heart.



Why would you want to avoid him? Owe him money? 
Just kidding. 
Serious first question though.
Oh, and what made you think you could avoid an all knowing, all seeing God anyway?


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Why would you want to avoid him? Owe him money?
> Just kidding.
> Serious first question though.
> Oh, and what made you think you could avoid an all knowing, all seeing God anyway?



I guess you could say I had a problem with authority.I was arrogant and self-centered.Ego the size of Texas.The religion that I had been around seemed fake and insincere.Everyone seemed to be looking down their noses at me.
I realize now though that they weren't the problem at all.I was.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Actually, yes He did.



Good luck with that.
If you can't hear his words or no direct contact pick the next best thing...effectual calling.

Man I applaud you for your faith and I had hoped you could provide a refreshing new way to converse and explain in here but you just do not bring anything new or interesting.
And for those reasons....I'm out. (Shark Tank reference there)


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> Mercy can never be earned...but fully enjoyed when seen.
> And received.



More statements that suggest that salvation isn't merit based and further invalidate any commandments or punishments for breaking them.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> More statements that suggest that salvation isn't merit based and further invalidate any commandments or punishments for breaking them.



It doesn't invalidate the commandments.The punishment for breaking them is just passed on to our Saviour.He took upon Himself what should have been ours.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> It doesn't invalidate the commandments.The punishment for breaking them is just passed on to our Saviour.He took upon Himself what should have been ours.



That's a new take on it. So you obey to keep Jesus from suffering what he's already suffered?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> More statements that suggest that salvation isn't merit based and further invalidate any commandments or punishments for breaking them.



According to what I've heard, you don't go to He11 for breaking the rules.  Having to follow the rules was negated of by the murder of Jesus in the amendment called the New Testament, though It's never been explained thoroughly how this bit of chicanery actually works.  I assume it's a miracle.

I've also heard it explained that believers don't follow the rules because they have to but because they are compelled to, though they fail admittedly as often as unbelievers.  

The ultimate punishment, whatever that is (as we have seen there are many ideas of what that might actually be) is reserved for the unrepentant.  Do I have that right?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's a new take on it. So you obey to keep Jesus from suffering what he's already suffered?




He suffered that one time so that we can eat bacon; like how people used to eviscerate goats in order to have a plague of locusts lifted.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> According to what I've heard, you don't go to He11 for breaking the rules.  Having to follow the rules was negated of by the murder of Jesus in the amendment called the New Testament, though It's never been explained thoroughly how this bit of chicanery actually works.  I assume it's a miracle.
> 
> I've also heard it explained that believers don't follow the rules because they have to but because they are compelled to, though they fail admittedly as often as unbelievers.
> 
> The ultimate punishment, whatever that is (as we have seen there are many ideas of what that might actually be) is reserved for the unrepentant.  Do I have that right?



I get their point that Jesus took all sin upon himself when he was crucified. I just don't get how that doesn't invalidate the commandments since there is no punishment for violations, if salvation is guaranteed or if you are chosen to be saved by God regardless of your behavior. That's 2 plausible reasons why the commandments could not be followed and salvation still possible. 

Considering the commandments only appear in the OT, and we've been told repeatedly that the OT was invalidated by the NT, I don't get why there's the big deal of making sure they're in the courthouses, or even still followed.


----------



## welderguy

Do you really want answers to these questions or do you just want to mock and ridicule.If it's the latter, I won't waste my time or yours.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I get their point that Jesus took all sin upon himself when he was crucified. I just don't get how that doesn't invalidate the commandments since there is no punishment for violations, if salvation is guaranteed or if you are chosen to be saved by God regardless of your behavior. That's 2 plausible reasons why the commandments could not be followed and salvation still possible.
> 
> Considering the commandments only appear in the OT, and we've been told repeatedly that the OT was invalidated by the NT, I don't get why there's the big deal of making sure they're in the courthouses, or even still followed.



I suppose the punishment for sin is the guilt, which is what the whole ruse is about anyway.  Why not just explain to people why it's wrong to kill other people?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Do you really want answers to these questions or do you just want to mock and ridicule.If it's the latter, I won't waste my time or yours.



Seems like you've already made up your mind.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Do you really want answers to these questions or do you just want to mock and ridicule.If it's the latter, I won't waste my time or yours.




Are my answers incorrect?  And, yes,  I do want an answer to that.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's a new take on it. So you obey to keep Jesus from suffering what he's already suffered?



Jesus' atonement on the cross covered every sin of His elect people.past, present, and future.He took the wrath of His Father upon Himself in the place of them.He satisfied the guilty sentence that was pronounced upon His children and made them not guilty.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> The ultimate punishment, whatever that is (as we have seen there are many ideas of what that might actually be) is reserved for the unrepentant.  Do I have that right?



He11, eternal torment, is reserved for those that were not elect before the foundation of the earth.They will not repent because they are dead in sins.They are not made alive in Christ.Why He chose some and not others I don't know.Just cause He wanted to I guess.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I get their point that Jesus took all sin upon himself when he was crucified. I just don't get how that doesn't invalidate the commandments since there is no punishment for violations, if salvation is guaranteed or if you are chosen to be saved by God regardless of your behavior. That's 2 plausible reasons why the commandments could not be followed and salvation still possible.
> 
> Considering the commandments only appear in the OT, and we've been told repeatedly that the OT was invalidated by the NT, I don't get why there's the big deal of making sure they're in the courthouses, or even still followed.



When the NT came along, Jesus said He will write His laws upon our hearts.He didn't take the law away.He fulfilled the law.This means since NO ONE could keep the law perfectly, He would give Himself to pay the penalty for those guilty of breaking the law.(the elect)


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Jesus' atonement on the cross covered every sin of His elect people.past, present, and future.He took the wrath of His Father upon Himself in the place of them.He satisfied the guilty sentence that was pronounced upon His children and made them not guilty.





welderguy said:


> When the NT came along, Jesus said He will write His laws upon our hearts.He didn't take the law away.He fulfilled the law.This means since NO ONE could keep the law perfectly, He would give Himself to pay the penalty for those guilty of breaking the law.(the elect)



I get all that. What I don't get is why even bother trying to live the straight and narrow, given that you're already saved? You've sinned, you will sin again, and, according to this, you'll be saved regardless. So why proscribe something to just toss any offenses of it away?


----------



## welderguy

You need to understand that everyone is guilty. Nobody is better than anybody else.That's why we shouldn't judge the heart of others.All we can judge is someones fruits.We are fruit inspectors,not judges with gavels.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> You need to understand that everyone is guilty. Nobody is better than anybody else.That's why we shouldn't judge the heart of others.All we can judge is someones fruits.We are fruit inspectors,not judges with gavels.



I'm not saying that we should judge others. I know, according to the book, that's God's realm. My point is that, if he's already forgiven you, since Jesus took all sin past, present, and future upon himself, and further knows that you will fail and sin again, then there is no logical point to any of it. 

Thou shall not break the vase. But I know you'll break the vase anyway, so I'll punish my other son on your behalf, and forgive you your sin anyway. No punishment = no sin. Auto-forgiveness doesn't unbreak the vase.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I get all that. What I don't get is why even bother trying to live the straight and narrow, given that you're already saved? You've sinned, you will sin again, and, according to this, you'll be saved regardless. So why proscribe something to just toss any offenses of it away?



It's because when He regenerates a person, He makes them a "new creature".This means He takes out their hard and stony heart and gives them a heart of flesh.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> It's because when He regenerates a person, He makes them a "new creature".This means He takes out their hard and stony heart and gives them a heart of flesh.



Which does what, exactly? Keeps them from sinning again, or makes it so he doesn't have to forgive them for future sins?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which does what, exactly? Keeps them from sinning again, or makes it so he doesn't have to forgive them for future sins?



Which makes them try as hard as they possibly can to keep from sinning.It doesn't make them sinless, it just makes them want to be.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Which makes them try as hard as they possibly can to keep from sinning.It doesn't make them sinless, it just makes them want to be.



To what end? They're forgiven anyway.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To what end? They're forgiven anyway.



Do you remember when you were a boy and you loved your dad and admired him so much and he was your hero.He was your buddy and your protector and provider.You wanted more than anything to please him and follow him around and learn everything you could from him.Well, it's kinda like that only on a much greater scale.The motive for it all is love.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Do you remember when you were a boy and you loved your dad and admired him so much and he was your hero.He was your buddy and your protector and provider.You wanted more than anything to please him and follow him around and learn everything you could from him.Well, it's kinda like that only on a much greater scale.The motive for it all is love.



I can understand that, but if he told me to not break a vase, and I broke it anyway, I was punished for it. That's the disconnect.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I can understand that, but if he told me to not break a vase, and I broke it anyway, I was punished for it. That's the disconnect.



There's chastening that's done out of love and that's for the good of the child.Then there's punishment. Two very different concepts.God chastens His children but never punishes them.He punished Jesus in our stead.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> There's chastening that's done out of love and that's for the good of the child.Then there's punishment. Two very different concepts.God chastens His children but *never punishes* them.He punished Jesus in our stead.



Those sent to Hades, or drowned in the floods, would surely disagree with you.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Those sent to Hades, or drowned in the floods, would surely disagree with you.



My limited understanding is hades is the same as he11, right? If so, God's children are not going there.

As far as the floods go, that's only a release into paradise for the child of God.Not punishment.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> My limited understanding is hades is the same as he11, right? If so, God's children are not going there.
> 
> As far as the floods go, that's only a release into paradise for the child of God.Not punishment.



Who are God's children then, precisely? My understanding is that we all are.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Who are God's children then, precisely? My understanding is that we all are.



Precisely the ones God chose before the foundation of the world.Eph.1 tells us this.Rom.9:11 tells us God does not love everybody.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Precisely the ones God chose before the foundation of the world.Eph.1 tells us this.Rom.9:11 tells us God does not love everybody.



Which means there's even less reason to live right since you're either already chosen and will be saved, or you aren't and won't be.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Precisely the ones God chose before the foundation of the world.Eph.1 tells us this.Rom.9:11 tells us God does not love everybody.



From the Bible, we can tell for certain that God loves everyone or not really. 
Awesome. I like a book that narrows it down for ya.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> From the Bible, we can tell for certain that God loves everyone or not really.
> Awesome. I like a book that narrows it down for ya.



Believe me, if He loves you He definitely will show that to you some time before you die.He doesn't need the bible to do it either.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Believe me, if He loves you He definitely will show that to you some time before you die.He doesn't need the bible to do it either.



I'll pass.
You missed the point though.
You read the bible and state that God doesn't love everyone. Some read the bible and state God loves everyone. (There is even a children's song: Jesus loves me....) There are verses that state he loves everyone, there are verses that state he does not. 
You pick the more negative to believe, others pick the positive. Interesting.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> I'll pass.
> You missed the point though.
> You read the bible and state that God doesn't love everyone. Some read the bible and state God loves everyone. (There is even a children's song: Jesus loves me....) There are verses that state he loves everyone, there are verses that state he does not.
> You pick the more negative to believe, others pick the positive. Interesting.



How can a person think God loves everybody when it plainy says "...and Esau have I hated." Not much room for misinterpretation there if you ask me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> I'll pass.
> You missed the point though.
> You read the bible and state that God doesn't love everyone. Some read the bible and state God loves everyone. (There is even a children's song: Jesus loves me....) There are verses that state he loves everyone, there are verses that state he does not.
> You pick the more negative to believe, others pick the positive. Interesting.



Could not both he and the child be correct? If the child feels the spirit are they not one of the chosen, and those who don't are not?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> My limited understanding is hades is the same as he11, right? If so, God's children are not going there.
> 
> As far as the floods go, that's only a release into paradise for the child of God.Not punishment.


Not punishment?


> Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.


Come on Welder are you sure you aren't changing the story?
It doesn't say release them to paradise. Going to paradise is a reward.
Destroy is not a reward.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Precisely the ones God chose before the foundation of the world.Eph.1 tells us this.Rom.9:11 tells us God does not love everybody.


Then what is the need for the religion of Christianity?
The choice were made before the world and Christianity existed. 
Doesn't matter if you have read the Bible or not, if the Bible exists or not, if you are religious or not or if you are a Christian or not.
Why do churches take EVRYONES money and not just the elect?
What a scam.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Not punishment?
> 
> Come on Welder are you sure you aren't changing the story?
> It doesn't say release them to paradise. Going to paradise is a reward.
> Destroy is not a reward.



It is all about an individuals interpretation so it makes sense to them.
Darn near every believer I have ever conversed with puts their own little twist so they can live with the verses that do not coincide with the story they preach.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Not punishment?
> 
> Come on Welder are you sure you aren't changing the story?
> It doesn't say release them to paradise. Going to paradise is a reward.
> Destroy is not a reward.



Come on Walt, are you sure the rest of the population besides Noah's family weren't the non-elect?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Come on Walt, are you sure the rest of the population besides Noah's family weren't the non-elect?


Let me point out the hypocricy of your statements.
You claimed they were released to paradise.
Now you are justifying their murder by saying they weren't part of the elect.
If they weren't part of the elect then they didn't go to paradise.
You are coming up with anything you can so you can view it the way you want to.


----------



## welderguy

In post 1685, he didn't specify which flood.He said "floods".I didn't know he meant Noah's flood.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> It is all about an individuals interpretation so it makes sense to them.
> Darn near every believer I have ever conversed with puts their own little twist so they can live with the verses that do not coincide with the story they preach.


Its puzzling.
Its as though each statement or thought is an individual  one that has no connection to previous statements or thoughts.
Its the only way you can ignore all the contradictions I guess.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> In post 1685, he didn't specify which flood.He said "floods".I didn't know he meant Noah's flood.




So lets say you misunderstood. Pick a flood any flood.
They were ALL sent to paradise?
Or just the elected ones ?
So what purpose did the un-elect deaths serve?
Entertainment?


----------



## welderguy

You guys are vicious. Don't say nothing all day, then when you think there's an inconsistency, y'all come out of the woodwork and pounce.

My statement still stands:"God never punishes His children.He only chastens them".Flood or no flood


----------



## centerpin fan

Holy post count, Batman!  

Are my eyes deceiving me, or does it say "page 69 of 69" above?

Congrats, guys.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> So lets say you misunderstood. Pick a flood any flood.
> They were ALL sent to paradise?
> Or just the elected ones ?
> So what purpose did the un-elect deaths serve?
> Entertainment?



Noah's flood is the only one that God gave us insight into His purpose.

But yes, just the elected ones went to paradise.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Holy post count, Batman!
> 
> Are my eyes deceiving me, or does it say "page 69 of 69" above?
> 
> Congrats, guys.


That's 'cus we've covered 69 subjects so far


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You guys are vicious. Don't say nothing all day, then when you think there's an inconsistency, y'all come out of the woodwork and pounce.
> 
> My statement still stands:"God never punishes His children.He only chastens them".Flood or no flood



Sometimes that darn "work" thing cuts into my devotion to welderguy time and I have to post when I get the time.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> You guys are vicious. Don't say nothing all day, then when you think there's an inconsistency, y'all come out of the woodwork and pounce.
> 
> My statement still stands:"God never punishes His children.He only chastens them".Flood or no flood


And by His children you mean the elect correct?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> And by His children you mean the elect correct?



Yessir


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Yessir



What would you sat to me, a vessel of wrath, to give me solace?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Yessir


So how do you square that with -


> 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Im not sure how one could interpret that any other way than exactly what it says?
Unless you believe being elect determines you believe in which case every Christian is elect.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> What would you sat to me, a vessel of wrath, to give me solace?



How do you know you are a vessel of wrath? I'm pretty sure the thief on the cross never thought he'd end up in paradise.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> So how do you square that with -
> 
> Im not sure how one could interpret that any other way than exactly what it says?
> Unless you believe being elect determines you believe in which case every Christian is elect.



That verse is not all-inclusive as many think.Not everyone believes.Even some who say they believe are not true believers.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> How do you know you are a vessel of wrath? I'm pretty sure the thief on the cross never thought he'd end up in paradise.



Don't dodge the question.  What would you say to a vessel of wrath?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Don't dodge the question.  What would you say to a vessel of wrath?



That's just it.I can't make a judgement like that.I say as long as you're breathing there's hope for you.There's not a case too hard for God.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> That verse is not all-inclusive as many think.Not everyone believes.Even some who say they believe are not true believers.


Sorry Welder, Im 100% convinced you are taking a statement that by your own beliefs is the word of God and minimizing EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS to get around the fact that it conflicts with your beliefs.
It says what it says. Its only 26 words. Its all inclusive.
Who are you to define what your God really meant by that statement and to add limitations to it?
You cant use scripture to prove your points and then turn around and deny scripture in the next breath if you expect us to give you a fraction of credibility.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Maybe some believe a lost soul is so depraved he can't do the above of his own free will. He is too blind and needs God to open his eyes.  

2And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" 3Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

So what solace can we provide to the vessel of wrath; "that the works of God will be displayed in him. 

I relation to the man on the cross, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and  just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
God can save people and Jesus can save people. 

You might be saved and don't even know it. You might be a future elected person. Either way your fate is not in your hands. 
So go out climb that mountain and eat that plate of fatback!
Live like you are dying!


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Sorry Welder, Im 100% convinced you are taking a statement that by your own beliefs is the word of God and minimizing EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS to get around the fact that it conflicts with your beliefs.
> It says what it says. Its only 26 words. Its all inclusive.
> Who are you to define what your God really meant by that statement and to add limitations to it?
> You cant use scripture to prove your points and then turn around and deny scripture in the next breath if you expect us to give you a fraction of credibility.



I haven't denied any scripture.You can't take a single verse and claim it means something if that something doesn't line up with the rest of the entire bible.Scripture doesn't contradict itself.If we think we find a contradiction, then we err in our interpretation.

Did you even read the verses leading up to that verse? It speaks of Nicodemas' unbelief of the things Jesus was telling him.

If it means what you say it means "That EVERYONE is loved and believes and has eternal life", then how does Esau fit in? Rom.9:11-13
It all has to jive.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Sorry Welder, Im 100% convinced you are taking a statement that by your own beliefs is the word of God and minimizing EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS to get around the fact that it conflicts with your beliefs.
> It says what it says. Its only 26 words. Its all inclusive.


I am 100% convinced that your statement is destitute of intelligence.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If John 3:16 states everyone that believes in God will be saved in the whole wide world then God will save everyone. It would lead to a type of Universal salvation. God wishes none to perish. He would make the presence of Jesus known to every man in the whole wide world. 
If God and Jesus can both equally save whomever they want too, worldwide, it's a better plan. 
Election will reach more people than we will. It takes man out of the equation. 
I could swim the ocean and trek the land and finally reach a lost soul. I could tell him about Jesus and he could still never believe.
God on the other hand could save him in an instant, worldwide, people I never even knew existed. People the ancient Romans never knew existed. People Paul never reached.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I haven't denied any scripture.You can't take a single verse and claim it means something if that something doesn't line up with the rest of the entire bible.Scripture doesn't contradict itself.If we think we find a contradiction, then we err in our interpretation.
> 
> Did you even read the verses leading up to that verse? It speaks of Nicodemas' unbelief of the things Jesus was telling him.
> 
> If it means what you say it means "That EVERYONE is loved and believes and has eternal life", then how does Esau fit in? Rom.9:11-13
> It all has to jive.





> You can't take a single verse and claim it means something if that something doesn't line up with the rest of the entire bible


You tell me what you think this means -


> that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.





> If it means what you say it means "That EVERYONE is loved and believes and has eternal life", then how does Esau fit in? Rom.9:11-13


Did I say EVERYONE? IT says "everyone who believes".
That is all inclusive of believers.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> I am 100% convinced that your statement is destitute of intelligence.


Oh now people having different interpretations of scripture is a matter of intelligence?
Not your best post Gem.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1
That is all inclusive of believers.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> That sounds better.For a minute there I thought you were saying everyone will believe and have eternal life.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> That sounds better.For a minute there I thought you were saying everyone will believe and have eternal life.


No we were discussing John 3:16 and what it says not me.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Its all inclusive./QUOTE]
> 
> ^Wait.You did say that^


----------



## WaltL1

Welder I want to make sure I understand your usage of "elect".
You disagree with this correct? - 


> The Bible is clear that all people are God’s creation (Colossians 1:16), and that God loves the entire world (John 3:16), but only those who are born again are children of God (John 1:12; 11:52; Romans 8:16; 1 John 3:1-10).


You don't believe it matters if they are born again, what matters is if they were chosen BEFORE God made earth and people etc.
Correct?
In other words not all who are "born again" are children of God if they aren't of the elect.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its all inclusive./QUOTE]
> 
> ^Wait.You did say that^
> 
> 
> 
> If you can think for a second I was inferring that ALL people believe and ALL people will have eternal life then you haven't been paying attention over all these posts.
> The subject was John 3:16 which by its own words is all inclusive of believers.
Click to expand...


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Welder I want to make sure I understand your usage of "elect".
> You disagree with this correct? -
> 
> You don't believe it matters if they are born again, what matters is if they were chosen BEFORE God mad earth and people etc.
> Correct?
> In other words not all who are "born again" are children of God if they aren't of the elect.



I believe those that have been elected will be born again (regenerated) at some point between conception and death.No exceptions.
All people are God's creation, but not all people are God's elect.He made some vessels of honor and some vessels of dishonor.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I believe those that have been elected will be born again (regenerated) at some point between conception and death.No exceptions.
> All people are God's creation, but not all people are God's elect.He made some vessels of honor and some vessels of dishonor.


I'll try again. Lets try it this way -
Are only the elect born again?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I'll try again. Lets try it this way -
> Are only the elect born again?



Yes.Only the elect are born again(quickened, made spiritually alive)
The non-elect remain spiritually dead all their life.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Yes.


Next question -
Many Christians say they are born again but don't believe in the elect thing. Do you think there is a chance some of them are wrong about being born again?


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Oh now people having different interpretations of scripture is a matter of intelligence?


What do you think?


WaltL1 said:


> Not your best post Gem.


My best was not required.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> What do you think?
> 
> My best was not required.


I think intelligence level doesn't have much to do with understanding scripture or the Bible or religion or believing in God.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Next question -
> Many Christians say they are born again but don't believe in the elect thing. Do you think there is a chance some of them are wrong about being born again?



I think even after you are born again you still have need of teaching(not for eternal salvation).God reveals Himself to your spirit and gives faith to believe, then you become His disciple.You have a hunger inside to learn more about Him.That's where a good preacher comes in handy.Remember Philip and the Ethiopian eunich?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> How can a person think God loves everybody when it plainy says "...and Esau have I hated." Not much room for misinterpretation there if you ask me.



Right. But, if you ask someone else...

He loves everyone.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 John 4:8 

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16 

No, he hates some people.

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. Leviticus 20:23 
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Psalm 5:5 

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Psalm 11:5 

These six things doth the LORD hate ... A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16, 19 

And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Malachi 1:3 

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Romans 9:13


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Right. But, if you ask someone else...
> 
> He loves everyone.
> 
> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
> He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 John 4:8
> 
> And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16
> 
> No, he hates some people.
> 
> And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. Leviticus 20:23
> The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Psalm 5:5
> 
> The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Psalm 11:5
> 
> These six things doth the LORD hate ... A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16, 19
> 
> And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Malachi 1:3
> 
> As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Romans 9:13



Good post Gris.These verses confirm to me that God loves some and hates others.And I see no contradictions here either.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> .And I see no contradictions here either.



I didn't think you would. I had to give it a shot though.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Only God could love all but hate some and not contradict himself.


----------



## gemcgrew

Griz, the Bible says that I love God because He first loved me.(1 John 4:19)
If this is true, why don't you love God?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Only God could love all but hate some and not contradict himself.



That's more poignant than the "hot burrito" analogy.


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> Griz, the Bible says that I love God because He first loved me.(1 John 4:19)
> If this is true, why don't you love God?



Cause I don't love strangers. Stranger danger.

Plus, the whole, not believing thing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I think even after you are born again you still have need of teaching(not for eternal salvation).God reveals Himself to your spirit and gives faith to believe, then you become His disciple.You have a hunger inside to learn more about Him.That's where a good preacher comes in handy.Remember Philip and the Ethiopian eunich?



That makes no sense whatsoever. Election isn't merit based, so there's no point in learning or seeking education. Moreover, once you become his disciple, here on earth, other than praising the guy who elected you, there's no point in carrying the message to the unelected, unless you can uncover said election and I'm curious what evidence there is in the Bible for that.

I'm forgoing the part about the election specifically. Let's assume you're either elect or not. If you're elected do you automatically know it, or is it uncovered? If it can be uncovered, then that goes back to the previous aspect that actions don't matter since salvation is completely out of your hands. There's no need for a moral code if your ticket is punched before you're even born.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> That's more poignant than the "hot burrito" analogy.



Poignancy goes to the author. I'm merely responsible for paraphrasing and rephrasing the original message.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's no need for a moral code if your ticket is punched before you're even born.



This kinda sounds a little selfish. Like a "what can I get out of it" attitude.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever. Election isn't merit based, so there's no point in learning or seeking education. Moreover, once you become his disciple, here on earth, other than praising the guy who elected you, there's no point in carrying the message to the unelected, unless you can uncover said election and I'm curious what evidence there is in the Bible for that.
> 
> I'm forgoing the part about the election specifically. Let's assume you're either elect or not. If you're elected do you automatically know it, or is it uncovered? If it can be uncovered, then that goes back to the previous aspect that actions don't matter since salvation is completely out of your hands. There's no need for a moral code if your ticket is punched before you're even born.


I gave up on it. He doesn't see it. Wont allow himself to see it. The "there are no contradictions" indoctrination is too strong.  
Maybe you have more patience than me..


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> This kinda sounds a little selfish. Like a "what can I get out of it" attitude.



Not really. I hold myself to much the same moral code simply based on my own conclusions and not based on any kind of salvation at the end of it. 

The point being is that, and you've already answered for yourself, there is nothing binding you to God's commandments if he's already made up his mind to save you or not. You can try and you can fail, and you'll either be saved or you won't and that's not dependent upon your actions. I don't see it as proper motivation for walking the straight and narrow. You've found something I've not heard of before, and seemingly that no one else here subscribes to, but that doesn't/won't work for all.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> I gave up on it. He doesn't see it. Wont allow himself to see it. The "there are no contradictions" indoctrination is too strong.
> Maybe you have more patience than me..



I give you guys (both sides) credit for persistence.  

This particular topic is known for long, drawn out, frustrating discussions......even amongst believers.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I gave up on it. He doesn't see it. Wont allow himself to see it. The "there are no contradictions" indoctrination is too strong.
> Maybe you have more patience than me..



For him, I do. That's because his tone is good, and his arguments about the topic and not the person, unlike others before him. My patience may run short in a day when I'm too busy with other things, but on larger scales I can endlessly debate with honorable people.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For him, I do. That's because his tone is good, and his arguments about the topic and not the person, unlike others before him. My patience may run short in a day when I'm too busy with other things, but on larger scales I can endlessly debate with honorable people.


Sure. That I believe his heart is in the right place is what got me this far with the subject.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For him, I do. That's because his tone is good, and his arguments about the topic and not the person, unlike others before him. My patience may run short in a day when I'm too busy with other things, but on larger scales I can endlessly debate with honorable people.



Thanks for being patient with me.You're probably more patient than I am.

I think that even though we don't agree, we can both say we see a little better where each of us stands, without hating each other.That's a good thing, right?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I give you guys (both sides) credit for persistence.
> 
> This particular topic is known for long, drawn out, frustrating discussions......even amongst believers.


Actually though Im not arguing from the stance of belief or not belief. We could be talking about cheeseburgers as far as Im concerned.
Contradiction is what it is regardless of the subject.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Thanks for being patient with me.You're probably more patient than I am.
> 
> I think that even though we don't agree, we can both say we see a little better where each of us stands, without hating each other.That's a good thing, right?



I definitely don't hate you. I rather like you, even if we disagree about a great many things relative to this discussion. 

But I can't say I see where you stand better now than I could before hand. I see some things better, not enough to believe them myself, and others I'm just mystified about. Those mysteries are more general than just you, since churches would, on average, like us to believe that salvation is open to all while you say that we're elected before we're born and independent of our actions. 

I can understand why the church would adopt that message, it's harder to win converts with yours, but I can't understand why someone with your position would choose to worship or attend any church. If you're truly elected and saved regardless of your actions, and we're equally condemned regardless of ours, then discussion and praise are all, literally, wasted efforts in pursuit of making yourself feel good for glorifying the guy who saved you in guaranteed fashion. 

I can see all of that, but it makes no sense to me. Does that make sense? 

Even then, I'd still share a beer, or bourbon, or coke if you prefer, with you and probably coming away as good friends. Same goes for most in here, even though we've had spirited, pun intended, discussions before.


----------



## welderguy

Amen brother.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Amen brother.



Besides, your avatar is of my personal favorite waterfowl.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> Believing in election, or saying one believes in election...or understanding election to whatever measure one may either truly understand, or convince themselves they understand...saying God is sovereign, saying God is wonderful, singing, dancing, shouting hallelujah, praying long and hard into the night, attending meetings, preaching on corners...being arrested, saying thank you Jesus every other sentence, giving alms, being imprisoned, giving ones body to be burned...writing a hundred tomes...it will be shown to the soul...either one is content with the God who knows...and knows who are his own...or well...all sortsa stuff is gonna get displayed.
> If it is enough God knows...what else...?
> If it is not enough...all else is never enough.
> 
> Now, there can be quite a difference between _the saying _of God knows...and the living of out_God knows_...
> 
> 
> But as to that,  I am glad Paul said "I don't even judge myself..." It's like a sign the Lord made sure got posted for someone just like me...to keep one from the overmuch engagement of this:
> "The way to insanity is trying to judge your own sincerity..."
> After all...what reason would any man have for lying to himself about that?



Any pursuit, if you believe in election, of living the straight and narrow is purely for your own interests since the election was made before you even came to be. Nothing else. 

God may know what you've done, but your salvation isn't dependent upon it, so it's pointless.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Any pursuit, if you believe in election, of living the straight and narrow is purely for your own interests since the election was made before you even came to be. Nothing else.
> 
> God may know what you've done, but your salvation isn't dependent upon it, so it's pointless.



You seem to only know the straight & narrow, prideful, boasting, judging, more righteous than lost sinners, Christians.

There is another group of us who one day realized we couldn't live the straight & narrow. We repented from believing we could and put our trust in Jesus. That Jesus took our place for not being able to walk the straight & narrow.
Our salvation is not based on any merit what soever before or after our salvation. Our Christian life is based on love and forgiveness. We don't judge the homosexual nor the drunk because we are equally guilty. 
The ONLY difference is the WASHING.

Now I admit there aren't many Christians like this and it is a journey to become like Christ. I admit I have a long way to go. So when you meet someone like me who knows I'm not righteous, sometimes I might still be boastful or sometimes I might not help, or sometimes I might not be so loving.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> You won't catch me denying self interest, at least in the measure of the pleasure of learning of the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
> I am not sure what you mean by "straight and narrow"...of which I can never have claimed to live, for to one the meaning may be one thing, to another...well, quite another.
> I don't deny this...everything I see done...is done for me. It's a favor to me. It's a gift, to me. That I am not the only one, I am quite assured...in fact, that's one of the sign posts on the path...make room for all as you are able, according to what you have seen.
> Yes, I believe there is a "narrow path". Yes, I believe that my being made to know it...is all to my benefit...not as some sort of obligatory shunning, but a way of seeing, of receiving. And the thing is...what once seemed narrow...even a sort of confining, is becoming a large place...especially as I learn to obey (through the revelation of my Lord)...that particular sign...make room for all.
> Once, I surely couldn't see room for any but myself.
> Now, as I learn of the one who refused steadfastly the narrow way for himself only, (choosing to remain alone) but instead making room for me, how can I not seek to understand how room is made for others...unless I manifestly deny the one...who made room for me?
> Yes, the pleasure...is all mine.
> Do you like pleasure?
> Even if the notion of heavenly places is reduced to the simplest (and to some, no doubt base) understanding of an eternal amusement park, I am learning joy is only multiplied in the presence of others...perchance...many....and _never stingily appointed or divided amongst them._ I _quite like_ going places with friends.
> There is a spirit...that desires all his children home safe...and exceedingly joyous.
> I hear him, in whatever measure I do.





Artfuldodger said:


> You seem to only know the straight & narrow, prideful, boasting, judging, more righteous than lost sinners, Christians.
> 
> There is another group of us who one day realized we couldn't live the straight & narrow. We repented from believing we could and put our trust in Jesus. That Jesus took our place for not being able to walk the straight & narrow.
> Our salvation is not based on any merit what soever before or after our salvation. Our Christian life is based on love and forgiveness. We don't judge the homosexual nor the drunk because we are equally guilty.
> The ONLY difference is the WASHING.
> 
> Now I admit there aren't many Christians like this and it is a journey to become like Christ. I admit I have a long way to go. So when you meet someone like me who knows I'm not righteous, sometimes I might still be boastful or sometimes I might not help, or sometimes I might not be so loving.





Israel said:


> Marriage sometimes brings out the best in a man...not always.



Apparently the weight of my qualifier didn't translate to text. 

"IF you believe in election..." It was directed at welder since he's the only one I've seen that holds so tightly to election rather than redemption for salvation. 

The rest of you guys seem to at least believe in a combination of the two, if not leaning a little more towards some semblance of a meritocracy. Repentant man shall pass, and all that jazz. So what I said wouldn't exactly apply to you. 

But I have known some boastful believers, just as I have known boastful non-believers, and have been both at some point in my life, as well as neither.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Apparently the weight of my qualifier didn't translate to text.
> 
> "IF you believe in election..." It was directed at welder since he's the only one I've seen that holds so tightly to election rather than redemption for salvation.
> 
> The rest of you guys seem to at least believe in a combination of the two, if not leaning a little more towards some semblance of a meritocracy. Repentant man shall pass, and all that jazz. So what I said wouldn't exactly apply to you.
> 
> But I have known some boastful believers, just as I have known boastful non-believers, and have been both at some point in my life, as well as neither.



Sorry.I don't think I understand quite what your question is.
But I do believe in redemption.It was necessary for Jesus to die in place of His elect, thus redeeming (purchasing) them.

If this doesn't answer it, try to reword your question and I'll try again.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Sorry.I don't think I understand quite what your question is.
> But I do believe in redemption.It was necessary for Jesus to die in place of His elect, thus redeeming (purchasing) them.
> 
> If this doesn't answer it, try to reword your question and I'll try again.



That's more like predemption than redemption, relative to human time lines. Still, according to what you've said before that only matters for those so elected. 

Let me see if I can itemize this, as I understand your belief and the conclusions it suggests, to lend some clarity. 

A) God elected certain people. Not all, but some. Election = salvation. Non-election = no salvation.
B) He sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world, not some of them, but all of them. 
C) Election, and thus salvation, is not dependent on merit or behavior.
D) Praising God for being elected, or praising him in hopes of being elected after the fact, has no bearing on election. 

It's my understanding that the election was made before we were born, so redemption is an illusion based on two things. One, to be elected now you would have had to be elected prior, and walking the straight and narrow afterward, in other words being redeemed, has no bearing on that election happening right now, merely revealed to that person at that moment. 

I may not understand the concept of election, and I acknowledge that, because this is the first time I've heard of it and my information is singularly sourced from you. Every other discussion had on the matters of salvation seems to be dependent upon repentance, accepting that man will always sin even after repentance.


----------



## welderguy

Striper.You almost nailed it.but there's a couple things that are a little off.I'm extremely busy at the moment but I will get back with you later today.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Striper.You almost nailed it.but there's a couple things that are a little off.I'm extremely busy at the moment but I will get back with you later today.



No worries.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Let me see if I can itemize this, as I understand your belief and the conclusions it suggests, to lend some clarity.
> A) God elected certain people. Not all, but some. Election = salvation. Non-election = no salvation.


Election = Chosen

Election is not salvation. Election is unto salvation.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> B) He sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world, not some of them, but all of them.


For all the sin of the Elect.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> C) Election, and thus salvation, is not dependent on merit or behavior.
> D) Praising God for being elected, or praising him in hopes of being elected after the fact, has no bearing on election.


Correct.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> Election = Chosen
> 
> Election is not salvation. Election is unto salvation.
> 
> For all the sin of the Elect.
> 
> Correct.



Are you saying that he allows non-chosen into heaven, aka salvation?


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Are you saying that he allows non-chosen into heaven, aka salvation?


No, only the elect are saved.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> No, only the elect are saved.



Ok. Am I elected? How can you tell?


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok. Am I elected? How can you tell?


I do not know if you are one of the elect. I do know that you profess to be an Agnostic. I take you at your word.

You may very well be one of the elect, in an unregenerate state of being.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok. Am I elected? How can you tell?



From the Fruit of the Spirit dwelling within. Even then it's hard to know because the person doesn't change all at once. It might take the drunkard Christian a lifetime to change.

Repentance to me is a change of mind that happens for salvation not a repentance from sin. This change of mind could be from this Fruit of the Spirit. 
If I could repent from sin, I wouldn't have needed Jesus. I would just quit sinning. I need the Fruit of the Spirit working within me. Most Christians agree with me on this. We just can't decide how much is us and how much is the Spirit. This is where we all differ.
My repentance was to quit believing I could save myself by living the straight and narrow life. 
I'm a different Christian now that I know my sins have been washed. It's all about that grace, bout that grace!
I still don't believe that there is anything a person must do or can do to achieve salvation. It's amazing how many Christians agree with me on this. They just like to add many "ifs." They like to think they had a tiny bit to do with their salvation. Just a tiny bit like 4%.

The change happens from the inside out, not form the outside in.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> It's all about that grace, bout that grace!


Great. Now I'm going to have that song stuck in my mind all day.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Great. Now I'm going to have that song stuck in my mind all day.



It's all about that grace, bout that grace; no devil!

Me too.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> I do not know if you are one of the elect. I do know that you profess to be an Agnostic. I take you at your word.
> 
> You may very well be one of the elect, in an unregenerate state of being.



If elected, why doesn't God just make us born regenerated?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> I do not know if you are one of the elect. I do know that you profess to be an Agnostic. I take you at your word.
> 
> You may very well be one of the elect, in an unregenerate state of being.



But election is independent of action, is it not? Could I be elected and in denial, or just not been exposed to it yet? In theory, the way I understand it, I could profess to be agnostic, but be one of the elect, and just not know it yet. 



Artfuldodger said:


> From the Fruit of the Spirit dwelling within. Even then it's hard to know because the person doesn't change all at once. It might take the drunkard Christian a lifetime to change.
> 
> Repentance to me is a change of mind that happens for salvation not a repentance from sin. This change of mind could be from this Fruit of the Spirit.
> If I could repent from sin, I wouldn't have needed Jesus. I would just quit sinning. I need the Fruit of the Spirit working within me. Most Christians agree with me on this. We just can't decide how much is us and how much is the Spirit. This is where we all differ.
> My repentance was to quit believing I could save myself by living the straight and narrow life.
> I'm a different Christian now that I know my sins have been washed. It's all about that grace, bout that grace!
> I still don't believe that there is anything a person must do or can do to achieve salvation. It's amazing how many Christians agree with me on this. They just like to add many "ifs." They like to think they had a tiny bit to do with their salvation. Just a tiny bit like 4%.
> 
> The change happens from the inside out, not form the outside in.



I'm getting that Jesus and God are the targets for that repentance since they are whom the sin was given against. They're the rule makers, and breakers apologize to the makers, not to themselves. But still, that's not the point. 

Can an elected person be elected without knowing it? More to the point, though, is how election, being based on things other than merit and behavior, doesn't relieve someone of the responsibility of trying to live according to God? You were chosen before you were born, and that election is more than iron clad, so it really doesn't matter what you do with your life if you're one of the elect, nor does it matter if you're not one of the elect since you're not going to be elected if you "start living right" from the moment of your birth. 

Salvation, according to the election principle as I understand it so far, is completely removed from our hands, and nothing we can do will change it. Why, then, is that not taken to liberate one's self from any obligations to live proper? Welder voiced his opinion, as in trying to honor his "Father" not so much as stay in his good graces, but more of a sign of respect. However, we all know that if we pose this same question to 10 people we'll get 10 slightly, or some greatly, different flavors of response. 

I would ask that those who don't subscribe to election to please respect the conversation being had and not muddying the waters with opinions outside the scope of the questions.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But election is independent of action, is it not? Could I be elected and in denial, or just not been exposed to it yet? In theory, the way I understand it, I could profess to be agnostic, but be one of the elect, and just not know it yet.


Yes


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> Yes



Which is further justification to the notion that actions have no consequence on salvation, so there's no need to walk the straight and narrow. According to the election theory I could rape, pillage, and murder and still go to heaven since it's not merit based.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which is further justification to the notion that actions have no consequence on salvation, so there's no need to walk the straight and narrow. According to the election theory I could rape, pillage, and murder and still go to heaven since it's not merit based.


The Bible presents such men as David, Paul, etc.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> The Bible presents such men as David, Paul, etc.



The rapists and such still getting into heaven? Did they know they were elected when they were committing their sins?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> Yes



I was wondering who would get the 'Murica post...


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I would ask that those who don't subscribe to election to please respect the conversation being had and not muddying the waters with opinions outside the scope of the questions.



Sure I'll stay out but first I want to add that there really isn't much difference between election believers and freewill believers after  salvation is applied. After salvation we are of the elect. People from both camps believe salvation is based on 100% grace and not works.
People from both camps don't believe salvation is based on merit. People from both camps believe in God's calling. People from both camps believe in God providing the control. So in that respect most freewill believers are at best "Limited Freewill" believers.
Free will believers are just in denial that they have any influence in God's plan. Yet still I am a limited free will believer.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Sure I'll stay out but first I want to add that there really isn't much difference between election believers and freewill believers after  salvation is applied. After salvation we are of the elect. People from both camps believe salvation is based on 100% grace and not works.
> People from both camps don't believe salvation is based on merit. People from both camps believe in God's calling. People from both camps believe in God providing the control. So in that respect most freewill believers are at best "Limited Freewill" believers.
> Free will believers are just in denial that they have any influence in God's plan. Yet still I am a limited free will believer.



There's a Grand Canyon of difference between believing in salvation as a result of the lottery, and believing in it as a result of behavior. 

That wasn't so much a request to have people leave the thread, that would be silly as this thread has no real topic and is like a religious driveler at this point. I was just asking for a little respect of the 2 way conversation between myself and welder about what he says on election since, until a couple days ago, I'd never heard you other guys speak on the matter as such.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's a Grand Canyon of difference between believing in salvation as a result of the lottery, and believing in it as a result of behavior.



Again most Christians of either camp do not believe salvation is based on behavior.

If wishing to discuss election, what about Gem. He oozes Election.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which is further justification to the notion that actions have no consequence on salvation, so there's no need to walk the straight and narrow. According to the election theory I could rape, pillage, and murder and still go to heaven since it's not merit based.



I think the thing you are not seeing is the conscience that God gives you when you are regenerated.You still sin but when you do, it grieves the Holy Spirit who now is living inside you.
Not only this, but God chastens you, like all good fathers do, out of love.Even though it's out of love, it's very unpleasant. (I can attest to this personally) But the whole reason for it all is to make us grow and conform us to His will.We are His workmanship and we are in His workshop.
As Gem said,David committed murder and adultery, after he was born again.But there were many horrible consequences.And it grieved his spirit as shown in Ps.51.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's more like predemption than redemption, relative to human time lines. Still, according to what you've said before that only matters for those so elected.
> 
> Let me see if I can itemize this, as I understand your belief and the conclusions it suggests, to lend some clarity.
> 
> A) God elected certain people. Not all, but some. Election = salvation. Non-election = no salvation.
> B) He sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world, not some of them, but all of them.
> C) Election, and thus salvation, is not dependent on merit or behavior.
> D) Praising God for being elected, or praising him in hopes of being elected after the fact, has no bearing on election.
> 
> It's my understanding that the election was made before we were born, so redemption is an illusion based on two things. One, to be elected now you would have had to be elected prior, and walking the straight and narrow afterward, in other words being redeemed, has no bearing on that election happening right now, merely revealed to that person at that moment.
> 
> I may not understand the concept of election, and I acknowledge that, because this is the first time I've heard of it and my information is singularly sourced from you. Every other discussion had on the matters of salvation seems to be dependent upon repentance, accepting that man will always sin even after repentance.



I told you I would respond to this when I got home from work but Gem and Art did a better job than I could. 
They gave you very wise counsel in my estimation.Keep seeking brother.


----------



## drippin' rock

All this reminds me of a dog that has caught it's tail and is in a continuous spin.


----------



## welderguy

drippin' rock said:


> All this reminds me of a dog that has caught it's tail and is in a continuous spin.



Just sounds like a bunch of foolishness to ya huh?

I totally know where you're at.I was there too.


----------



## drippin' rock

welderguy said:


> Just sounds like a bunch of foolishness to ya huh?
> 
> I totally know where you're at.I was there too.



Did you grow up in the church, or did you come to Christianity as an adult?


----------



## welderguy

drippin' rock said:


> Did you grow up in the church, or did you come to Christianity as an adult?



My parents took me to church as a child.I didn't like it much except for the eating part.As a teenager I rebelled against them and went off on my own, swearing Id never go to church again.But, I got married to a girl who eventually talked me into going with her.Then I had a very bad experience. Again I swore I'd never go back.But....then years later, something happened.All of a sudden, it all started to make sense.And the thing that I despised started to be something that I loved.The foolishness turned into perfectness.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The rapists and such still getting into heaven? Did they know they were elected when they were committing their sins?


I present Peter as such a believer. Peter distanced himself from Christ, not wanting to even be associated with him. He denied, multiple times, even knowing Christ.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> I present Peter as such a believer. Peter distanced himself from Christ, not wanting to even be associated with him. He denied, multiple times, even knowing Christ.



The story of Peter is a good example as are most of the stories in the Bible but they are not universally acceptable examples.  All the stories are designed to lead the readers along a course they can relate to in order to be "like" people in those stories. They plant a seed in the readers minds that is intended to lead and sway your personal life events (which we all experience) with the events that take place in the stories. They are written to be relatable to the reader.
But really no one outside of those stories can truly say they know anything of Christ beyond their own interpretation. No one in here and certainly not even Peter ever actually met Jesus. Blinding heat stroke induced visions included. Every experience is indirect and the individual finds a way to link themselves to knowing or meeting a guy that has been dead for over 1900 years. All of it is individual interpretation. The harder someone wants it to happen coincidentally the more it happens.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> ...certainly not even Peter ever actually met Jesus./QUOTE]
> 
> Matt.4:18 And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee,saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother,casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...certainly not even Peter ever actually met Jesus./QUOTE]
> 
> Matt.4:18 And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee,saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother,casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sir...you are correct.
> I had Paul on the brain..
> But again...it is how and why the stories are written that allow you to relate and then feel that you have similar experiences. That is what makes the stories sell the tales.
Click to expand...


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sir...you are correct.
> I had Paul on the brain..
> But again...it is how and why the stories are written that allow you to relate and then feel that you have similar experiences. That is what makes the stories sell the tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullet, you sound as if you think the "stories" in the bible are fictional, calling them tales.If so, why do you not support the historical validity of the events? I understand that you don't support them spiritually.I'm strictly speaking about historically.
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullet, you sound as if you think the "stories" in the bible are fictional, calling them tales.If so, why do you not support the historical validity of the events? I understand that you don't support them spiritually.I'm strictly speaking about historically.
> 
> 
> 
> Legend and folklore are a mix of mostly real people and mostly real places where events are embellished or totally made up in order to make them stand out.
> If a man walks on water and multiple people see it happen...no matter who they worship or like or believe in...will record the event accurately. Not the just followers writing it down 50 to 70 years later and then totally revamped 4 Centuries later.
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

Welderguy..
From the OT to the NT there are multiple instances of events being told and still to this day no evidence of it ever taking place has been found. History has shown that events never took place as written in the Bible. Some stories were "borrowed" from other cultures and tweaked to fit. Others were made up but original. It happens all the time all over the world in many cultures.


----------



## welderguy

In detailed support of the New Testament alone, there are ancient manuscripts by Plato, Aristotle, Caeser, Homer, Lucretius, Pliny, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Suetoniua, Thucydides, Euripides, Aristophanes,Livy, Tacitus, and Sophocles.They are not inspired by God but still tell the events in amazing accuracy with the scriptures.This is not even including the Old Testament. Theres support for that as well.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> In detailed support of the New Testament alone, there are ancient manuscripts by Plato, Aristotle, Caeser, Homer, Lucretius, Pliny, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Suetoniua, Thucydides, Euripides, Aristophanes,Livy, Tacitus, and Sophocles.They are not inspired by God but still tell the events in amazing accuracy with the scriptures.This is not even including the Old Testament. Theres support for that as well.



Go ahead. List em. 
We have gone over them in detail in past posts. We have shown how they are forgeries inserted into previous writings after the fact.
But if you want to rehash it I am game.


----------



## bullethead

And OH....don't forget Josephus!!!


----------



## welderguy

No thanks.I don't wish to hash or re-hash anything.Don't feel a need to.Just needed to get your take on the manuscripts.And even though I don't agree with what you said, I still respect your opinion and appreciate your sharing it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> No thanks.I don't wish to hash or re-hash anything.Don't feel a need to.Just needed to get your take on the manuscripts.And even though I don't agree with what you said, I still respect your opinion and appreciate your sharing it.


Please do not take what I said as fact just because I said it.
I would love if you looked into what I said and let the research by historians who have spent most of their careers studying the facts vs the stories and allowed the evidence (or lack of) decide what is truth and what is pure folklore.


----------



## bullethead

I used to go with what I thought to be true based off of the one sided stories I was told and I think I clung to them because I also needed it to be true.
I originally set out to back those stories up but the real evidence does not support them.
I took stories from both Pro and Con and Neutral and let the evidence decide. When no agenda is involved the evidence is very clear.


----------



## welderguy

I'll try to dig into it.

I've got one more question(if it's too late feel free to answer tomorrow cause I won't be up much longer either).

How do you explain the detailed accuracy in the fulfillment of the numerous prophecies found in the Old Testament? I don't know the timeline of all the prophecies, but I do know there was about 400 plus years between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Yes sir...you are correct.
> I had Paul on the brain..


You would be wrong in Paul's case as well. But who am I to  to argue with a man who "used to apologize with the best of em"?


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> You would be wrong in Paul's case as well. But who am I to  to argue with a man who "used to apologize with the best of em"?





> There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident.  And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.
> But Paul did spend 3 years in Arabia where he received the Gospel from the Lord (Galatians 1:11-17). And he made a visit to the Throne of God (2 Cor. 12:1-4) where he saw things he was not allowed to talk about. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, when Paul recounted all the Lord’s post resurrection appearances, he included himself as one who had seen Him.  So, at some point, he apparently did have a physical meeting with the Lord.


That's the proof?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's the proof?



Yessir.1 Cor.15:8 confirms it."And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'll try to dig into it.
> 
> I've got one more question(if it's too late feel free to answer tomorrow cause I won't be up much longer either).
> 
> How do you explain the detailed accuracy in the fulfillment of the numerous prophecies found in the Old Testament? I don't know the timeline of all the prophecies, but I do know there was about 400 plus years between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT.



There is no detailed accuracy or fulfillment of those prophesies.  If there were there would be no separation between Jews and Christians.
400 years is a long time for Jews that wanted change within their old beliefs to try to start a new movement in writings that tried (but failed) to fulfill those old prophesies. 
In fact if you dare to study Jewish prophets and history there were other more "qualified" prophets than Jesus but they still did not meet all the requirements. That is why the Jews are still looking today.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> You would be wrong in Paul's case as well. But who am I to  to argue with a man who "used to apologize with the best of em"?



You do not need to argue. All you need to do is back up what you claim.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Yessir.1 Cor.15:8 confirms it."And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."



You DO realize that using biblical verses as proof of other biblical verses does not actually confirm anything right?
Nahhh I guess not or you would provide sources outside of the bible to back up what you say. It is tough when you have nothing but the bible though. 

What you do is the equivalent of reading about Harry Potter being a Wizard  and he flies on a broom and then showing us the page and paragraph in the book where it says Harry Potter attended Wizard School as your proof. 
YES in the STORY Harry is a wizard because THAT is what the writer wanted told....but outside of that book there is no Harry Potter that is a Wizard that can fly on a broom.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Yessir.1 Cor.15:8 confirms it."And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."


Its not a confirmation, its the same one -


> In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, when Paul recounted all the Lord’s post resurrection appearances, he included himself as one who had seen Him. So, at some point, he apparently did have a physical meeting with the Lord.


If you believe he is talking about seeing him on the Damascus Road you will Im sure explain away -


> The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything


If its in the Bible you believe it and that's fine. 
But please don't claim its "confirmed".
Note the other people that were actually there with him did NOT confirm it.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> There is no detailed accuracy or fulfillment of those prophesies.  If there were there would be no separation between Jews and Christians.
> 400 years is a long time for Jews that wanted change within their old beliefs to try to start a new movement in writings that tried (but failed) to fulfill those old prophesies.
> In fact if you dare to study Jewish prophets and history there were other more "qualified" prophets than Jesus but they still did not meet all the requirements. That is why the Jews are still looking today.



I guess again this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree,because I believe the bible to be true,infallible,and God-inspired.You obviously do not.Because I believe this,to me,the bible confirms itself.The numerous prophecies of the old testament(2000 plus)were written over 400 years before the new testament.Then,they came to pass in history(in flawless detail),and were recorded in the new testament.To me,the word of God stands on it's own two feet and confirms itself.That's my take on it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I guess again this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree,because I believe the bible to be true,infallible,and God-inspired.You obviously do not.Because I believe this,to me,the bible confirms itself.The numerous prophecies of the old testament(2000 plus)were written over 400 years before the new testament.Then,they came to pass in history(in flawless detail),and were recorded in the new testament.To me,the word of God stands on it's own two feet and confirms itself.That's my take on it.



Now think about this. ..
400 years ago someone writes stories containing prophesies. You are a writer. Do you think that YOU, Already knowing what the prophesies are, could write stories with a character that fulfills those prophesies? And if you cannot do you think it is possible that someone with more writing skills could? 
And even then the prophesies in the OT were not fulfilled in the NT.
But again......you seem to be spouting off "facts" without ever checking to see if they are true.
If what you say is true then if Jews who wrote those prophesies and believed in those prophesies had felt that those prophesies were fulfilled then they STILL would not be waiting for the prophesies to come true. Why then and still now to this day do the Jewish people that lived right there among all these NT stories NOT follow Jesus?
If your faith is strong take the time...months or years...to actually research it all for yourself. Look into what the Jewish prophesies  are and see why they do not believe they are fulfilled.
We have have threads about this in here and we have given multiple sources that show what you are claiming just is not accurate.
I cannot blame you for having your take on it. When you ONLY use the bible to fact check the bible you can come to no other conclusion.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> A man might better ask...if all be so Machiavellian in scheme and execution, couldn't they have come up with a better story?
> Why so many seeming holes?
> Or, is what seems...not at all as it appears?





> Why so many seeming holes?


Because it was written over 1600 years by multitudes of men who weren't keeping track of what one another was writing?
Because there were additions and deletions?
Because its not one continuous story its pieced together out of sequence of writing?
Because the indoctrination is that it is error free despite the holes?
Because "insert miracle here" covers every possible argument against it?
Because its followers -


> believe the bible to be true,infallible,and God-inspired





> believe this,to me,the bible confirms itself


Or its all true. 
Despite the fact that much of it is only true within itself.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> A man might better ask...if all be so Machiavellian in scheme and execution, couldn't they have come up with a better story?
> Why so many seeming holes?
> Or, is what seems...not at all as it appears?


Learn as they go.
For all the OT writings that made it into what we call the bible there were lots of other writings that told different stories that somehow did not. 
None of it was continuous. It was individual works pieced together by anonymous authors and used as the basis for where the Israelites came from.
400 years later the NT arrived. That is not to say the writings stopped in between. They did not.  Those writings just did not jive with the OT. The NT consisted of more anonymous authors writing about a new religious movement. Unfortunately no one wrote it down as it happened. They were stories written at least 50 years later yet no copies are available that were written earlier than the 4th century...which also happens to be the time the Romans got into Christianity. They did a good job all things considered.
I am fairly positive that talented writers of today could pick up where the NT leaves off and sew up many of the holes. It would not surprise me in the least if writings along those lines have been going on for the last 1900 years.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> If what you say is true then if Jews who wrote those prophesies and believed in those prophesies had felt that those prophesies were fulfilled then they STILL would not be waiting for the prophesies to come true. Why then and still now to this day do the Jewish people that lived right there among all these NT stories NOT follow Jesus?.



The Jews were blinded so the Gentiles could be partakers of the promise. 

Romans 11 explains it:
7b..."and the rest were blinded (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day."
11b. ..."through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealously. "

This is why they don't believe the prophecies have been fulfilled.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The Jews were blinded so the Gentiles could be partakers of the promise.
> 
> Romans 11 explains it:
> 7b..."and the rest were blinded (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day."
> 11b. ..."through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealously. "
> 
> This is why they don't believe the prophecies have been fulfilled.



Guy.....the prophesies in the OT are not met in the NT. 
Jesus flat out is not the guy that fulfilled them. No one has.

"Romans explains it"...Hogwarts is a school for Wizards too...

It is not why they don't believe the prophesy has been fulfilled. They do not believe it because prophesy has not been fulfilled.

All I ask is for you to check outside of the bible. Scholars have broken it down point by point to show what is required and what has or has not been fulfilled AND they can give you other Men that have fulfilled more than Jesus...but still not all that are required.
If you refuse to educate yourself that is on you. I think you could learn a lot and still keep your faith.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> The Jews were blinded so the Gentiles could be partakers of the promise.
> 
> Romans 11 explains it:
> 7b..."and the rest were blinded (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day."
> 11b. ..."through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealously. "
> 
> This is why they don't believe the prophecies have been fulfilled.



So the Gentiles were the "elect" all along? We just thought the Jews were God's chosen but in reality the Jews were chosen to fail. Chosen by God to be blinded.
God's plan is working just as he planned it. 
When will God give the Jew his sight back? Obviously God isn't going to elect every Jew or every Gentile and he has already elected some Jews. I guess God is more into electing  individuals than nations, races, world religions, etc. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. 
It's his call, his plan.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Guy.....the prophesies in the OT are not met in the NT.
> Jesus flat out is not the guy that fulfilled them. /QUOTE]
> 
> Daniel 9 prophesies specifically the number of years (483) after the destruction of the temple until the begin of Jesus' public ministry.
> Guess what? It came to pass just exactly how it was prophesied.
> 
> Mic.5:2 prophecies that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.....fulfilled.
> 
> Zech.11:12-13 prophecies that Jesus would be betrayed for the price of a slave.......fulfilled.
> 
> Ps.22, Ps.34:20,Zech.12:10 prophecies of Jesus' crucifixion. ...fulfilled.
> 
> There's about 1996 more I can list, not including the 500 or so prophecies that have not come to pass yet.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy.....the prophesies in the OT are not met in the NT.
> Jesus flat out is not the guy that fulfilled them. /QUOTE]
> 
> Daniel 9 prophesies specifically the number of years (483) after the destruction of the temple until the begin of Jesus' public ministry.
> Guess what? It came to pass just exactly how it was prophesied.
> 
> Mic.5:2 prophecies that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.....fulfilled.
> 
> Zech.11:12-13 prophecies that Jesus would be betrayed for the price of a slave.......fulfilled.
> 
> Ps.22, Ps.34:20,Zech.12:10 prophecies of Jesus' crucifixion. ...fulfilled.
> 
> There's about 1996 more I can list, not including the 500 or so prophecies that have not come to pass yet.
> 
> 
> 
> While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bull's-eye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."
> 
> That was from the end of this link.
> Please read it and check it's sources. Don't be afraid to learn.
> http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page26.htm
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I've heard this before.
> In a garden, once.



I once heard that there is a girl in the garden.
I was watching Shawn of the Dead.


----------



## welderguy

I read your link.The guy who wrote it should read 1 Cor.2:7-8 .you should also.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I read your link.The guy who wrote it should read 1 Cor.2:7-8 .you should also.



You should read what I said about using the bible to confirm the bible. It is useless to continue like this.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You should read what I said about using the bible to confirm the bible. It is useless to continue like this.



Yeah.it is useless.We will just have to agree to disagree.Truth stands no matter what either of us say anyway.

Let God be true and every man a liar.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Yeah.it is useless.We will just have to agree to disagree.Truth stands no matter what either of us say anyway.
> 
> Let God be true and every man a liar.



So, if man says there is a God...


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> So, if man says there is a God...



Its another one of those feel good sayings that its better not to think about.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> So, if man says there is a God...



Those same fork-tongue buggers penned a popular book too....


----------



## gemcgrew

660griz said:


> So, if man says there is a God...


He better be justified in saying it.


----------



## welderguy

welderguy said:


> Let God be true and every man a liar.



It's not a "saying" from man.It's from Rom.3:4, and it is from God Himself.You can mock it if you dare, but I shutter when I think of the consequences.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> It's not a "saying" from man.It's from Rom.3:4, and *it is from God Himself.*You can mock it if you dare, but I shutter when I think of the consequences.



Now now.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> It's not a "saying" from man.It's from Rom.3:4, and it is from God Himself.You can mock it if you dare, but I shutter when I think of the consequences.


If God said it wouldn't it say "Let me be true" ?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> If God said it wouldn't it say "Let me be true" ?



It's written by Paul but inspired by God.Make sense?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> It's written by Paul but inspired by God.Make sense?


Verifiable, possibly.
Unverifiable.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> It's written by Paul but inspired by God.Make sense?


That's different from God himself.
You say things in here because you are inspired by God.
Are you claiming God is speaking through you?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> It's written by Paul but inspired by God.Make sense?



Only by the fact that I understand English. 

"I was inspired by Thor to write a lightning safety pamphlet."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Only by the fact that I understand English.
> 
> "I was inspired by Thor to write a lightning safety pamphlet."



If there's a reliable source on the subject, he's it.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's different from God himself.
> 
> Not really.
> 
> You say things in here because you are inspired by God.
> 
> Didn't say that.
> 
> Are you claiming God is speaking through you?



No.


----------



## WaltL1

> Not really


Yes really.


> Didn't say that.


You don't have to say it. All of your posts are proof that God inspires you.


> No.


So because you say things that show God is your inspiration that doesn't mean he is speaking through you.

Now apply that to Paul.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Are you claiming God is speaking through you?


I also see God speaking through you when you quote scripture. This also shows how God... speaking through the donkey... is a piece of cake.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> I also see God speaking through you when you quote scripture. This also shows how God... speaking through the donkey... is a piece of cake.


Its just cut and paste Gem just cut and paste.
No miracle involved.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Its just cut and paste Gem just cut and paste.
> No miracle involved.




It's like tinted glasses.  Everything gets colored.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Hahaha.  I see what you did there.....Walt=donkey.....That's funny.



Everyone sees it. Not much funny about it.
I am not beneath a good ol fashioned insult dual but even with as much ammo as I have I stay within the rules.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Hahaha.  I see what you did there.....Walt=donkey.....That's funny.


Hey I love a good joke too.
Just as long as you don't mind when I laugh when you guys start spouting your morals crap.


----------



## welderguy

Sorry Walt.I deleted it.you're not a donkey.I was wrong.


----------



## ambush80

It's an amazing catch-all.  Any speaking donkey does so to exalt the lord. How can you argue against that?  Ive got to say, Gem's position is iron clad when even the evil works of the Devil are done for the glory of god.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
> 
> Everything that can be shaken will be shaken.



With that attitude and mindset ISIS is doing no wrong.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Sorry Walt.I deleted it.you're not a donkey.I was wrong.


Its ok Im wearing my big girl panties.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Its ok Im wearing my big girl panties.



Ouch!   That put a bad image in my head.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> With that attitude and mindset ISIS is doing no wrong.



To be honest, modern Christians are not the same as ISIS.  At one point in history they might have been but they've had quite some time to chill out.  Some religions are by their nature and doctrine more prone to doing horrible things.  Unlike the Jains, who even if they became extremely radicalized, by the mere nature of their belief, they would become MORE peaceful.   There's no denying that there are parts of the Bible that could lead someone to do terrible things in the name of the Christian god.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
> 
> Everything that can be shaken will be shaken.



Imagine, Jeffrey Dahmer ate those kids for the glory of god.

Incredible.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> To be honest, modern Christians are not the same as ISIS.  At one point in history they might have been but they've had quite some time to chill out.  Some religions are by their nature and doctrine more prone to doing horrible things.  Unlike the Jains, who even if they became extremely radicalized, by the mere nature of their belief, they would become MORE peaceful.   There's no denying that there are parts of the Bible that could lead someone to do terrible things in the name of the Christian god.



Oh I am by no means saying Christians are worse or better or the same for that matter. 
All I am saying is that that along the lines Israel accepts somehow ISIS is an instrument of Israel's God. Why fight em if they are just doing what they are put here to do?

**DISCLAIMER** I am by no means a supporter of ISIS. Just playing advocate here trying to get an idea of where believers draw their lines.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Oh I am by no means saying Christians are worse or better or the same for that matter.
> All I am saying is that that along the lines Israel accepts somehow ISIS is an instrument of Israel's God. Why fight em if they are just doing what they are put here to do?
> 
> **DISCLAIMER** I am by no means a supporter of ISIS. Just playing advocate here trying to get an idea of where believers draw their lines.



When seen through the lens of Predestination, either fighting them or not is exactly what is supposed to done.  Your convictions aren't your own.  They're predetermined.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> When seen through the lens of Predestination, either fighting them or not is exactly what is supposed to done.  Your convictions aren't your own.  They're predetermined.


Agreed.
Go with the flow.
Fight em...God determined you were meant to. 
Don't fight em...Hod determined you're not meant to.

Just more man made excuses to cover all actions and outcomes.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Agreed.
> Go with the flow.
> Fight em...God determined you were meant to.
> Don't fight em...Hod determined you're not meant to.
> 
> Just more man made excuses to cover all actions and outcomes.




If they're right then it's true.  if it's true then they're right.  There's no way to tell.  Making up a god, particularly an omniscient, sovereign god does give one a perfect way to explain things especially one that you can't "see" unless you're in the "know".  

For you and I it seems like an unnecessary step from just seeing things as they are at face value.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Offenses must come, but woe to the man through whom they come.
> 
> You seem to have a judgment about Jeffrey Dahmer. Is he the worst you can imagine...is he the "thing" that (to you) manifestly nullifies God's glory?
> Where did you get such judgment? Of _what_ to be, _what not_ to be?
> Did it originate with you? How much credit will you take for "not being like that?"
> What tells you "to be a man is to behave thus, to be a beast is...is to behave that?"
> Beware...everything you take credit for is not yours, and is so easily revokable.
> 
> "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;…and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
> 
> "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?' "While the word was in the king's mouth, a voice came from heaven, saying, 'King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes."
> 
> Your confession as to being a vessel of wrath may also change. When, just as all others who have been changed learn they needn't look to Dahmer, or Hitler, or Isis...to see the mystery of iniquity. Indeed, while all evil is only "out there" in _others_, it is quite a mystery.
> 
> Were Jesus to have left out Jeffrey Dahmer, what hope would one such as I have?



Woe to the man.....unless he asks for forgiveness


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Offenses must come, but woe to the man through whom they come.
> 
> You seem to have a judgment about Jeffrey Dahmer. Is he the worst you can imagine...is he the "thing" that (to you) manifestly nullifies God's glory?
> Where did you get such judgment? Of _what_ to be, _what not_ to be?
> Did it originate with you? How much credit will you take for "not being like that?"
> What tells you "to be a man is to behave thus, to be a beast is...is to behave that?"
> Beware...everything you take credit for is not yours, and is so easily revokable.
> 
> "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;…and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
> 
> "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?' "While the word was in the king's mouth, a voice came from heaven, saying, 'King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes."
> 
> Your confession as to being a vessel of wrath may also change. When, just as all others who have been changed learn they needn't look to Dahmer, or Hitler, or Isis...to see the mystery of iniquity. Indeed, while all evil is only "out there" in _others_, it is quite a mystery.
> 
> Were Jesus to have left out Jeffrey Dahmer, what hope would one such as I have?




Sense of right and wrong doesn't come from belief in god.  Just the opposite.

Simply believing what some guys wrote down and calling it divine is far easier than trying to figure it out.


----------



## 660griz

Well, Dahmer killed homosexuals. God don't like homosexuals.
Dahmer ate folks. God didn't have an issue with that on a time or two.

"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."

We often had to eat the "flesh of Jesus" and drink his "blood" in church.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Agreed.
> Go with the flow.
> Fight em...God determined you were meant to.
> Don't fight em...Hod determined you're not meant to.
> 
> Just more man made excuses to cover all actions and outcomes.



That's a very warped, twisted, inacurate interpretation of predestination.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Well, Dahmer killed homosexuals. God don't like homosexuals.
> Dahmer ate folks. God didn't have an issue with that on a time or two.
> 
> "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."



Everything to god's glory.  EVERYTHING.

It's really quite a clever way to explain things.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That's a very warped, twisted, inacurate interpretation of predestination.



I respect you're opinion but I also have an opinion that your beliefs are warped,twisted, inaccurate interpretations of a warped,twisted and inaccurate god.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Ouch!   That put a bad image in my head.


Its just an expression.
I actually wear thongs.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Well, Dahmer killed homosexuals. God don't like homosexuals.
> Dahmer ate folks. God didn't have an issue with that on a time or two.
> 
> "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."
> 
> We often had to eat the "flesh of Jesus" and drink his "blood" in church.


We just got the wafer. It would have been a blessing to get something to wash it down with.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I respect you're opinion but I also have an opinion that your beliefs are warped,twisted, inaccurate interpretations of a warped,twisted and inaccurate god.



I don't mind so much when you state what you believe.It's when you refer to the beliefs of others in a way that misrepresents them.That bothers me and prompts me to speak up against it.Nothing personal.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> That's a very warped, twisted, inacurate interpretation of predestination.


If Gem shows up he might agree with the concept that you do NOTHING that you weren't predetermined to do.
He'll correct me if Im wrong.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I don't mind so much when you state what you believe.It's when you refer to the beliefs of others in a way that misrepresents them.That bothers me and prompts me to speak up against it.Nothing personal.


Pot/Kettle.....


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> If Gem shows up he might agree with the concept that you do NOTHING that you weren't predetermined to do.
> He'll correct me if Im wrong.



If someone believes this way, they would say that God made me sin.This is absolutely not true.God is not the author of sin, neither tempteth He any man.You have no one to blame for your sin but yourself.


----------



## WaltL1

> If you think everything happens for a reason and we have no control over our own futures, then you believe in predestination.
> In religious terms, predestination is the belief that everything that happens has already been determined by God — He's got a master plan, and there's no deviating from it.


This  seems to be saying exactly that ^ -


> Fight em...God determined you were meant to.
> Don't fight em...God determined you're not meant to.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> If someone believes this way, they would say that God made me sin.This is absolutely not true.God is not the author of sin, neither tempteth He any man.You have no one to blame for your sin but yourself.





> they would say that God made me sin


I'll use this again -


> predestination is the belief that everything that happens has already been determined by God — He's got a master plan, and there's no deviating from it.


Translation - if you sinned it was predetermined by God that you would. No deviating from that.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If someone believes this way, they would say that God made me sin.This is absolutely not true.God is not the author of sin, neither tempteth He any man.You have no one to blame for your sin but yourself.



Welder, you are clinging to terms and explanations and partial definitions that make sense to you. 
It would make sense for a god to have all believers on the same page but that is far from the case.
What you state above is argued for and against all the time among believers.
Why do you think you are more privileged to correct information? How are your explanations more accurate than the next persons?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I'll use this again -
> 
> Translation - if you sinned it was predetermined by God that you would. No deviating from that.



I think you guys are confusing predestination with absolutism.Predestination is the belief that God chose His elect before He created the universe.Absolutism is thinking that God causes everything that happens to happen and we have no ability to do anything else.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I'll use this again -
> 
> Translation - if you sinned it was predetermined by God that you would. No deviating from that.



I don't think he's worked it out fully....


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I think you guys are confusing predestination with absolutism.Predestination is the belief that God chose His elect before He created the universe.Absolutism is thinking that God causes everything that happens to happen and we have no ability to do anything else.



How can a vessel of wrath be anything but just that?  Do they have the ability to do anything else?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I think you guys are confusing predestination with absolutism.Predestination is the belief that God chose His elect before He created the universe.Absolutism is thinking that God causes everything that happens to happen and we have no ability to do anything else.





> predestination is the belief that everything that happens has already been determined by God — He's got a master plan, and there's no deviating from it.


How many examples of the definition of PREDESTINATION would you like?
By the way these aren't OUR definitions so maybe its not us that's confused?
By the way yes that would include who is to be saved. It includes EVERYTHING.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I think you guys are confusing predestination with absolutism.Predestination is the belief that God chose His elect before He created the universe.Absolutism is thinking that God causes everything that happens to happen and we have no ability to do anything else.



What is predestination? Give me the definition YOU use. 

"the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed"


----------



## WaltL1

Predestination -


> the belief that people have no control over events because these things are controlled by God or by fate





> The doctrine that God has foreordained all things, especially that God has elected certain souls to eternal salvation





> The act of God foreordaining all things gone before and to come.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> How many examples of the definition of PREDESTINATION would you like?
> By the way these aren't OUR definitions so maybe its not us that's confused?
> By the way yes that would include who is to be saved. It includes EVERYTHING.



Where did you get that definition?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Where did you get that definition?




What's yours?  There isn't one in the Bible.  It's a concept that's derived from the notion that god is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, omnipresent and sovereign.  If you don't believe in those things I guess you'll just have to make one up that suits you.

Almost everyone on your side does.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Where did you get that definition?


If you look for yourself you will find that there are varying definitions within Christianity.
Some believe God predetermined everything.
Some believe God predetermined only the elect.
Some believe God only knows what you will do but you have free will to do it or not........
Its literally a buffet just pick what ya like and go with it.


----------



## WaltL1

Here's one that says your all wrong -



> On the matter of predestination, people have made two common assumptions—neither of which is correct. They have assumed that every human being who has ever lived is predetermined to be either “lost” or “saved”—or they have correctly recognized that people have the power to choose their own fate but have assumed that all people fall into one of only these two possible categories.
> These positions are both wrong. They are based on false assumptions.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I don't believe I ever said you are a vessel of wrath, but I did make reference to your confession as such.
> 
> Why do you say you are a vessel of wrath?



I wasn't talking about me specifically just vessels of wrath in general.  

Can you answer the question?  Can a vessel of wrath be anything but that?  Can they be saved if they want to?


When we played good guys bad guys I always wanted to be a bad guy.  If it walks like a duck.....


----------



## welderguy

Eph.1:11 is where many have conflict. It is speaking of election.That's the context of the whole chapter. People want to take it out of context and make it say everything is predestinated, even sin.But God is not the author of sin.So you can not lay blame on Him for you're sin.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Eph.1:11 is where many have conflict. It is speaking of election.That's the context of the whole chapter. People want to take it out of context and make it say everything is predestinated, even sin.But God is not the author of sin.So you can not lay blame on Him for you're sin.



Who is the author of sin?  The Devil?  Who made the Devil?  Who has control over the Devil?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Who is the author of sin?  The Devil?  Who made the Devil?  Who has control over the Devil?



Rom.5:12 says"Wherefore by one man sin entered into the world......"


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Eph.1:11 is where many have conflict. It is speaking of election.That's the context of the whole chapter. People want to take it out of context and make it say everything is predestinated, even sin.But God is not the author of sin.So you can not lay blame on Him for you're sin.


Welder do you know that there are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity?
All who disagreed enough to separate themselves out from the rest.
Im sorry if you pointing to one piece of scripture and claiming its the one where many have conflict, doesn't fly.
And some of them will claim YOU are taking Eph.1:11 out of context.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Rom.5:12 says"Wherefore by one man sin entered into the world......"



I am beginning to wonder if you just reply to everyone you converse with in all aspects of life in scripture references.

I hope there is a verse for ordering a Big Mac or you are missing out.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I am beginning to wonder if you just reply to everyone you converse with in all aspects of life in scripture references.
> 
> I hope there is a verse for ordering a Big Mac or you are missing out.



I don't really like big macs.I prefer whoppers.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I don't really like big macs.I prefer whoppers.



Sorry you cannot see the point..


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Sorry you cannot see the point..



I got your point.
I'm wondering if you have a sense of humor.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I got your point.
> I'm wondering if you have a sense of humor.



I think you would be shocked if you really knew me.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I think you would be shocked if you really knew me.



Likewise


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Its just cut and paste Gem just cut and paste.
> No miracle involved.


I agree that the cut and paste is not a miracle. Man's presentation of scripture is part of God's ordinary working of creation (Providence). The talking donkey is a deviation from the ordinary (miracle).

Also Walt, it was not my intention to equate you with the donkey, although I see now how it would appear that way. As you know from previous conversations, I deny that man is an animal at all.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I think you would be shocked if you really knew me.





			
				welderguy said:
			
		

> Likewise



I've enjoyed meeting and speaking with many of the folks who post on here regularly.  I think I'd enjoy drinking a beer (or sweet tea if that's the preferred thing) with most of you guys.


----------



## JB0704

This predes thing is a wormhole that nobody gets to the bottom of.  The threads go on.

One thing I learned through these debates is that viewing God as omniscient in such a way (all knowing, including what will happen) is the most consistent worldview from a theist perspective.  But, I can't help but wonder how much freedom exists in the context of omniscience.  I can't wrap my head around it........I get stuck every time I try and reason through it, so I back off, and figure I'll revisit it another day.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> I've enjoyed meeting and speaking with many of the folks who post on here regularly.  I think I'd enjoy drinking a beer (or sweet tea if that's the preferred thing) with most of you guys.


You guys are welcome to eat at my house anytime. Some of you will have to eat out on the porch.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> I agree that the cut and paste is not a miracle. Man's presentation of scripture is part of God's ordinary working of creation (Providence). The talking donkey is a deviation from the ordinary (miracle).
> 
> Also Walt, it was not my intention to equate you with the donkey, although I see now how it would appear that way. As you know from previous conversations, I deny that man is an animal at all.





> Also Walt, it was not my intention to equate you with the donkey, although I see now how it would appear that way.


Actually I didn't take it that way until it was pointed out.
And even when it was I didn't really think you meant it that way.
So either I was right in giving you the benefit of the doubt or you got a good jab in on me.
I take your word that it wasn't intentional.
Now to put you on the spot -
Arent your beliefs in line with this? -


> everything that happens has already been determined by God — He's got a master plan, and there's no deviating from it.


Differences? Exactly the same? Other?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> This predes thing is a wormhole that nobody gets to the bottom of.  The threads go on.
> 
> One thing I learned through these debates is that viewing God as omniscient in such a way (all knowing, including what will happen) is the most consistent worldview from a theist perspective.  But, I can't help but wonder how much freedom exists in the context of omniscience.  I can't wrap my head around it........I get stuck every time I try and reason through it, so I back off, and figure I'll revisit it another day.





> One thing I learned through these debates is that viewing God as omniscient in such a way (all knowing, including what will happen) is the most consistent worldview from a theist perspective.


It strikes me that way too.
But its in opposition to what I had been taught and I probably never would have given it a thought until participating here.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Arent your beliefs in line with this? -





> everything that happens has already been determined by God — He's got a master plan, and there's no deviating from it.


Yes


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Yes


That's what I thought but there seems to be so many variances or combinations of belief that I just wanted to confirm so that I actually understand where you are coming from.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> It strikes me that way too.
> But its in opposition to what I had been taught and I probably never would have given it a thought until participating here.



Really?  That surprises me.  It's one of the major conundrums; freewill/omniscience.  

Gem's take on it is iron clad.  It shuts all the questions down. The god he believes in really does have a plan for all the suffering and the souls burning in He11 for all eternity.  Or rather there is no plan as we understand it, only all that ever was/is.

It's irrefutable.  If I were to believe in a god it would have to be this one.  Anything else would not be god.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> That's what I thought but there seems to be so many variances or combinations of belief that I just wanted to confirm so that I actually understand where you are coming from.


Sure, just as when I am conversing with you, I would not take StripeRR's understanding and hold you to it as if it were yours. You are better understood on your own.


----------



## ambush80

Under the sovereignty of god, even when a Muslim suicide bomber screams "Allah hu akbar!" as he detonates his vest, he's proclaiming the truth.  

The thoughts in his head about who Muhammad is aren't even his own.  They belong to god.


----------



## Whiteeagle

After reading ALL these posts, I came to a FINAL conclusion. I don't know HOW GOD got started, BUT one day, when I meet HIM, face-to-face, I am sure HE will surely TELL ME! Until then, I will continue to worship HIM as MY SAVIOR!


----------



## WaltL1

Whiteeagle said:


> After reading ALL these posts, I came to a FINAL conclusion. I don't know HOW GOD got started, BUT one day, when I meet HIM, face-to-face, I am sure HE will surely TELL ME! Until then, I will continue to worship HIM as MY SAVIOR!


So by your use of "face to face" etc is it your belief that God physically in appearance looks like a man all the time or will appear as a man to you for you to be able to relate to him etc?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Really?  That surprises me.  It's one of the major conundrums; freewill/omniscience.
> 
> Gem's take on it is iron clad.  It shuts all the questions down. The god he believes in really does have a plan for all the suffering and the souls burning in He11 for all eternity.  Or rather there is no plan as we understand it, only all that ever was/is.
> 
> It's irrefutable.  If I were to believe in a god it would have to be this one.  Anything else would not be god.


Yeah I was indoctrinated in Catholicism and I seriously don't remember the whole predestination thing in that who went to heaven was already predetermined ever being a subject that was talked about. I was taught that basically every person (that believed in God) had the opportunity to go to heaven and that you would be judged in the end to determine whether you got your ticket or not.


> It's irrefutable.


I don't think I agree that its irrefutable. After all we are talking about religion here and so far no one has come back to say "this is how it worked out".


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> You guys are welcome to eat at my house anytime. Some of you will have to eat out on the porch.


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> As you know from previous conversations, I deny that man is an animal at all.



And it still makes me smile.


----------



## bullethead

Why are the replies going down? There was over 1900 last night and now 1868.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Why are the replies going down? There was over 1900 last night and now 1868.



My guess is mods but people could be deleting their own posts.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My guess is mods but people could be deleting their own posts.



Makes me wonder why to both.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> You guys are welcome to eat at my house anytime. Some of you will have to *eat out on the porch.*



It's okay, we heathens know our place. Thanks for keeping it reserved.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Makes me wonder why to both.



It is curious. I don't know of anyone in here who only posted 30 times, and I don't know of 30 posts that would have triggered the spank hammer.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I was indoctrinated in Catholicism and I seriously don't remember the whole predestination thing in that who went to heaven was already predetermined ever being a subject that was talked about. I was taught that basically every person (that believed in God) had the opportunity to go to heaven and that you would be judged in the end to determine whether you got your ticket or not.



Yeah.  Predeterminism would sure shoot a bunch of holes in that "Buy your loved ones out of Pergatory" thing.



WaltL1 said:


> I don't think I agree that its irrefutable. After all we are talking about religion here and so far no one has come back to say "this is how it worked out".



I just meant logically.  It's a catch-all and it's by definition what god is, unless one wants to make some case that he isn't all powerful and all knowing to some degree.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Why are the replies going down? There was over 1900 last night and now 1868.



Maybe it's a "Y2K" type thing.  If it gets to 2000 the whole thing crashes?


----------



## ambush80

24,000 views......


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> 24,000 views......



And post count keeps dropping as more posts are made...figure that one out!


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> And post count keeps dropping as more posts are made...figure that one out!



Maybe somebody's deleting the evidence 50 pages ago......might not want what they said to pop up on google.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> Maybe somebody's deleting the evidence 50 pages ago......might not want what they said to pop up on google.


I can't remember deleting a single post in the six years I've been on GON. The post count definitely went down.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I've never thought about it but does deleting a post change the numerical order of every post after the one that was deleted?
If it does it could confuse someone when he is looking at a post that says "see post #45" if 45 is now 44.


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> I can't remember deleting a single post in the six years I've been on GON. The post count definitely went down.



I've deleted a few.  Usually when I don't feel like arguing about what I just typed.   Didn't notice the post count going down.  But, it does happen.  I think it would be ahrd to figure out what got wiped from this thread, though.  I'm not about to go back through 2K posts and find out


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I've deleted a few.  Usually when I don't feel like arguing about what I just typed.   Didn't notice the post count going down.  But, it does happen.  I think it would be ahrd to figure out what got wiped from this thread, though.  I'm not about to go back through 2K posts and find out


Don't worry Im sure the same subjects will come up again whatever they were


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Don't worry Im sure the same subjects will come up again whatever they were



We didn't stay on topic?


----------



## bullethead

They all tie in. I enjoyed the entire thread.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> They all tie in. I enjoyed the entire thread.


Yep. When it comes to discussing religion so many things tie into other things its nearly impossible to stay on one specific subject.
I appreciate that we have been allowed to do this. This discussion would have disintegrated long ago if we had to go back and forth between 50 different threads.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Yep. When it comes to discussing religion so many things tie into other things its nearly impossible to stay on one specific subject.
> I appreciate that we have been allowed to do this. This discussion would have disintegrated long ago if we had to go back and forth between 50 different threads.



100% agree. This has been the best thread ever. Religion is hard enough to discuss without limited 'rules of engagement'.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> 100% agree. This has been the best thread ever. Religion is hard enough to discuss without limited 'rules of engagement'.



As far as this sub-forum is concerned, I absolutely agree.

But, the overall best thread ever was this'n:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=632538&highlight=wore+pants


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> As far as this sub-forum is concerned, I absolutely agree.
> 
> But, the overall best thread ever was this'n:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=632538&highlight=wore+pants



You guys are hysterical sometimes!
Seems like "my God doesn't look like a hippie" would be a good sig line for someone.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> You guys are hysterical sometimes!
> Seems like "my God doesn't look like a hippie" would be a good sig line for someone.



Yea. It's almost like folks develop a notion of how things ought be, then they try to cram their beliefs into that space.  That's the way it was in my youth......I was taught that Jesus was a hard-core tough guy, David was a hulking beast of a man, and God was an angry smiter of the wicked.  

Then I read the book of John and saw something very different.  The Jesus I saw there did not fit into the box that was constructed for me to look for him in.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Yea. It's almost like folks develop a notion of how things ought be, then they try to cram their beliefs into that space.  That's the way it was in my youth......I was taught that Jesus was a hard-core tough guy, David was a hulking beast of a man, and God was an angry smiter of the wicked.
> 
> Then I read the book of John and saw something very different.  The Jesus I saw there did not fit into the box that was constructed for me to look for him in.


Unfortunately it sometimes gets put to practice. I may have told this before but as teenagers we would have been described as looking like hippies. So our little gang of hippies would stand in the back of the church (admiitedly we were juvenile delinquents but still believed  in God), which caused complaints about our appearance and the fact that we stood in the back.
Didn't matter that we were there what mattered was how we looked. Those were the first seeds planted that maybe it wasn't all what is was cracked up to be.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Unfortunately it sometimes gets put to practice. I may have told this before but as teenagers we would have been described as looking like hippies. So our little gang of hippies would stand in the back of the church (admiitedly we were juvenile delinquents but still believed  in God), which caused complaints about our appearance and the fact that we stood in the back.
> Didn't matter that we were there what mattered was how we looked. Those were the first seeds planted that maybe it wasn't all what is was cracked up to be.



I have an unlce who was politely asked to cut his hair before going back to a little country church.  He hasn't stepped foot in any church since.

Some folks take their opinions way too seriously.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> As far as this sub-forum is concerned, I absolutely agree.
> 
> But, the overall best thread ever was this'n:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=632538&highlight=wore+pants



That guy didn't stick around very long.  I got the feeling his pastor told him to leave that Devil's forum alone.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Unfortunately it sometimes gets put to practice. I may have told this before but as teenagers we would have been described as looking like hippies. So our little gang of hippies would stand in the back of the church (admiitedly we were juvenile delinquents but still believed  in God), which caused complaints about our appearance and the fact that we stood in the back.
> Didn't matter that we were there what mattered was how we looked. Those were the first seeds planted that maybe it wasn't all what is was cracked up to be.



One Sunday night I wore sandals to Church. My Dad hadn't noticed until we were walking up the steps. He asked why was I wearing sandals to Church. I said Jesus wore sandals. He said "I don't care what Jesus wore, go home and change." I had to walk home a couple of blocks and change.

It would have been funny if I showed back up in dress shoes and a robe.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> One Sunday night I wore sandals to Church. My Dad hadn't noticed until we were walking up the steps. He asked why was I wearing sandals to Church. I said Jesus wore sandals. He said "I don't care what Jesus wore, go home and change." I had to walk home a couple of blocks and change.
> 
> It would have been funny if I showed back up in dress shoes and a robe.



Your Dad doesnt sound like the kind of guy it would have been smart to argue with.


----------



## Israel

BTW, it was probably a few of my deletions that reduced the thread count.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> BTW, it was probably a few of my deletions that reduced the thread count.



Just curious, Why delete them after they posted and answered to?


----------



## Israel

Sometimes my inutility is simply too delightful to ignore.
And often seen as a needless burden for others.
It happens.


----------



## bullethead

from:http://www.salon.com/2015/02/27/9_t..._about_jesus_that_are_probably_wrong_partner/

Jesus has been described as the best known figure in history, and also the least known. If you mentioned the name “Jesus” and someone asked Jesus who, you might blink. Or laugh. Even people who don’t think Jesus was God mostly believe they know a fair bit about him. You might be surprised that some of your most basic assumptions about Jesus are probably wrong.

We have no record of anything that was written about Jesus by eyewitnesses or other contemporaries during the time he would have lived, or for decades thereafter. Nonetheless, based on archeological digs and artifacts, ancient texts and art, and even forensic science, we know a good deal about the time and culture in which the New Testament is set. This evidence points to some startling conclusions about who Jesus likely was—and wasn’t.

1. Married, not single. When an ancient papyrus scrap was found in 2014 referring to the wife of Jesus, some Catholics and Evangelicals were scandalized. But unlike the Catholic Church, Jews have no tradition of celibacy among religious leaders. Jesus and his disciples would have been practicing Jews, and all great rabbis we know of were married. A rabbi being celibate would have been so unusual that some modern writers have argued Jesus must have been gay. But a number of ancient texts, including the canonical New Testament, point to a special relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. The Gospel of Phillip says, “[Jesus] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth.”


2. Cropped hair, not long.Jewish men at the time of Christ did not wear their hair long. A Roman triumphal arch of the time period depicts Jewish slaves with short hair. In the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he addresses male hair length. “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14 NRSV). During the 1960s, conservative Christians quoted this verse to express their disgust against the hippy movement and to label it anti-Christian.

3. Hung on a pole, not necessarily a cross.For centuries scholars have known that the Greek New Testament word “stauros,” which is translated into English as cross, can refer to a device of several shapes, commonly a single upright pole, “torture stake” or even tree. The Romans did not have a standard way of crucifying prisoners, and Josephus tells us that during the siege of Jerusalem, soldiers nailed or tied their victims in a variety of positions. Early Christians may have centered on the vertical pole with a crossbeam because it echoed the Egyptian ankh, a symbol of life, or the Sumerian symbol for Tammuz, or because it simply was more artistically and symbolically distinctive than the alternatives. Imagine millions of people wearing a golden pole on a chain around their necks.

4. Short, not tall. The typical Jewish man at the time of the Roman Empire would have been just over five feet tall, which makes this a best guess for the height of Jesus. That he is typically depicted taller derives from the mental challenge people have distinguishing physical stature from other kinds of stature. Great men are called “big men” and “larger than life.” In ancient times they often were assigned divine parentage and miraculous births, and the idea that Jesus was uniquely divine has created a strong pull over time to depict him as taller than is likely. A good illustration of this is the Shroud of Turin, which is just one of many such Jesus-shrouds that circulated during medieval times and which bears the image of a man closer to six feet in height.

5. Born in a house, not a stable. The miraculous birth story of Jesus is a late, maybe second-century addition to the Bible, and it contains many fascinatingmythic elements and peculiarities. But the idea that Jesus was born in a stable was added to the Christmas story even later. In the original narrative, Joseph and Mary probably would have stayed with relatives, and the phrase “no room for them in the inn (gr: kataluma)” is better translated “no room for them in the upper room.” Later storytellers did not understand that people of the time might bring animals into their ground floor, as in Swiss housebarns, and they assumed that the presence of a manger implied a stable.

6. Named Joshua, not Jesus. The name Joshua (in Hebrew Y’hoshuʿa meaning “deliverance” or “salvation”), was common among Jews in the Ancient Near East as it is today. Joshua and Jesus are the same name, and are translated differently in our modern Bible to distinguish Jesus from the Joshua of the Old Testament, who leads the Hebrew people to the Promised Land. In actuality, the relationship between the two figures is fascinating and important.Some scholars believe that the New Testament gospels are mostly historicized and updated retellings of the more ancient Joshua story, with episodes interwoven from stories of Elisha and Elijah and Moses. A modern parallel can be found in the way Hollywood writers have reworked Shakespearean tropes and plot elements into dozens of modern movies (though for a very different purpose).

7. Number of apostles (12) from astrology, not history. Whether Jesus had 12 disciples who were above his other devotees is an open question. The number 12 was considered auspicious by many ancient peoples, and the fellowship of 12 disciples, who are depicted in Da Vinci’s The Last Supper, likely get their count from the same source as the 12 signs of the zodiac and 12 months of the year. Astrotheology or star worship preceded the Hebrew religion, and shaped both the Bible and Western religions more broadly. One might point to the 12 Olympian gods or 12 sons of Odin, or the 12 days of Christmas or 12 “legitimate” successors to the prophet Mohammed. But since the Gospels echo the story of Joshua, the 12 apostles most closely parallel the 12 tribes of Israel.

8. Prophecies recalled, not foretold. Even people who aren’t too sure about the divinity of Jesus sometimes think that the way he fulfilled prophecies was a bit spooky, like the writings of Nostradamus. In reality, Scooby Doo could solve this one in a single episode with three pieces of information: First, Old Testament prophecies were well known to first-century Jews, and a messianic figure who wanted to fulfill some of these prophecies could simply do so. For example, in the book of Matthew, Jesus seeks a donkey to ride into Jerusalem “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet” (Matthew 21:4). Second, “gospels” are a genre of devotional literature rather than objective histories, which means that the authors had every reason to shape their stories around earlier predictions. Third, scholars now believe that some Bible texts once thought to be prophecies (for example in the Book of Revelation) actually relate to events that were current or past at the time of writing.

9. Some Jesus quotes not from Jesus; others uncertain. Lists of favorite Jesus sayings abound online. Some of the most popular are the Beatitudes (blessed are the meek, etc.) or the story of the woman caught in adultery (let he who is without sin cast the first stone) or the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which, we are told, sums up the Law and the Prophets).

Which words are actually from Jesus? This question has been debated fiercely by everyone from third-century Catholic Councils to the 20th-century Jesus Seminar. Even Thomas Jefferson weighed in, but much remains unclear. The New Testament Gospels were written long after Jesus would have died, and no technology existed with which to record his teachings in real time, unless he wrote them down himself, which he didn’t.

We can be confident that at least some of the wise and timeless words and catchy proverbs attributed to Jesus are actually from earlier or later thinkers. For example, the Golden Rule was articulated before the time of Christ by the Rabbi Hillel the Elder, who similarly said it was the “whole Torah.” By contrast, the much-loved story of the woman caught in adultery doesn’t appear in manuscripts until the fourth century. Attributing words (or whole texts) to a famous person was common in the Ancient Near East, because it gave those words extra weight. Small wonder then that so many genuinely valuable insights ended up, in one way or another, paired with the name of Jesus.

The person of Jesus, if indeed there was such a  person, is shrouded in the fog of history leaving us only with a set of hunches and traditions that far too often are treated as knowledge. The “facts” I have listed here are largely trivial; it doesn’t really matter whether Jesus was tall or short, or how he cut his hair. But it does matter, tremendously, that “facts” people claim to know about how Jesus saw himself, and God and humanity are equally tenuous.

The teachings attributed to Jesus mix enduring spiritual and moral insights with irrelevancies and Judaica and bits of Iron Age culture, some of which are truly awful. That leaves each of us, from the privileged vantage of the 21st century, with both a right and a responsibility to consider the evidence and make our own best guesses about what is real and how we should then live. A good starting place might be a little more recognition that we don’t know nearly as much as we’d like to think, and a lot of what we know for sure is probably wrong.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Sometimes my inutility is simply too delightful to ignore.
> And often seen as a needless burden for others.
> It happens.



Say it, forget it
Write it, regret it.

If quoted and replied to, what you wrote is still in the thread anyway.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Say it, forget it
> Write it, regret it.
> 
> If quoted and replied to, what you wrote is still in the thread anyway.



Yes. A man can only be about as much delight as he is allowed.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Sometimes my inutility is simply too delightful to ignore.
> And often seen as a needless burden for others.
> It happens.


I find this post to be burdensome.

Now what?


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> I find this post to be burdensome.
> 
> Now what?



Consider every _thing_ gone.
What remains?


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Consider every _thing_ gone.
> What remains?


No _thing_ to be considered.

Rest.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> No _thing_ to be considered.


Hallelujah!
Can a man be too happy? 
What a great experiment.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Hallelujah!


Israel, I love you man!


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> I find this post to be burdensome.
> 
> Now what?



I got a good laugh out of that 

Israel, The posts often continue the conversation, or take it in new directions and have contributed a lot to this epic thread.  I've enjoyed every bit of it.....

......now, I gotta find time to respond to Bullet's post about the reality of Jesus.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> Israel, The posts often continue the conversation, or take it in new directions and have contributed a lot to this epic thread.  I've enjoyed every bit of it.....


His deleted posts served that purpose. The ones that were deleted prior to being viewed... may have made the greatest impact. 

Who determines such a thing?


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> ......now, I gotta find time to respond to Bullet's post about the reality of Jesus.


Save yourself some time and jump to the last paragraph.

"That leaves each of us, from the privileged vantage of the 21st century, with both a right and a responsibility to consider the evidence and make our own best guesses about what is real and how we should then live."


----------



## Israel

_Almost_ everywhere I go I keep bumpin into myself...what a relief for 
_almost _everywhere...for what ain't _almost_ everywhere


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> _Almost_ everywhere I go I keep bumpin into myself...what a relief for
> almost everywhere...for what ain't _almost_ everywhere


A few years ago, I went through a several week period of time, seeing myself in other places. Through the rear view mirror, I saw myself in the car behind me. I saw myself walking the sidewalk as I drove by.

My brother sent a picture from a magazine... to me... of me fishing in a boat. I thought he had Photoshopped it... until I saw it in the magazine.

It was an unusual time.

I never stopped to confront myself... as to why I was there.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> A few years ago, I went through a several week period of time, seeing myself in other places. Through the rear view mirror, I saw myself in the car behind me. I saw myself walking the sidewalk as I drove by.
> 
> My brother sent a picture from a magazine... to me... of me fishing in a boat. I thought he had Photoshopped it... until I saw it in the magazine.
> 
> It was an unusual time.
> 
> I never stopped to confront myself... as to why I was there.


Ha!
That's too cool.
I am debtor.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Ha!
> That's too cool.


I thought it cool as well. I would tell my wife and kids, "Don't look now, but I am in the car behind us". They would look and say, "That is you. How can that be?"

All I could do was laugh.


Israel said:


> I am debtor.


Yes


----------



## Israel

Kinda sheds a light on this:

"Since you are precious in My sight, Since you are honored and I love you, I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life."

Kinda the opposite of identity theft. More like identity gift.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Kinda sheds a light on this:
> 
> "Since you are precious in My sight, Since you are honored and I love you, I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life."
> 
> Kinda the opposite of identity theft. More like identity gift.


I like that.

In my current job, I am often called upon to handle the angriest of customers. Co-workers will ask, "How did you do that?"

I answer,"It is easy... when it is you on both sides of the counter".


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> I like that.
> 
> In my current job, I am often called upon to handle the angriest of customers. Co-workers will ask, "How did you do that?"
> 
> I answer,"It is easy... when it is you on both sides of the counter".



I wondered why I couldn't beat myself at chess!

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> I thought it cool as well. I would tell my wife and kids, "Don't look now, but I am in the car behind us". They would look and say, "That is you. How can that be?"
> 
> All I could do was laugh.
> 
> Yes


This conversation reminds me of a guy I used to know that never mentally came back from Woodstock


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> This conversation reminds me of a guy I used to know that never mentally came back from Woodstock


It was comforting having others verify that what I was seeing was the case. If not, I would have questioned my own sanity.


----------



## Israel

Local Interviewer: Now then, Mr. Twain, didn’t I read somewhere that you had a brother?

Twain, after a long, thoughtful pause: Why yes, yes I did. Did have a brother, I mean. William*. “Bill,” we used to call him. [Singing mournfully] Pooor oould Bill.

LI: Oh dear, something happened to him, then?

T: Why, yes, he disappeared.

LI: Disappeared?

T: Well, in a general sort of way. We buried him.

LI: You’re telling me you buried him without knowing whether he was dead or not?

T: Oh, no. He was dead all right. He was always pretty dead. Still, there was always a great mystery about that.

LI: And just what was this blasted mystery?

T: Well, we were twins, Bill and I—identical twins—and when we were little bitty babies we got mixed up in the bathtub one day. Then Mother got distracted for a minute and one of us drowned. [Pause] Some say it was Bill; [pause] some say it was me.

LI: What do YOU think?

T: Oh, I’d give worlds to know.

T: Oh, wait. There WAS a difference! One of those babies had a curious birthmark on his backside. That was me…and that was the baby that drowned.


----------



## bullethead

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...volved-without-belief-in-all-powerful-deity1/


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...volved-without-belief-in-all-powerful-deity1/


It's good to be reminded God's being is not dependent upon the assent of man. Seen, or denied, regarded or disregarded, to be dependent upon man's acknowledgement...would be less than God over all. And to be less, is to be not.


----------



## bullethead

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-affluence-spur-the-rise-of-modern-religions/
 Did Affluence Spur the Rise of Modern Religions?

Reliable food and energy may have freed up time to think about the purpose of life


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> It's good to be reminded God's being is not dependent upon the assent of man. Seen, or denied, regarded or disregarded, to be dependent upon man's acknowledgement...would be less than God over all. And to be less, is to be not.


I don't know Israel. Isnt Christianity/God all about acknowledgement?
Acknowledge the one true God.
Acknowledge who your savior is.
Acknowledge who is all powerful.
Acknowledge........
God even has a punishment for you for NOT acknowledging him.....


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know Israel. Isnt Christianity/God all about acknowledgement?
> Acknowledge the one true God.
> Acknowledge who your savior is.
> Acknowledge who is all powerful.
> Acknowledge........
> God even has a punishment for you for NOT acknowledging him.....



I may have had a God like that...once. I may have even thought he was the God of Jesus Christ.
I may have thought there was a quid pro quo, like if I "did" whatever, at the moment, seemed to be demanded...enough..."talk about him"..."tell others about him"..."love everyone...enough"...generally, perform "for him"...I would get a cookie. And if not "no cookie for you!"


I never knew just how wrong I could be about everything. But, there's still time for me to find out how wrong I still am...and it's enough...just cause he made me OK with him.

It seems so strange in the telling, how coming to know someone "else"...can mean so much. Everything, really.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I may have had a God like that...once. I may have even thought he was the God of Jesus Christ.
> I may have thought there was a quid pro quo, like if I "did" whatever, at the moment, seemed to be demanded...enough..."talk about him"..."tell others about him"..."love everyone...enough"...generally, perform "for him"...I would get a cookie. And if not "no cookie for you!"
> 
> 
> I never knew just how wrong I could be about everything. But, there's still time for me to find out how wrong I still am...and it's enough...just cause he made me OK with him.
> 
> It seems so strange in the telling, how coming to know someone "else"...can mean so much. Everything, really.


However you worked it all out in your head doesn't change the acknowledgement that is required.


----------



## Browning Slayer

WaltL1 said:


> God even has a punishment for you for NOT acknowledging him.....



But yet he has NO punishment for what you do not know or what you have not been witnessed too..

Didn't your father punish you for not acknowledging him?? Ignore him and what??


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> However you worked it all out in your head doesn't change the acknowledgement that is required.



Well, I suppose it would be impossible to relate to something/anything apart from the acknowledgment of being.
But that is far too simple for the wise.


----------



## NCHillbilly

This one has passed the 1,000 post limit nearly twice. Someone can start a part two and keep it going.


----------

