# Fish Fossils on Mtn Tops??



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2019)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fossil-mother-lode-records-earth-shaking-asteroids-impact-182904141.html
Pretty Good explanation backed with evidence.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

Nothing earth shattering.  

I found a rock 20 years ago. Today, the only thing I know for sure is that rock is at least 20 years old. Everything else is just an assumption. Nothing more.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Nothing earth shattering.
> 
> I found a rock 20 years ago. Today, the only thing I know for sure is that rock is at least 20 years old. Everything else is just an assumption. Nothing more.


Whatever gets you through life.
But,
I find it hysterical that you think like that about a rock, and yet concoct such grand stories and excuses about something un-seeable, un-knowable and literally non existent. 

Carry on...


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Whatever gets you through life.
> But,
> I find it hysterical that you think like that about a rock, and yet concoct such grand stories and excuses about something un-seeable, un-knowable and literally non existent.
> 
> Carry on...


Lol, I’m just saying that evolution works under a “proven method” until they need to redefine another. It’s just always interesting that everything is always “at least millions of years old”. What’s that “at least” bench marked from? I KNOW my rock is at least 20 years old. I can assume it’s much older. But I will never really know.

Remember the other thread where you stated something similar to not be able to know everything?

If millions of years old gets you through life, carry on?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol, I’m just saying that evolution works under a “proven method” until they need to redefine another. It’s just always interesting that everything is always “at least millions of years old”. What’s that “at least” bench marked from? I KNOW my rock is at least 20 years old. I can assume it’s much older. But I will never really know.
> 
> Remember the other thread where you stated something similar to not be able to know everything?
> 
> If millions of years old gets you through life, carry on?


Do you think the rock you found is 20 years old on the dot?

Could it be 50 years old?

Possibly 600 Million years old?

I am interested in how old it most likely is and if other evidence is found that changes the age, I want to know about that too.  I am more happy knowing people are CONSTANTLY working on it.

If fish fossils are found on mountain tops there is a reason.

If someone says it is because the entire world was flooded, I check into that. When it is known that the entire world was not flooded we must find another answer.

When an answer like in the link above is provided and it backs up it's findings,  it certainly carries on.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 31, 2019)

I find the Permian-Triassic extinction event interesting. It took place 250 million years ago, before dinosaurs ruled the Earth. A million-year-long volcanic eruption potentially caused the extinction of up to 96 percent of marine life, along with 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species.
Scientists think the eruption depleted the ozone layer. Wow, talk about global warming!

That would be sort of a "New Beginning" for the Earth.

http://www.geologyin.com/2016/08/ar...OM8tixzb0LK-WdI9-EKZOfveo#uiIYU0CBHoWT63ip.99


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Do you think the rock you found is 20 years old on the dot?
> 
> Could it be 50 years old?
> 
> ...


My point is the only thing I know is it’s at least 20. I can assume it’s older. I’m sure it is......but I don’t know that. I mean I can test a rock to see how much it decays based on elements I have access to today, but even at that, I still won’t ever know if those elements can affect it any longer than the rest of my life. 

The answer in your link is different how? How do they know without assuming any variables?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> My point is the only thing I know is it’s at least 20. I can assume it’s older. I’m sure it is......but I don’t know that. I mean I can test a rock to see how much it decays based on elements I have access to today, but even at that, I still won’t ever know if those elements can affect it any longer than the rest of my life.
> 
> The answer in your link is different how? How do they know without assuming any variables?


Form a hypothesis, test it, gather the evidence, scrutinize the evidence, re-test, follow the path that the evidence leads. 
They have way neater tools than we do


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Form a hypothesis, test it, gather the evidence, scrutinize the evidence, re-test, follow the path that the evidence leads.
> They have way neater tools than we do



boy, it would be great if evolutionist worked that way.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> boy, it would be great if evolutionist worked that way.


Yup. Supposedly dinosaurs lived as dinosaurs for a couple hundred million years........then they froze to death, or maybe a comet wiped them out. All of the sudden evolution was created during a big poof so we could evolve for the next 66 million years from fossils.

Out of those 66 million years, we’ve only had about the last 250 years for real progress. We are very slow I guess. But as much as we’ve progressed for 250 years.......you’d think we would be more advanced if we’ve had at least 20,000 years of this. I guess we were just happy beating on stumps and throwing rocks in the water.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yup. Supposedly dinosaurs lived as dinosaurs for a couple hundred million years........then they froze to death, or maybe a comet wiped them out. All of the sudden evolution was created during a big poof so we could evolve for the next 66 million years from fossils.
> 
> Out of those 66 million years, we’ve only had about the last 250 years for real progress. We are very slow I guess. But as much as we’ve progressed for 250 years.......you’d think we would be more advanced if we’ve had at least 20,000 years of this. I guess we were just happy beating on stumps and throwing rocks in the water.


Honest, that may be the absolute dumbest sounding post that I have ever read in the AAA.
And it leaves me no wonder any longer.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> boy, it would be great if evolutionist worked that way.


No chance, we are clay people. The End.
Stupid Evolutionists


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Honest, that may be the absolute dumbest sounding post that I have ever read in the AAA.
> And it leaves me no wonder any longer.


 Do you need the evolutionary links about the extinction of dinosaurs, and how we got here? I think it’s dumb, too.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Do you need the evolutionary links about the extinction of dinosaurs, and how we got here? I think it’s dumb, too.


If you read links that say what you said above, and believe them...and decided that was the scenario you were going to use to as your argument.
'Nuff said
"We evolved from fossils..."
No need to continue


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 31, 2019)

If you view life on earth as a yearly calendar, fish and land plants didn't show up until November. Then around December 2nd, amphibians arrived. Dec. 6, reptiles. Dec. 13 mammals. By Dec 25th dinosaurs were extinct. Dec. 31, early man. Around 11:30 a man that walked upright arrived. At 11:30pm, homo sapiens arrived.

So in the grand picture of life on the earth. We haven't really been here that long. We have made great strides since then.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 31, 2019)

Maybe God created everything at the same time and then stuck it in the timeline as he saw fit. Yet we do know from just something as simple as dandelions that they have a sort of free will or natural selection.

If you cut a yard full of dandelions, with a lawn mower, tall ones and short ones, eventually the tall ones won't live long enough to reproduce. Eventually you'll just have a yard full of short dandelions. This process is called Natural Selection. Perhaps it is God giving nature a bit of free will like he does man as well.

Plants and animals mutate. Is that God or God giving nature free will?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If you read links that say what you said above, and believe them...and decided that was the scenario you were going to use to as your argument.
> 'Nuff said
> "We evolved from fossils..."
> No need to continue


Evolve directly from fossils is an extremely sarcastic reading between the lines on my part, I admit.

But it’s an overall reflection at how many theories are thrown out there.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> If you view life on earth as a yearly calendar, fish and land plants didn't show up until November. Then around December 2nd, amphibians arrived. Dec. 6, reptiles. Dec. 13 mammals. By Dec 25th dinosaurs were extinct. Dec. 31, early man. Around 11:30 a man that walked upright arrived. At 11:30pm, homo sapiens arrived.
> 
> So in the grand picture of life on the earth. We haven't really been here that long. We have made great strides since then.


I agree, I don’t believe we’ve been here millions of years.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe God created everything at the same time and then stuck it in the timeline as he saw fit. Yet we do know from just something as simple as dandelions that they have a sort of free will or natural selection.
> 
> If you cut a yard full of dandelions, tall ones and short ones, eventually the tall ones won't live long enough to reproduce. Eventually you'll just have a yard full of short dandelions. This process is called Natural Selection. Perhaps it is God giving nature a bit of free will like he does man as well.
> 
> Plants and animals mutate. Is that God or God giving nature free will?


It's what Nature Is because that is all it can be. Nothing else involved because nothing else is needed.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Evolve directly from fossils is an extremely sarcastic reading between the lines on my part, I admit.
> 
> But it’s an overall reflection at how many theories are thrown out there.


Theories are not Scientific Theory.
The Theory of Evolution is not just one of many guesses.
It is clear you do not understand many things. 
I have a better understanding of what you do not understand now.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 31, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I agree, I don’t believe we’ve been here millions of years.



I think we've only been here 200,000 years. That may seem like a long time but in reality it's not considering how old the earth is.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Explain "we"
Modern Humans?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Explain "we"
> Modern Humans?



Yep, modern humans. Homo sapiens have been here longer.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Theories are not Scientific Theory.
> The Theory of Evolution is not just one of many guesses.
> It is clear you do not understand many things.
> I have a better understanding of what you do not understand now.


Lol ok. Not defining words tonight but I have studied science a great deal. I know the difference and I know how to be sarcastic. 

I just see no reasoning in clarifying that every time we have a discussion.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 31, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think we've only been here 200,000 years. That may seem like a long time but in reality it's not considering how old the earth is.


Yes that’s where I’m at.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2019)

I Googled "earliest hominid".  This is the first thing that came up:

https://www.nature.com/news/2009/091001/full/news.2009.966.html

I'd like to hear some criticisms of the article.   What parts are they claiming something to be true without good evidence?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 1, 2019)

I've been getting into Geology here lately. I collect rocks so I thought I should know more about their origins and formation. Rocks go through many changes, some over millions or even billions of years. They may have all been on the earth since it's Creation/formation but they don't all look like they did way back then.

So in a way perhaps we can compare that to evolution. Maybe God got the ball(earth) rolling and said,"OK, mother nature, you take over. I'm giving you the free will to make those rocks do what you will. Put some heat and pressure on them, wet them, cool them off and see what happens."
"I may intervene occasionally if I don't like what you ate doing."

Some rocks go through a type of evolution that changes their mineral composition and/or texture. Rocks that pseudo-morph are interesting. They become a new rock type but keep the shape of the original rock.

Agate pseudomorph after Coral is interesting as are clam shells that turn into calcite crystals.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I Googled "earliest hominid".  This is the first thing that came up:
> 
> https://www.nature.com/news/2009/091001/full/news.2009.966.html
> 
> I'd like to hear some criticisms of the article.   What parts are they claiming something to be true without good evidence?


Where can I find that in scripture.  If I can't then it is not true.

(Now that is sarcasm Spotlite)


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 1, 2019)

https://www.foxnews.com/science/din...ret-for-years-show-the-day-of-killer-asteroid 

never a worldwide flood, but there was a worldwide tsunami????

"For decades, the massive asteroid crash that caused the Chicxulub crater in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula has been considered the likely cause of the mass extinction often called the "KT boundary" for the division between two geologic time periods. A study published in January suggests that the asteroid also caused a worldwide tsunami that reached more than 5,000 feet in the air."

Yeah... that is a lot more believable.  <sarc>


----------



## Bobby Linton (Apr 1, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/science/din...ret-for-years-show-the-day-of-killer-asteroid
> 
> never a worldwide flood, but there was a worldwide tsunami????
> 
> ...


You do understand the KT boundary is a real thing we can go outside and see.  Me and you can go dig a hole and look at it.  Its worldwide.  The presence of shock quartz in the layer indicate an impact.  Dinosaur fossils exist below it, none above. It's pretty much a fact of geology.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/science/din...ret-for-years-show-the-day-of-killer-asteroid
> 
> never a worldwide flood, but there was a worldwide tsunami????
> 
> ...



What happens if we start by saying that "the flood as described in the Bible really happened"?  One should be able to prove it or at least offer some evidence that would confirm it.  I Googled "proof of a worldwide flood at the time of noah".  This is the first thing that came up:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/e...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

Is it compelling?  Does it seem well supported by evidence?  If not, why not?


----------



## Bobby Linton (Apr 1, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What happens if we start by saying that "the flood as described in the Bible really happened"?  One should be able to prove it or at least offer some evidence that would confirm it.  I Googled "proof of a worldwide flood at the time of noah".  This is the first thing that came up:
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/e...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533
> 
> Is it compelling?  Does it seem well supported by evidence?  If not, why not?


Read the article. I know you weren't asking me, but I found it plausible.  A fundamentalist will never accept an explanation of "it wasn't the whole world, just the whole known world".  A large flood at the end of the last ice age is probably true, but I dont think it will win any true believers over.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 1, 2019)

Bobby Linton said:


> Read the article. I know you weren't asking me, but I found it plausible.  A fundamentalist will never accept an explanation of "it wasn't the whole world, just the whole known world".  A large flood at the end of the last ice age is probably true, but I dont think it will win any true believers over.


Also the "world" in the Bible means different things. Jesus died for the whole world yet maybe he only died for God's children as meaning the "world." 

The world could be the surrounding area of Israel as they knew it. Creation could mean Israel. Creation knew God, the whole world didn't.

Then again maybe the worldwide tsunami  was  God's worldwide flood. God does uses science to explain things. Look at the rainbow as an example. It has a spiritual and scientific explanation.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Apr 1, 2019)

I have been watching a series of shorts on YouTube by PBS called EONS. 10 minute segments that cover everything from the last ice age too the KT extinction.  It's a great series.  It's been very informative.  I have read that 90% of the world population has typically lived within a 100 miles of the coast.  A major rise in sea level would certainly feel like world wide flooding to an observer at the time.  However there is no denying the biological evidence that there has not been a world wide flood in the last 10,000 years.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2019)

Bobby Linton said:


> Read the article. I know you weren't asking me, but I found it plausible.  A fundamentalist will never accept an explanation of "it wasn't the whole world, just the whole known world".  A large flood at the end of the last ice age is probably true, but I don't think it will win any true believers over.



Why do people believe what they believe?  That's what I'm really interested in.  How do they form their beliefs?  What evidences support their beliefs?  When I asked the question about the article I was hoping that people who disagree with what it says would say which parts they disagree with and why.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2019)

Bobby Linton said:


> I have been watching a series of shorts on YouTube by PBS called EONS. 10 minute segments that cover everything from the last ice age too the KT extinction.  It's a great series.  It's been very informative.  I have read that 90% of the world population has typically lived within a 100 miles of the coast.  A major rise in sea level would certainly feel like world wide flooding to an observer at the time.  However there is no denying the biological evidence that there has not been a world wide flood in the last 10,000 years.



Have you ever heard anyone argue against the part in blue?  What do they say?


----------



## Bobby Linton (Apr 1, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever heard anyone argue against the part in blue  What do they say?


Science is a bunch of lies and I'm dumb for falling for it.  Noah put all the "biology" in a boat and saved it one pair at a time.  (Even the specie still being discovered till this day I guess)   Basically any fact I can come up with is refuted as the devils influence separating me from God.

For instance.  I learned recently that the Ainu people of Japan come from a very distinct genetic haplotype that came to Japan around 200,000 years ago.  Did Noah swing by and pick them up? Am I stupid for belive the science behind genetics?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2019)

Bobby Linton said:


> Science is a bunch of lies and I'm dumb for falling for it.  Noah put all the "biology" in a boat and saved it one pair at a time.  (Even the specie still being discovered till this day I guess)   Basically any fact I can come up with is refuted as the devils influence separating me from God.
> 
> For instance.  I learned recently that the Ainu people of Japan come from a very distinct genetic haplotype that came to Japan around 200,000 years ago.  Did Noah swing by and pick them up? Am I stupid for belive the science behind genetics?



I've heard some Young Earth Creationists say that "God made the Earth look old to test the faith of believers".  If I take that statement as true, how could I test it?  See what I did there?  You can't test it because that's the test.  If you want to test it then you have failed in your test of faith.

It's just a different way to view the world I suppose.  If it proved to be a good way to view the world I would consider adopting it.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Apr 1, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I've heard some Young Earth Creationists say that "God made the Earth look old to test the faith of believers".  If I take that statement as true, how could I test it?  See what I did there?  You can't test it because that's the test.  If you want to test it then you have failed in your test of faith.
> 
> It's just a different way to view the world I suppose.  If it proved to be a good way to view the world I would consider adopting it.


You bring up an interesting point about science. We prove an hypothesis by making predictions and testing the result.  Ptolemy came up with an earth centered model for the solar system that could accurately predict where the planets would be.  Worked perfectly, but it was completely wrong.  Makes me wonder how much we "know" now that may be incorrect.  I do belive though that science builds real knowledge from its inaccuracies.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2019)

Bobby Linton said:


> You bring up an interesting point about science. We prove an hypothesis by making predictions and testing the result.  Ptolemy came up with an earth centered model for the solar system that could accurately predict where the planets would be.  Worked perfectly, but it was completely wrong.  Makes me wonder how much we "know" now that may be incorrect.  I do belive though that science builds real knowledge from its inaccuracies.


In all truthfulness,  the planets are still gonna be where they are whether or not the Earth was the center of the Solar system or the Sun was. All he got wrong was the Earth being the Center.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 1, 2019)

I am not at all studied on this in the least... but I'll throw out some more fuel for the conversation. Evidence, I have often heard, points not to a flood.... But a catastrophic flood that caused lots of e damage/erosion, burying fossils deep, which have been discovered deep, so they say???? I have no idea if this has any evidence to back it up, just something I have always heard


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 1, 2019)

I think our ocean shorelines are evidence of a catastrophic flood. Imagine no rain, then a catastrophic flood, the lower portions, deeper ocean,  fill  with it's own rain water. You can see on maps that the ocean has great contour out beyond the sand. The higher areas, mountains/foothills, lose silt and sand, washing down, and settling to the bottom as it meets the still water. Same thing in Lakes, the lower end, farther-est from the dam, silts in the most because it slows down as it reaches the stiller water and the silt settles to the bottom. The catastrophic is verified by the fact that sand is all along the beaches, not just around the tidal creeks


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 1, 2019)

I used to have a friend whom was into looking for arrowheads. He told me one day that they were planning a trip to somewhere, I can't recall, South Carolina, I think, over 100 miles inland where they were going to look for Sharks teeth. Said they had been lots of times and found lots of them, and said that the majority of them, thousands, had already been taken out. Anybody ever heard of this place? Interesting for our discussion


----------



## Bobby Linton (Apr 1, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I used to have a friend whom was into looking for arrowheads. He told me one day that they were planning a trip to somewhere, I can't recall, South Carolina, I think, over 100 miles inland where they were going to look for Sharks teeth. Said they had been lots of times and found lots of them, and said that the majority of them, thousands, had already been taken out. Anybody ever heard of this place? Interesting for our discussion



This area was an inland sea in a super continent millions of years ago.  Sharks teeth, clams, fossils of all types are here for 100's of feet deep. I don't think that has any modern relationship to a biblical flood.  Do sharks teeth in Iowa represent evidence of the biblical flood to you?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2019)

Here's some food for thought:

_"Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief." _

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/...n-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html

So they say that the mountains rose up, taking marine fossils with them.  Is that true?  How could you prove it?  How could you disprove it?  Why would they even propose such a thing?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 2, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Here's some food for thought:
> 
> _"Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief." _
> 
> ...


How and why did these mountains rise so rapidly, yet it’s supposedly a long process for mountains to form?


----------



## Bobby Linton (Apr 2, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> How and why did these mountains rise so rapidly, yet it’s supposedly a long process for mountains to form?


I think the word rapid in geologic time could mean a few million years.  It is a different context than our time scale as humans.


----------



## j_seph (Apr 2, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am interested in how old it most likely is and if other evidence is found that changes the age, I want to know about that too.  I am more happy knowing people are CONSTANTLY working on it.


How long have people been constantly working on it? Yet no one yet has given a 100% conclusive that there is NO GOD


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 2, 2019)

"I have been to the mountain top and I have seen the fossils!"
                                                                famous quote


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2019)

I heard that tectonic plates move as fast as finger nails grow.   Off to Google!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2019)

*Continents Split Up at the Same Speed Finger Nails Grow. And That’s Fast.*

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/science/continental-drift-tectonic-plates.html

So is it true?  How do they know?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 2, 2019)

Bobby Linton said:


> I think the word rapid in geologic time could mean a few million years.  It is a different context than our time scale as humans.


That would be an acceptable answer......just curious as to what caused these to rise rapidly.

Is it another variable to consider when trying to date the past based on....?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2019)

j_seph said:


> How long have people been constantly working on it? Yet no one yet has given a 100% conclusive that there is NO GOD


Sounds like there is not 100% conclusive there is a god, let alone thousands. Apparently none of them have the power to come out of the shadows.


----------



## j_seph (Apr 2, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like there is not 100% conclusive there is a god, let alone thousands. Apparently none of them have the power to come out of the shadows.


But millions of scientist etc..... Billions of dollars spent still man can not prove God is not real.


----------



## Bobby Linton (Apr 2, 2019)

j_seph said:


> But millions of scientist etc..... Billions of dollars spent still man can not prove God is not real.


Are you open to accepting God as more than a biblical Patriarch? Is there room in your belief system to view God as the framework that allows life to flourish? None of the atoms in our body even know who we are, but we continue on as the physical material that makes us changes.  My own feeling is that religious dogma diminishes the glory of what God has done. Creation is the miracle of life not promises of an afterlife.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2019)

j_seph said:


> But millions of scientist etc..... Billions of dollars spent still man can not prove God is not real.


Name one study that set out to do that?
Billions spent?
Millions of scientists working on it?
You are delusional. 

Nobody can prove a negative. 
No breadcrumbs to follow.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2019)

Bobby Linton said:


> Are you open to accepting God as more than a biblical Patriarch? Is there room in your belief system to view God as the framework that allows life to flourish? None of the atoms in our body even know who we are, but we continue on as the physical material that makes us changes.  My own feeling is that religious dogma diminishes the glory of what God has done. Creation is the miracle of life not promises of an afterlife.



I heard Eric Weinstein call this "source code".  He's much smarter than me and he was talking to someone as equally intelligent as himself so I'm not sure that's what he meant but that's how I interpreted it.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 2, 2019)

j_seph said:


> But millions of scientist etc..... Billions of dollars spent still man can not prove God is not real.



And billions fleeced from the “flocks” of preachers worldwide who have never proven that any god is real.


----------



## Israel (Apr 3, 2019)

Bobby Linton said:


> Are you open to accepting God as more than a biblical Patriarch? Is there room in your belief system to view God as the framework that allows life to flourish? None of the atoms in our body even know who we are, but we continue on as the physical material that makes us changes.  My own feeling is that religious dogma diminishes the glory of what God has done. Creation is the miracle of life not promises of an afterlife.


 

The matters of both immanence and transcendence are not foreign to the believer. And I don't know the thoughts of any believer with whom I have ever sought to engage (of times past or present) that are not in some way formed to this expression of seeming paradox. That the God above all is also the God beneath all, upholding all, and involved intimately in all. The "framework" you speak of is nearly approximated in expression by the the verse referencing God as the One in whom we "live and move and have our being". All being, from atoms to the consciousness we perceive in, and of, their arrangements (and even _our_ seeking to arrange them) is all being "worked out" within that _framework;_ within the being of God.

The sense in which_ being _in the "being of God" is both noun and verb at once, that is as subject having being, but also the all active "be-er" the One from whom all activity originates and within Whom all activity is contained is not lost on the disciple, He is, at once the all active doer.

The tribal and provincial model, perhaps as you perceive in the biblical Patriarch, which limits you may also perceive as some form of insult to such transcendence, was not left without challenge by Jesus Christ. He was (is) always willing and demonstrably manifesting the Presence as well beyond the previous limits assigned by a sequestering according to tribal limit. The reward of faith, previously unimaginable as ever beyond the domain of the "Jew" was itself met with both His marvel and commendation in the Centurion. 

Jesus is at once saying "God is far bigger than thought of by even those who lay claim to His sole and true pursuit" while also showing He remains far more involved in the affairs of all than such limits would seem to indicate. Among men this has not much changed in the many forms of tribalism extant; what often describes itself as "christianity" can easily suffer under some need of light to dispel the notion God is "their property".

One disciple wrote:

_Is he_ the God of the Jews only? _is he_ not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 

One needn't labor long in this apprehension to discover _the resistance._ Of both Jew and gentile.


----------



## j_seph (Apr 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Name one study that set out to do that?
> Billions spent?
> Millions of scientists working on it?
> You are delusional.
> ...


Does proving evolution count? My bible tells me who created man how woman was created, by God including where the animals came from. Here are millions spent just for that purpose at Harvard.
https://answersingenesis.org/who-is...-allocates-millions-to-prove-there-is-no-god/

http://www.darwinsmaths.com/


> Fifty years of faith and billions of dollars research grants in deference to the single gene / single phenotype thesis failed to demonstrate appropriate dividends in medical and behavioural genetics: the tale of the "selfish gene" is catalogued under fictional history.


----------



## spurrs and racks (Apr 3, 2019)

John 3:16

"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."

This is enough for me.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Does proving evolution count? My bible tells me who created man how woman was created, by God including where the animals came from. Here are millions spent just for that purpose at Harvard.
> https://answersingenesis.org/who-is...-allocates-millions-to-prove-there-is-no-god/
> 
> http://www.darwinsmaths.com/


I am shocked to my core that Answers in Genesis is not writing a favorable article towards science.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 3, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Does proving evolution count? My bible tells me who created man how woman was created, by God including where the animals came from. Here are millions spent just for that purpose at Harvard.
> https://answersingenesis.org/who-is...-allocates-millions-to-prove-there-is-no-god/
> 
> http://www.darwinsmaths.com/


Heres how Answers in Genesis plays you for a fool -
This is what Harvard is doing -


> Harvard is launching a research project to study how life began.


This is what Kevin Hambrain tells you they are doing -


> Harvard Allocates Millions to Prove There Is No God


He's banking (literally) on the fact that your beliefs wont allow you to see the difference.
And he's right.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Heres how Answers in Genesis plays you for a fool -
> This is what Harvard is doing -
> 
> This is what Kevin Hambrain tells you they are doing -
> ...


Walt, THANK YOU!


----------



## 660griz (Apr 4, 2019)

spurrs and racks said:


> John 3:16
> 
> "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."
> 
> This is enough for me.



For God so loved the world that he drowned everything on it, created the most horrible diseases and viruses, and kills millions every day. Created people that know nothing of him so they can be tortured forever when they die. Promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape.

This is enough for me.


----------



## spurrs and racks (Apr 4, 2019)

"The Crucifixion
…33When they came to the place called The Skull, they crucified Him there, along with the criminals, one on His right and the other on His left. 34Then Jesus said,“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up His garments by casting lots. 35The people stood watching, and the rulers sneered at Him, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.”… "

Man will devour himself.............

As will the sins of man..........

I am a luck one. I have been shown God is real. No rhetoric from non-believers can change that. 

If I am wrong, I am ashes, no more no less. If you are wrong, well I don't want to be in your boat. It is my hope you will find God.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 4, 2019)

660griz said:


> For God so loved the world that he drowned everything on it, created the most horrible diseases and viruses, and kills millions every day. Created people that know nothing of him so they can be tortured forever when they die. Promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape.
> 
> This is enough for me.


No that’s the democratic party and what atheist believe.

But if that’s your security blanket for the night


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2019)

spurrs and racks said:


> "The Crucifixion
> …33When they came to the place called The Skull, they crucified Him there, along with the criminals, one on His right and the other on His left. 34Then Jesus said,“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up His garments by casting lots. 35The people stood watching, and the rulers sneered at Him, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.”… "
> 
> Man will devour himself.............
> ...


Why do you think there are only two options? It is neat how you rule out the other possibilities.
You may be worshipping the wrong god and may spend eternity suffering also.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No that’s the democratic party and what atheist believe.
> 
> But if that’s your security blanket for the night


Any believer of another god can think that way also. Dems and Atheists...
Priceless


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Any believer of another god can think that way also. Dems and Atheists...
> Priceless


Again, other gods have and never will be a concern of mine......I waste no thoughts and spend zero effort on them. Regardless if they exist or not has absolutely no influence on what I choose to believe or not believe. I’m just that secure in my choice.

But my church says that anyone that claims that God promotes the trash that’s stated above is wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Again, other gods have and never will be a concern of mine......I waste no thoughts and spend zero effort on them. Regardless if they exist or not has absolutely no influence on what I choose to believe or not believe. I’m just that secure in my choice.
> 
> But my church says that anyone that claims that God promotes the trash that’s stated above is wrong.


I don't care what concerns you only that you are falsely lumping believers of other gods and agnostics as Atheists or worse, Democrats. Whether it concerns you or not does not negate the fact that other people do believe in those others gods and if their interpretation of your religious handbook is something other than yours it does not automatically make them Atheists or Democrats.

Tell your church to read the Bible. That trash is in there and it was done by their God.
People would be better off thinking for themselves instead of relying on their Church to do it for them.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I don't care what concerns you only that you are falsely lumping believers of other gods and agnostics as Atheists or worse, Democrats. Whether it concerns you or not does not negate the fact that other people do believe in those others gods and if their interpretation of your religious handbook is something other than yours it does not automatically make them Atheists or Democrats.
> 
> Tell your church to read the Bible. That trash is in there and it was done by their God.
> People would be better off thinking for themselves instead of relying on their Church to do it for them.


Oh now we have issues with lumping??? As in “Christians”........ sound familiar???
My church isn’t in the news with allegations, I think I will stick to their beliefs and condemn that, what about your former church?

Absolutely it’s in there, but the way you understand it doesn’t mean you’re correct.

Edited to add: I realize the point you’re wanting to make but my response was to 660 and shouldn’t have been taken as an “accurate statement” of fact that means only atheists and democrats believe that. He and I don’t get in depth with our disagreements......they’re mostly just one line trash talks that should only be taken as just that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Oh now we have issues with lumping??? As in “Christians”........ sound familiar???
> My church isn’t in the news with allegations, I think I will stick to their beliefs and condemn that, what about your former church?
> 
> Absolutely it’s in there, but the way you understand it doesn’t mean you’re correct.
> ...


No it doesnt sound familiar.

I was baptized in a Catholic church and 20 years later I got married in a Catholic church which was the Church my wife belonged to. Set foot in them less than a dozen times in between.
I attended Sunday School, Confirmation and  Sunday Church Services at Zion Lutheran Church a Protestant Church
Tell me Spotlite...What About My Former Church...Exactly?

"Absolutely its in there.." but it doesn't mean what it says...! Awesome explanation. , So tell me how you are correct in the interpretation and understanding of what is written in the pages of the Bible and others are not.


Now I not only have to look out for failed sarcasm but inaccurate trash talking One Liners.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No it doesnt sound familiar.
> 
> I was baptized in a Catholic church and 20 years later I got married in a Catholic church which was the Church my wife belonged to. Set foot in them less than a dozen times in between.
> I attended Sunday School, Confirmation and  Sunday Church Services at Zion Lutheran Church a Protestant Church
> ...


For starters, who for and why was that written? And what major thing happened that set the stage for us to NOT live that way today? We don’t even sacrifice lambs anymore......there’s a reason. It’s NOT promoted just because it’s history. You’re screaming the same thing the left are screaming about the U.S. Flag.....we used to have slaves, we don’t anymore......our Flag doesn’t promote racism. Get over the history.....

I don’t know about your former church, it was a question, not a statement.

And it’s not failed sarcasm and inaccurate trash talk......its proof that when someone is trolling with a biased agenda with nothing but intention to belittle something.....they’ll interject themselves into the middle to see if the fish are biting....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> For starters, who for and why was that written? And what major thing happened that set the stage for us to NOT live that way today? We don’t even sacrifice lambs anymore......there’s a reason. It’s NOT promoted just because it’s history. You’re screaming the same thing the left are screaming about the U.S. Flag.....we used to have slaves, we don’t anymore......our Flag doesn’t promote racism. Get over the history.....
> 
> I don’t know about your former church, it was a question, not a statement.
> 
> And it’s not failed sarcasm and inaccurate trash talk......its proof that when someone is trolling with a biased agenda with nothing but intention to belittle something.....they’ll interject themselves into the middle to see if the fish are biting....


For starters it was written by men who wished to start a new religion around a man who had no intentions of starting a new religion.

It is impossible to forget the history of something that never actually happened.

I am screaming?  Sacrifice?? Every Sunday Christians all over the world do a sacrificial ritual which was taken from other Pagan sources as a way to link the old pagan beliefs to the new religion.
I am not talking about our Flag. Don't try to associate me with something that has nothing to do with a bad analogy on your end. The flag whining  leftists and biblical sacrifice stories are in no way similar. I am talking about what IS in your holy book. The flag whiners try to associate a symbol for something that it never was.

I would ALMOST believe that you were asking an innocent question about my former Church had you not started it with. "My church isn’t in the news with allegations, I think I will stick to their beliefs and condemn that, what about your former church?"
Am I to believe that you would start a conversation asking about someone else's Church with an opening sentence like that UNLESS you were IMPLYING that "their" church was full of allegations??  It was a crack at the Catholic church which you wrongly assumed was "my" church at one time.
"Hi, my name is ______ and my church isn't in the news for being full of Allegations, what about yours?"
Yep sounds like an innocent way to start a convo without implying anything..


Trolling...? In a thread where I have been involved in with multiple posts on page after page...?
Is that more sarcasm or trash talk?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> For starters it was written by men who wished to start a new religion around a man who had no intentions of starting a new religion.
> 
> It is impossible to forget the history of something that never actually happened.
> 
> ...


If it never happened then why are you leaving that little small window open just in case you missed something? That’s why I said you’re biased. I can look at evolution with an objective view and leave the option open that maybe being formed from dust could be that organism that science says we evolved from. I’m actually ok with that, I’m even ok with the earth being older, much older than a lot of Christians tell us it is. Where I have second guesses is science can’t identify anything they find to be around 20,000, 60,000, or 200,000 years old........it’s always “at least millions”. You on the other hand have absolutely no positive possibilities for religion. You’re not being objective with it as you claim.

No, although some do, but “Christians” all over the world aren’t doing any sacrificial rituals.....does that lumping thing sound familiar now????

Bad analogy or not.....whining over something that was several hundred, maybe thousands of years ago or in your opinion didn’t ever happen....... is still whining.

I’m not sure what you should believe. I stated my church condemns that trash, you say that the God that my church worships promotes it. I’m saying you’re wrong because we condemn it. 

Good point on trolling. I will have to think on which one of those apply and update you 

Now you know that we will never see eye to eye on religion


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If it never happened then why are you leaving that little small window open just in case you missed something?


I never said that I was leaning towards any specific god. I have ruled Christianity out



Spotlite said:


> That’s why I said you’re biased. I can look at evolution with an objective view and leave the option open that maybe being formed from dust could be that organism that science says we evolved from. I’m actually ok with that, I’m even ok with the earth being older, much older than a lot of Christians tell us it is. Where I have second guesses is science can’t identify anything they find to be around 20,000, 60,000, or 200,000 years old........it’s always “at least millions”. You on the other hand have absolutely no positive possibilities for religion. You’re not being objective with it as you claim.


Science can very accurately date many things as to it's age.
I had positive possibilities for religion for a solid 20 years(or at least as long back as I could remember being a believer), then objective possibilities for another 20 years. The last 9 years whatever remains has been dwindling as quickly as the stuff I find which negates it.



Spotlite said:


> No, although some do, but “Christians” all over the world aren’t doing any sacrificial rituals.....does that lumping thing sound familiar now????


Do Christians all over the world(notice I did not say EVERY Christian) take communion?



Spotlite said:


> Bad analogy or not.....whining over something that was several hundred, maybe thousands of years ago or in your opinion didn’t ever happen....... is still whining.


Whining? 
I am using the very words from the book that Christianity bases it's beliefs from.
I am pointing out events in that book.
I am using the very things that you(and others) are incapable of letting go despite it happening or not several hundred or several thousands of years ago.
You use those events from so long ago as if to prove a point and then say that I shouldn't use those events because they are from so long ago..



Spotlite said:


> I’m not sure what you should believe. I stated my church condemns that trash, you say that the God that my church worships promotes it. I’m saying you’re wrong because we condemn it.


I am not saying the God you or your Church worships promotes it. I am using the same words that is in the very book that both you and your Church uses to show that your God perpetrates it! He brought it about and Carried it out.




Spotlite said:


> Good point on trolling. I will have to think on which one of those apply and update you


I am chock full of good points on this entire discussion.



Spotlite said:


> Now you know that we will never see eye to eye on religion


We landed on the moon too, tell me something else nobody knows.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Do Christians all over the world(notice I did not say EVERY Christian).......



Really???? Interesting........Did you happen to notice that I didn’t even say “every” Democrat or atheist or even Christians all over the world in the other post  lol ? Funny how you felt the need to point that out in your post and overlook it in mine???

I’m smart enough to recognize the difference between a discussion and a circular argument....I bow out


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2019)

> For God so loved the world that he drowned everything on it, created the most horrible diseases and viruses, and kills millions every day. Created people that know nothing of him so they can be tortured forever when they die. Promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape.
> 
> This is enough for me.





Spotlite said:


> No that’s the democratic party and what atheist believe.
> 
> But if that’s your security blanket for the night


"The Democratic Party"...sounds like the ENTIRE Democratic Party. How does that not encompass All?



> For God so loved the world that he drowned everything on it, created the most horrible diseases and viruses, and kills millions every day. Created people that know nothing of him so they can be tortured forever when they die. Promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape.
> 
> This is enough for me.





Spotlite said:


> No that’s the democratic party and what atheist believe.
> 
> But if that’s your security blanket for the night



It SURE sounds like you were specifically meaning that if that is how a person thinks then they are an Atheist, not that ALL Atheists think that way.
I pointed  out that people who believe in other gods but not your god can think like that about your god, but since they already believe in a god or gods...they are not Atheists.

Now...
"Christians all over the world"  means that there are Christians who are spread out all over the world that do the sacrifice ritual but it certainly does not mean or imply that I am saying ALL Christians do it.  I did not say The Christian Religion like you said The Democratic Party.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> "The Democratic Party"...sounds like the ENTIRE Democratic Party. How does that not encompass All?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok you got me. We will leave THE Democratic Party out of this one. You’ve now convinced me that Atheist do think that God promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape. It’s said here many times by atheists, and yourself (post 71). Actually, I quoted a post on here that said that......imagine that  I’d love to hear an atheist say differently and disagree with that “trash”. Know any links???


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok you got me. We will leave THE Democratic Party out of this one. You’ve now convinced me that Atheist do think that God promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape. It’s said here many times by atheists, and yourself (post 71). Actually, I quoted a post on here that said that......imagine that  I’d love to hear an atheist say differently and disagree with that “trash”. Know any links???


I don't think that God promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape. I dont think God promotes anything.
But the dudes who wrote the Bible lived in a time when those things were not "offensive" like they are today and their writings reflect that.
The words are there.
They are either God's words or they are not.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think that God promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape. I dont think God promotes anything.
> But the dudes who wrote the Bible lived in a time when those things were not "offensive" like they are today and their writings reflect that.
> The words are there.
> They are either God's words or they are not.



I see what you did there lol

Ok bullet read this:
“But the dudes who wrote the Bible lived in a time when those things were not "offensive" like they are today and their writings reflect that”

Just let that part sink in so the next time a meaningless gesture is made about the bad from history and a meaningless comment is replied to it, it might keep the cow trails shorter.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No that’s the democratic party and what atheist believe.
> 
> But if that’s your security blanket for the night



I am an atheist and a republican. Now what? Security blanket? Says the folks that pray for protection to an imaginary sky person.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 5, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think that God promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape. I dont think God promotes anything.
> But the dudes who wrote the Bible lived in a time when those things were not "offensive" like they are today and their writings reflect that.
> The words are there.
> They are either God's words or they are not.


Good point Walt. Like you stated, folks think the Bible is the word of God so...

Spotlight, the bible promoting slavery is well documented and even used by folks in the past to justify slavery here. 

As Walt pointed out, when I say God promoted, I really mean, the Bible promotes. Assuming the Bible is still considered word of God. This is slowly changing but, you tell me what you think. 
I can provide evidence of all I claim. (from the Bible) You just let me know when ready.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

660griz said:


> I am an atheist and a republican. Now what? Security blanket? Says the folks that pray for protection to an imaginary sky person.


So you fit the bill....”atheist”. I did say atheist AND democrats says those things.

Security blanket.....my bad, I apologize.....I had you confused with someone that has a sense of humor cheers


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

660griz said:


> Good point Walt. Like you stated, folks think the Bible is the word of God so...
> 
> Spotlight, the bible promoting slavery is well documented and even used by folks in the past to justify slavery here.
> 
> ...



Read Walt’s post again......slowly.

Those things aren’t promoted.....if it was......it would be happening right now by the majority of the Christian world. 

Although it was in a time in a society where it was acceptable, we are not living in those days any longer. Christians understand this, and atheist such as Walt understand this. 

Based on your thought process, the USA promotes slavery because we had slaves when we were founded. But somehow I bet that’s different or a bad analogy. But after all, it’s in the history books, we had them, brought them, sold them, etc.....

At least get your historical writings in context to whom they apply if you’re going to be a critic of the story.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok you got me. We will leave THE Democratic Party out of this one. You’ve now convinced me that Atheist do think that God promotes slavery, pedophilia, genocide and rape. It’s said here many times by atheists, and yourself (post 71). Actually, I quoted a post on here that said that......imagine that  I’d love to hear an atheist say differently and disagree with that “trash”. Know any links???


Spotlite, you are not understanding what I am clearly saying.
An Atheist who reads that contents of the bible  may very well think that the God of that religion does promote rape, slavery, genocide, etc etc...
But thinking that way DOES NOT make them an Atheist. A total non belief that a God of any sort does not exist in any way is what makes them an Atheist.
What I am telling you about your statement is...
A person who is Agnostic or a person who believes in another God may very well think exactly like the statement that was made saying God promotes slavery, rape, etc etc etc. because of the way it is written in the Bible... But that does not make those people Atheists.
They believe in another totally different god or are unsure if a God exists at all, but they are just using what is written in the bible to form an opinion.

Just because someone does not believe in the Christian god and speaks negatively about the contents of the Bible or the actions of your God does not make them an Atheist. And I mentioned that because you seem to not understand what an Atheist is because you lumped everyone who thinks negatively about the God you worship into two categories. 
1. They must belong to The Democratic Party
2. Atheists.
You are wrong about both .

I think exactly like 660griz said and I am a life long registered Republican and I am an Agnostic.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Read Walt’s post again......slowly.
> 
> Those things aren’t promoted.....if it was......it would be happening right now by the majority of the Christian world.
> 
> ...


You are a little off track so let me clarify -
I don't believe God promotes those things or promotes anything because I don't think its been proven that there is a God or gods.
And I do agree that modern Christianity (churches etc) does NOT promote slavery, rape etc etc.
However those subjects are in the Bible with them being, at a very minimum, "acceptable".
Theres only 2 ways to go from there -
1. If the Bible is God's word then God found/finds them, at a very minimum, acceptable.
2. God does not find them acceptable and the Bible does not accurately reflect what God thinks and is not God's word.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I see what you did there lol
> 
> Ok bullet read this:
> “But the dudes who wrote the Bible lived in a time when those things were not "offensive" like they are today and their writings reflect that”
> ...


Ok spotlite read this:
Those writings show that an Omniscient and Omnipotent being had exactly ZERO to do with the men writing them or the contents within.
Otherwise, such a being would have foreseen the problems and adjusted accordingly.
At what point did the standards change and why didn't your God amend the writings?

Let that sink in next time you want to brag about some Nonexistent,  nonOmniscient and nonOmnipotent being who cant forsee or do anything for itself.

If the contents of the bible are so outdated, behind the times and non applicable to today (IE we are better than those who wrote it and the deities it is written about) why do you still not only follow it but defend it and spread those same words, yet expect others to pay no attention to it or hold those words to the same standards you do??


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> So you fit the bill....”atheist”. I did say atheist AND democrats says those things.
> 
> Security blanket.....my bad, I apologize.....I had you confused with someone that has a sense of humor cheers


But you did not mention that Agnostics and believers in other gods besides yours also say the same thing.

You make it sound like anyone who talks negatively about your God is a Democrat or an Atheist, meanwhile in the real world there are Plenty of Democrats that believe just like you do and plenty of non Atheists that think your God and the contents of your bible is nonsense and immoral. 

But i get it, i get it now..."we" are supposed to know that what you mean is not how you write it.. it is our fault for not being able to pick up on weak sarcasm, jokes, sense of humor, etc etc.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> You are a little off track so let me clarify -
> I don't believe God promotes those things or promotes anything because I don't think its been proven that there is a God or gods.
> And I do agree that modern Christianity (churches etc) does NOT promote slavery, rape etc etc.
> However those subjects are in the Bible with them being, at a very minimum, "acceptable".
> ...


My point is your reference to understanding how things that once were acceptable as a way of life......


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> But you did not mention that Agnostics and believers in other gods besides yours also say the same thing.
> 
> You make it sound like anyone who talks negatively about your God is a Democrat or an Atheist, meanwhile in the real world there are Plenty of Democrats that believe just like you do and plenty of non Atheists that think your God and the contents of your bible is nonsense and immoral.
> 
> But i get it, i get it now..."we" are supposed to know that what you mean is not how you write it.. it is our fault for not being able to pick up on weak sarcasm, jokes, sense of humor, etc etc.


My God bullet, I didn’t mention Ethiopians either......but that don’t mean they cant, can, might, might not, etc.....


----------



## j_seph (Apr 5, 2019)

Bullet are you sure you are not


> Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> My God bullet, I didn’t mention Ethiopians either......but that don’t mean they cant, can, might, might not, etc.....


Which Ethiopians??
^ that is sarcasm ^


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Ok spotlite read this:
> Those writings show that an Omniscient and Omnipotent being had exactly ZERO to do with the men writing them or the contents within.
> Otherwise, such a being would have foreseen the problems and adjusted accordingly.
> At what point did the standards change and why didn't your God amend the writings?
> ...


If the nonexistent character doesn’t exist as you claim, I meant I haven’t even thought about the tooth fairy since my kids were about 3....


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Which Ethiopians??
> ^ that is sarcasm ^


Lol ?Yes that’s sarcasm....and pretty good lol.

And I hope you do realize that I’m not trying to be difficult. I get what what you’re saying, but to me there’s a difference in promotes and promoted.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Bullet are you sure you are not


No, you are right I SHOULD be more clear since this day and age is all about individual Identity.

I am an Agnostic Almost Atheist but not Democrat Former Believer Baptised Catholic Confirmed Protestant Married in Catholic Church Barber Shooter Hunter Reloader Fisherman Bullethead Married Loyal Middleaged White Male of Mostly Lithuanian German Descent with hints of Polish and Welsh who attended Kindergarten to 12th in Public School who Married an Irish Slovak Woman and Fathered 3 sons 2 of Which Attended Public school and Then Graduated from Catholic HS while the 3rd Son Attended Catholic Shool Until 4th Grade when he then Went to Public School. I also Enjoy Participating in Online AAA Forums because As I Set Out to Prove the Contents of the Bible My Belief In a God Diminished Because The Evidence Does Not Support It. I am 99.99999%  Convinced There Is No God of any Sort But I Do Not Know 100% For Sure.
Oh and I like Liver and All the Veggies but dont eat Eggs or Drink Coffee.

Is that Enough of a pinpoint description or do I need to be more specific?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If the nonexistent character doesn’t exist as you claim, I meant I haven’t even thought about the tooth fairy since my kids were about 3....


If according to you I should disregard the contents of the Bible because they are in the past,  outdated, and no longer should be held to modern standards....why don't you take your own advice?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If according to you I should disregard the contents of the Bible because they are in the past,  outdated, and no longer should be held to modern standards....why don't you take your own advice?



I’m speaking of a “non existent” character. I ignore those. 

For the rest, I’m not saying disregard anything. We can’t erase, ignore or pretend...But there’s no promoting of some of that stuff as it’s being falsely claimed here. If it was being promoted it would be actively carried out as a common way of life. That’s not happening. 

If all if this is real, those folks will be judged for their works for things commonly accepted in their society and we will be for ours.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m speaking of a “non existent” character. I ignore those.
> 
> For the rest, I’m not saying disregard anything. We can’t erase, ignore or pretend...But there’s no promoting of some of that stuff as it’s being falsely claimed here. If it was being promoted it would be actively carried out as a common way of life. That’s not happening.
> 
> If all if this is real, those folks will be judged for their works for things commonly accepted in their society and we will be for ours.


History of the world and Christianity shows that those things were carried out and still is today albeit in smaller numbers. But still, when it is carried out the words of the bible are used as the justification.  Slavery, not so much here in the USA but in 3rd world countries it happens. Here in the USA same sex relations, incestuous acts happen and are not universally overlooked by the entire Christian community.  Genocide still happens.
The facts do not support what you are saying.


----------



## j_seph (Apr 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No, you are right I SHOULD be more clear since this day and age is all about individual Identity.
> 
> I am an Agnostic Almost Atheist but not Democrat Former Believer Baptised Catholic Confirmed Protestant Married in Catholic Church Barber Shooter Hunter Reloader Fisherman Bullethead Married Loyal Middleaged White Male of Mostly Lithuanian German Descent with hints of Polish and Welsh who attended Kindergarten to 12th in Public School who Married an Irish Slovak Woman and Fathered 3 sons 2 of Which Attended Public school and Then Graduated from Catholic HS while the 3rd Son Attended Catholic Shool Until 4th Grade when he then Went to Public School. I also Enjoy Participating in Online AAA Forums because As I Set Out to Prove the Contents of the Bible My Belief In a God Diminished Because The Evidence Does Not Support It. I am 99.99999%  Convinced There Is No God of any Sort But I Do Not Know 100% For Sure.
> Oh and I like Liver and All the Veggies but dont eat Eggs or Drink Coffee.
> ...


Least now we know what/whom we are dealing with. Daddy said they'd be folks like you LoL'n


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Least now we know what/whom we are dealing with. Daddy said they'd be folks like you LoL'n


If it took that for you to piece it together...

Tell Daddy he was right, John Wick isn't the only guy the Boogeyman fears.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 5, 2019)

bullethead said:


> History of the world and Christianity shows that those things were carried out and still is today albeit in smaller numbers. But still, when it is carried out the words of the bible are used as the justification.  Slavery, not so much here in the USA but in 3rd world countries it happens. Here in the USA same sex relations, incestuous acts happen and are not universally overlooked by the entire Christian community.  Genocide still happens.
> The facts do not support what you are saying.


If it’s happening less I don’t think that supports your stance. But point taken.

Let’s not forget that lumping thing again. Remember, poachers and hunters use the same regs. In general, you can shoot a deer over bait. Read that literally and nothing else into consideration and see which category you of the two types above you land.....

Now, I’m cutting grass for my imaginary friends house. See ya.

Oh....just thought of this....you read the same Bible and misinterpret or make it fit you’re agenda too so......welcome to their world.(sarcasm lol)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol ?Yes that’s sarcasm....and pretty good lol.
> 
> And I hope you do realize that I’m not trying to be difficult. I get what what you’re saying, but to me there’s a difference in promotes and promoted.


Spotlite,
I can and Do take those writings for what they are. Which is a collection of ancient writings that reflect the actions and beliefs of the cultures and is a reflection of their thoughts.
I do not hold those people accountable for what their world was then.
I Embrace History, and do not try to Erase History because without recognizing what was we are destined to repeat it.

When a Supreme Being especially one of the magnitude contained within the pages of the bible and the one that Christians claim has the powers it has  is introduced into the mix is where the Cherry picking of this counts but this doesn't has to stop. Once a God is linked to being responsible for the writing and content it changes the game completely.  A believer can no longer say "believe this but not that" and blame humans for some of the bad and uneasy parts then give credit to the God for all the good and joyful parts.

To an outsider, whether or not they do not believe in a god at all, are unsure about a god or believe in a totally different god, the contents of what is written in the bible is taken at face value and it really is a reflection of the people, culture and times....until someone says...And God! That changes the game.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If it’s happening less I don’t think that supports your stance. But point taken.


The point is that is is happening 



Spotlite said:


> Let’s not forget that lumping thing again. Remember, poachers and hunters use the same regs. In general, you can shoot a deer over bait. Read that literally and nothing else into consideration and see which category you of the two types above you land.....


Baiting is illegal here where I hunt in Pa. But where legal, I have no problem with it. 
The line is drawn in the lumping thing when someone introduces a supposed Supreme Being into the mix.




Spotlite said:


> Now, I’m cutting grass for my imaginary friends house. See ya.


Is he away?
Just Not Home today?
Unable?
Has he ever done it himself?




Spotlite said:


> Oh....just thought of this....you read the same Bible and misinterpret or make it fit you’re agenda too so......welcome to their world.(sarcasm lol)



I do not have an agenda. 
There is absolutely no standard for interpretation so how am I or anyone misinterpreting it? Believers in it cannot agree.
Again, among humans, I find that normal. Introduce a God...and well there should be nothing to scrutinize,  misinterpret or not understand 100%.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite,
> I can and Do take those writings for what they are. Which is a collection of ancient writings that reflect the actions and beliefs of the cultures and is a reflection of their thoughts.
> I do not hold those people accountable for what their world was then.
> I Embrace History, and do not try to Erase History because without recognizing what was we are destined to repeat it.
> ...


I think there’s some confusion with the Bible being the “Word of God”......but not in the way some would like think.

The Bible is a book written of men who were inspired by God.....it contains the Word of God in many places......but every single literal word or phrase isn’t the Word of God.

Preachers are inspired......but everything coming from that pulpit isn’t a direct translation from God to the audience.

Yes it’s a reflection of culture and times ......to the insider we find it hard to phantom that an outsider doesn’t get that. I’m even willing to bet that some definitions of the same words we use now and they used then most likely do not mean the same thing.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Baiting is illegal here where I hunt in Pa. But where legal, I have no problem with it.
> 
> Is he away?
> Just Not Home today?
> ...


Good point on baiting. A different place, different people. It’s legal here also under certain circumstance. Having a problem with baiting or not was the idea, Just pulling that one piece out and hunting over it here might make you a poacher.......that’s the idea, (go find the rest of it)

And yes he was away. Had some atheist he didn’t like to go and blind.

You misinterpret it when you make it say what you want it to say without researching the rest of it. No beating around the bush with it, you know it’s a reflection of a previous culture. To stay bogged down in the mud with that and harping on believers not agreeing is an indication that you’re not objectively reading it.

Exactly where does it indicate that every believer will agree? I think you’ll find it to say some things such as those that will soon forget, pervert the gospel, false teachers, everyone that says Lord will not enter in.......yet you’re shocked that everyone isn’t in agreement??


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I think there’s some confusion with the Bible being the “Word of God”......but not in the way some would like think.
> 
> The Bible is a book written of men who were inspired by God.....it contains the Word of God in many places......but every single literal word or phrase isn’t the Word of God.
> 
> ...


A child with cancer can inspire others to cut their hair and donate it. But the child's spirit does not enter a person and guide them. The people felt compelled to take action on their own for a cause and the child was their inspiration but not their guide.

Are you saying that the men who penned the bible were inspired the same way as above, compelled to write but God offered no guidance or help BUT only sometimes and that sometimes is where it gets confusing...well only to the non believers and believers who don't agree with how you(as individual interpretations not universal)translate it?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Good point on baiting. A different place, different people. It’s legal here also under certain circumstance. Having a problem with baiting or not was the idea, Just pulling that one piece out and hunting over it here might make you a poacher.......that’s the idea, (go find the rest of it)
> 
> And yes he was away. Had some atheist he didn’t like to go and blind.
> 
> ...


Spotlite, all I do is research it for what it really says and the truth is that the majority of it is left open to such interpretations. 
If only non believers and people who didn't take the time to read and study it came up with all these various interpretations You would have a point, but Christians do not universally agree and there is no better example of that than in this forum and forums above.

It does not indicate that every believer will agree and that is one of the built in fail safes. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF  GOD (disclaimer: not everyone will agree, god gave us freewill and doesnt step in but he also steps in and hardens hearts to get desired results, there will be doubters, there will be people who will be blinded to the truth *see that free will thing again, and on and on and on and on, excuse after excuse as to why the contents do not live up to the claims it's followers constantly make).....well sometimes these are the words of God...


----------



## Israel (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I think there’s some confusion with the Bible being the “Word of God”......but not in the way some would like think.
> 
> The Bible is a book written of men who were inspired by God.....it contains the Word of God in many places......but every single literal word or phrase isn’t the Word of God.
> 
> ...



Personally (and I doubt that _it alone_ is my own experience) I have been pressed, forced, coerced to reconsider every "it" "the" "and" "for" "by" "in" "out"( I think you get my drift) when reading and considering. All the things/words/ideas/concepts that once appeared so self evident to my understanding as to be easily assumed, I have found always require no less light than what may present itself (or presented itself to my understanding) as the deepest of mysteries.

Admittedly this is a sorrow, or drain for some, even a pain for some, finding there is no room here for presumption, no room for "if I just study enough" I will get a handle on this. If any "bit" comes, it comes no less by revelation than any other matter, light being needed _at all times_, and for _all things._ I cannot escape this, nor do I hesitate to say it is all _absolutely senseless _to what considers itself so fully equipped by its own _sense_ of "sense" to make a right sense of it. The believer knows this experientially, experimentally, having these things worked out in his own little earthen laboratory. What I thought I knew, I did not, and at the very least "not as I aught".

But who _wants to_ live there? Who can? Knowing that what you believe you know is always up for rebuke, or refinement, and to such an end as what you thought you previously knew...is now shown vain and useless? How we want to "nail things down!". And...how we have.

The resurrection (if we agree it is that which is key to our faith), whose significance I am always set to seek to fathom, is a constant upending (up ending) of things I once assumed settled to my mind _as end,_ always _calls_ for a higher looking. The heights and depths of significance (that is to me settled of all significance) does not impart a presumption to know the "all of it", rather, it completely destroys, lays waste, displays as vanity this thing that in presumption believes a mere observation yields all there is to know. There is (as the believer knows) a call of participation. This is where things get "worked out" in the lab.

To say this sets us at odds "with the world" that we may view as unbelieving, is no less understood when we see how plainly this has set us at odds with even our very own self. There is always a fight (called the _good fight, _perhaps the only_ good fight_) of faith taking place, which if only seen as an outside work may yet await a bringing home to us so that we do not easily despise, dismiss, or condemn that which seems so easily ascribed as "only the outside" to us. (If I could as easily turn myself inside out, as I so easily believe my insides are hidden, how much of reward has been received in answer to a thing, that if its all of inner workings and thoughts were plainly known, is so miserably, to itself, small in faith!)

Thus, there may be a teachable...moment. There is no place at all...for merit to be ascribed to self, and just as rightly, there can be no ground of dismissal of any perceived _as other self. _Obviously, this resurrection goes _far_ higher and _from_ deeper than presumption can show. Self is shown no less "mercy dependent" in all things, despite any appraisal of itself. Would it boast "but I am a Christian!"? I have believed in Jesus and confessed the resurrection!? Would it (the self) really like to have its quivering and trembling exposed when in circumstance it searched frenetically, frantically (as is so plainly known to God) for something, anything...to make a sense of the storm to which it was exposed? When shutters slammed and door bulged inward, when every (once delightful shade yielding tree) now threatened to fall on roof and collapse the whole of the house? Do any...do some...deny this? "Storms only come...for those others"? Perhaps such have not yet witnessed "some" of what took place in the garden.

No, I have "filled my pants" without shame or boast, it was all and only "what was done", what could not avoid being done...by a thing. A thing made of such small consciousness that when "made to touch" what could be _all of possible_ in circumstance and design found _far more_ than ever once able to be considered. The self...can lose itself. That one thing, till then, it was so supremely sure and confident it would always recognize, as its intimacy was believed unutterably uninterruptible. Till the stronger is made known...each man continues supremely presumptuous in presumption..._he knows _himself. And he will never, no never, not be ever made unable to "know himself".

And so what clamors for the necessity of "universality"...how that "a god" who could be "_the_ God" must universally present Himself as apprehend-able to all in such simplicity as undeniably _constant in all_, does. He is the God saying to man, "you do not understand any of what you believe you know, even, and specifically, and particularly...of that which you believe you know so well as to be utterly assumed...yourself." How the God who is all sense...saves what is manifestly made known to itself as having no sense of itself...whatsoever...is the mystery of which we boast. Because once a man is made to know...he even makes no sense to himself, first, and foremost of all, all else "outside" taking place, falls into place.

I know what presents itself as "knowing better", what surveys the world and creation finding no reason at all to it, or in it, except by exception and one exclusion...he believes he sees reason in himself...for even seeing it thus. It's a man like me, precisely...like me. Until the stronger appears.

Till then, that man believes he knows something about storms, and about the limits that he can senselessly ascribe to them...how that their containment are subject to his will of understanding.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

And these are the Storms of our Lives


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, all I do is research it for what it really says and the truth is that the majority of it is left open to such interpretations.
> If only non believers and people who didn't take the time to read and study it came up with all these various interpretations You would have a point, but Christians do not universally agree and there is no better example of that than in this forum and forums above.
> 
> It does not indicate that every believer will agree and that is one of the built in fail safes. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF  GOD (disclaimer: not everyone will agree, god gave us freewill and doesnt step in but he also steps in and hardens hearts to get desired results, there will be doubters, there will be people who will be blinded to the truth *see that free will thing again, and on and on and on and on, excuse after excuse as to why the contents do not live up to the claims it's followers constantly make).....well sometimes these are the words of God...


I can’t argue with this and there’s a reason.......

It’s a spiritual guidance..... Even states that there’ll be some that he says he never knew them. Broad is the way and narrow is the gate. Me sheep know my voice. Full of stories such as the 5 foolish virgins. Everyone that thumps their Bibles and rattles off scripture doesn’t have that “sealed” ticket.

To be surprised of that and go on record as studying and researching it’s contents  doesn’t add up.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I can’t argue with this and there’s a reason.......
> 
> It’s a spiritual guidance..... Even states that there’ll be some that he says he never knew them. Broad is the way and narrow is the gate. Me sheep know my voice. Full of stories such as the 5 foolish virgins. Everyone that thumps their Bibles and rattles off scripture doesn’t have that “sealed” ticket.
> 
> To be surprised of that and go on record as studying and researching it’s contents  doesn’t add up.


Who is surprised?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> A child with cancer can inspire others to cut their hair and donate it. But the child's spirit does not enter a person and guide them. The people felt compelled to take action on their own for a cause and the child was their inspiration but not their guide.
> 
> Are you saying that the men who penned the bible were inspired the same way as above, compelled to write but God offered no guidance or help BUT only sometimes and that sometimes is where it gets confusing...well only to the non believers and believers who don't agree with how you(as individual interpretations not universal)translate it?


But you can’t honestly say the spirit of God doesn’t enter into anyone other than yourself. 

The scriptures are also for correction; how many will read them that way and research their life to see if they’re living up to what they claim to be? Or use them to justify what they’re doing / not doing that they’re already questioning themselves about? 

That’s the difference.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I can’t argue with this and there’s a reason.......
> 
> It’s a spiritual guidance..... Even states that there’ll be some that he says he never knew them. Broad is the way and narrow is the gate. Me sheep know my voice. Full of stories such as the 5 foolish virgins. Everyone that thumps their Bibles and rattles off scripture doesn’t have that “sealed” ticket.
> 
> To be surprised of that and go on record as studying and researching it’s contents  doesn’t add up.


When you have a book that is about a God which represents the ultimate truth but do not have all the answers or can cover all the bases for all the variables against the contents,  the best Offense is a good Defense. Right off the bat say that although this stuff is true, there will be people who cannot see it, unworthy of it, those that will never know..etc etc etc. Cover the bases before the game starts. because you that you cannot win playing within the rules.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Who is surprised?


Well, you can’t get passed the fact that there are “believers” that don’t agree. If you’d researched the way you claim, that should be expected.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But you can’t honestly say the spirit of God doesn’t enter into anyone other than yourself.
> 
> The scriptures are also for correction; how many will read them that way and research their life to see if they’re living up to what they claim to be? Or use them to justify what they’re doing / not doing that they’re already questioning themselves about?
> 
> That’s the difference.


I can't honestly say there is a spirit of a god...or a god for a spirit to come from.
Nobody can.

How can writings correct when shown to be incorrect themselves?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Well, you can’t get passed the fact that there are “believers” that don’t agree. If you’d researched the way you claim, that should be expected.


I am passed it. I've found the reasons why through research inside and outside of the Bible. That is the difference , I do not use the source as my the only source.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> When you have a book that is about a God which represents the ultimate truth but do not have all the answers or can cover all the bases for all the variables against the contents,  the best Offense is a good Defense. Right off the bat say that although this stuff is true, there will be people who cannot see it, unworthy of it, those that will never know..etc etc etc. Cover the bases before the game starts. because you that you cannot win playing within the rules.


Lol it does cover the answers when you stop making it say things it’s not. 

I feel your pain though. I was in a deposition a few weeks ago. I didn’t even find it strange that there 7 lawyers in the room, and none of them had the same opinion. I wasn’t shocked because each one had an agenda to reach an outcome they wanted. 

Can I safely assume they’re all wrong, or is the regulation at question wrong???

We will find out what Judge has to say (if they don’t settle out of court)


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I can't honestly say there is a spirit of a god...or a god for a spirit to come from.
> Nobody can.
> 
> How can writings correct when shown to be incorrect themselves?


I can say there is.

I will give you that. It’s been proven that through translation that some things are missing, added, correctly, incorrectly, etc. 

But do you honestly think that’ll keep God pinched off and quiet? (taking into consideration of if he’s real or not)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I can.


Lolololol, you are in a special group of Billions who "can" just as good as you....for ALL the gods.
Yet not a single one can prove it beyond their own mind. That is where can ends and can't starts.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am passed it. I've found the reasons why through research inside and outside of the Bible. That is the difference , I do not use the source as my the only source.


I don’t think many use the Bible their soul source either.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Lolololol, you are in a special group of Billions who "can" just as good as you....for ALL the gods.
> Yet not a single one can prove it beyond their own mind. That is where can ends and can't starts.


Lol nope. I told you and many others have told you the same thing. You have no explanation either.

I’m still waiting on you to explain how it’s not a spiritual connection when situations I previously described to you about being in another state and having a man of God I’ve never met, seen or heard talk to me about things. Oh there’s ton of those stories so it’s not happen stance on a probability scale. . So when you get that one worked out, I and many others can give you more.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I will give you that. It’s been proven that through translation that some things are missing, added, correctly, incorrectly, etc.
> 
> But do you honestly think that’ll keep God pinched off and quiet? (taking into consideration of if he’s real or not)


So are you using the non translated, non missing, unadded,  correct source or the Close enough for Spotlite source?

Please, unpinch god and let him be heard...I'll wait


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol nope. I told you and many others have told you the same thing. You have no explanation either.
> 
> I’m still waiting on you to explain how it’s not a spiritual connection when situations I previously described to you about being in another state and having a man of God I’ve never met, seen or heard talk to me about things. Oh there’s ton of those stories so it’s not happen stance on a probability scale. . So when you get that one worked out, I and many others can give you more.


No explanation is just that. It is not insert the best guess or best hope.
God of the Gaps
If yours is real because of those happenings the others are as real.
If theirs do not count neither does yours.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I think there’s some confusion with the Bible being the “Word of God”......but not in the way some would like think.
> 
> The Bible is a book written of men who were inspired by God.....it contains the Word of God in many places......but every single literal word or phrase isn’t the Word of God.
> 
> ...





> but every single literal word or phrase isn’t the Word of God.


There's LOTS of Christians who would put that statement ^ in the "blasphemy" category.
My point being the predominant Christian belief is that there isn't a thing in the Bible that God didn't want in the Bible. We can debate about what "God's Word" really means but that's the bottom line.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> There's LOTS of Christians who would put that statement ^ in the "blasphemy" category.
> My point being the predominant Christian belief is that there isn't a thing in the Bible that God didn't want in the Bible. We can debate about what "God's Word" really means but that's the bottom line.


I’m sure there are. I agree, but I’m  speaking mainly to the idea that every single word is the literal Word of God as a quote.

The Bible contains the Word of God.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No explanation is just that. It is not insert the best guess or best hope.
> God of the Gaps
> If yours is real because of those happenings the others are as real.
> If theirs do not count neither does yours.


No comment on others. I don’t even worry about theirs being real or not.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So are you using the non translated, non missing, unadded,  correct source or the Close enough for Spotlite source?
> 
> Please, unpinch god and let him be heard...I'll wait


I’m asking if you’re reading anything objectively it means to remove you’re own opinions.

With that mindset, IF God is real, do you think a mans writing is going to interfere with his works?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No comment on others. I don’t even worry about theirs being real or not.


Exactly...but the reality is that their claims,experiences and feelings are just as real to them as you say yours are to you. But, to admit that would diminish yours so you have to block them out.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 6, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m asking if you’re reading anything objectively it means to remove you’re own opinions.
> 
> With that mindset, IF God is real, do you think a mans writing is going to interfere with his works?


I started out as a believer who wanted to enhance my opinions. I wanted the ammo to prove the nay sayers wrong. It backfired.

If god is real, none of us can fathom it let alone know it. All this guesswork and claims may very well be because of what I just said.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I started out as a believer who wanted to enhance my opinions. I wanted the ammo to prove the nay sayers wrong. It backfired.
> 
> If god is real, none of us can fathom it let alone know it. All this guesswork and claims may very well be because of what I just said.


This is a more realistic answer than that of the straight forward God isn’t.....

I can respect that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 7, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> This is a more realistic answer than that of the straight forward God isn’t.....
> 
> I can respect that.


But that is also why I say the god of the bible...and or any other god that humans claim to know all about which is based off of writings that influence others to think and believe exactly along the lines of those writings....Isn't.

It is why that I say I Don't Know IF or what type/kind of may be, but why I have no problem arguing against the specifics of all the people who claim to have it all figured out.....from a book written by ancient human cultures.....while believers all over the planet have the same experiences from other "gods"...who also happen to be from other ancient human written or oral stories...and their experiences mirror the specifics of those stories too.


----------



## Israel (Apr 8, 2019)

Why would a man resort to the very same things of which he accuses others?



> If god is real, none of us can fathom it let alone know it.



This is better stated "If god is real, my perception (of such a god that "could be") is such that none can fathom it let alone know it"

The believer never claims to know all of God (and the scripture bear out seeing through a glass darkly and knowing _in part_)...but the testimony is indeed that God has chosen to make Himself known in whatever measure He has chosen, and this measuring is to without limit in Jesus Christ. For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus as Lord.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2019)

Israel said:


> Why would a man resort to the very same things of which he accuses others?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is stated exactly as wanted......and yet you skip the very part where I mention the problem with scripture...and you disregard the validity of the testimony of believers in other gods while touting your own...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2019)

Speaking of interesting fossils..

*Dinosaurs’ Living **Descendants*
*China’s spectacular feathered fossils have finally answered the century-old question about the ancestors of today’s birds*


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaurs-living-descendants-69657706/


----------



## 660griz (Apr 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Read Walt’s post again......slowly.
> 
> Those things aren’t promoted.....if it was......it would be happening right now by the majority of the Christian world.


 That is a major leap there. If it was promoted by the bible it would be happening right now? Wow.



> Although it was in a time in a society where it was acceptable, we are not living in those days any longer. Christians understand this, and atheist such as Walt understand this.


 I understand it as well. Christianity had to evolve to exist. Seen anybody killed for working on Sunday lately?



> Based on your thought process, the USA promotes slavery because we had slaves when we were founded. But somehow I bet that’s different or a bad analogy. But after all, it’s in the history books, we had them, brought them, sold them, etc.....


 Bible, CURRENTLY promotes slavery. USA PROMOTED(past tense) slavery, as well as lots of countries back in the day. WE, and most of civilized society, learned better. My thought process is based on facts you can easily Google.



> At least get your historical writings in context to whom they apply if you’re going to be a critic of the story.


 Oh, the Bible doesn't apply to Christians? Is it obsolete? Are just the bad parts obsolete? Is the Bible just historical writings and not the word of God?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 8, 2019)

660griz said:


> That is a major leap there. If it was promoted by the bible it would be happening right now? Wow.
> 
> I understand it as well. Christianity had to evolve to exist. Seen anybody killed for working on Sunday lately?
> 
> ...


Oh yea Google is full of facts lol ?

Yes the Bible applies.......in context is the key......
And no, the Bible does not currently promote slavery. Further, slavery in those days were not the cotton picker slaves you’re referring to. Biased reading on Google can get you there, but actually understanding what you’re reading in the Bible itself as a whole and not cherry picking.......even a third grader could understand that slavery nor rape is currently being promoted by the Bible.

Carry on.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Oh yea Google is full of facts lol ?
> 
> Yes the Bible applies.......in context is the key......
> And no, the Bible does not currently promote slavery. Further, slavery in those days were not the cotton picker slaves you’re referring to. Biased reading on Google can get you there, but actually understanding what you’re reading in the Bible itself as a whole and not cherry picking.......even a third grader could understand that slavery nor rape is currently being promoted by the Bible.
> ...



I doubt that.  If given the text with no instruction I think a third grader would come to either the opposite conclusion or the conclusion that it is self contradictory (in many places).


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 8, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I doubt that.  If given the text with no instruction I think a third grader wioud come to either the opposite conclusion or the conclusion that it is self contradictory (in many places).



I have a lot of patience with many things, even disagreements about beliefs.... but perverting the Bible is not one of them.

It seems that the majority of what most call Christianity is condemning these acts. I say majority because of the common lumping that everyone is Christian if they say “Bible”

I believe its a reflection of the lack of understanding of those that can’t grasp “how” the Bible tells it’s full story.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I have a lot of patience with many things, even disagreements about beliefs.... but perverting the Bible is not one of them.
> 
> It seems that the majority of what most call Christianity is condemning these acts. I say majority because of the common lumping that everyone is Christian if they say “Bible”
> 
> I believe its a reflection of the lack of understanding of those that can’t grasp “how” the Bible tells it’s full story.



But you have that understanding.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Oh yea Google is full of facts lol ?
> 
> Yes the Bible applies.......in context is the key......
> And no, the Bible does not currently promote slavery. Further, slavery in those days were not the cotton picker slaves you’re referring to. Biased reading on Google can get you there, but actually understanding what you’re reading in the Bible itself as a whole and not cherry picking.......even a third grader could understand that slavery nor rape is currently being promoted by the Bible.
> ...



Denial is strong in this one.

_However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. _ (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

_When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. _ (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14) Rape and slavery in this one.
_As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you._

_This may shed some light for you too._

_https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/why-christians-supported-slavery.html_

_Now, after you have read all of the above and you still feel there is no validity in my statements well, then, carry on my wayward son. There is truth behind those rose colored glasses._


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 8, 2019)

660griz said:


> Denial is strong in this one.
> 
> _However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. _ (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> ...


Lol yea that sheds light for sure. As I said before. “Everyone that picks up a Bible is Christian”

But ok, you cherry picked story or two. Good job. Now explain them. The problem is you can’t explain the customs and laws of those people.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 8, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> But you have that understanding.


I certainly understand the fulfillment of the Law and how we are commanded to treat our neighbors, wives, brothers, etc. It has nothing to do with enslaving or raping them.

Not denying a past, but I am rejecting the idea of the ignorance of “currently promoting”

You can’t possibly claim to understand the fulfillment of the Law in its entirety and walk away believing that the Bible currently promotes those acts. If you do, it is a reflection that you didn’t understand it and it’s full purpose.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I have a lot of patience with many things, even disagreements about beliefs.... but perverting the Bible is not one of them.
> 
> It seems that the majority of what most call Christianity is condemning these acts. I say majority because of the common lumping that everyone is Christian if they say “Bible”
> 
> I believe its a reflection of the lack of understanding of those that can’t grasp “how” the Bible tells it’s full story.


I am sure that most atheists and Agnostics are more well read, versed and studied on the bible than "Christians".
You can google that if you want to, I don't mind


----------



## 660griz (Apr 8, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol yea that sheds light for sure. As I said before. “Everyone that picks up a Bible is Christian”
> 
> But ok, you cherry picked story or two. Good job. Now explain them. The problem is you can’t explain the customs and laws of those people.



So, you can cherry pick where God and/or Jesus says slavery is horrible.

Are you saying that I made a claim, cherry picked verses to prove it but, the overall message in the Bible is anti slavery, rape, etc?
Do you cherry pick and ignore the old testament?

I didn't want to fill up several pages. There is lots more.
Sounds like you want to go with 'history book' for the Bible. I am good with that.

Remember when you hear about sex trafficking in today's world. Context is key. Could be harmless.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 9, 2019)

660griz said:


> So, you can cherry pick where God and/or Jesus says slavery is horrible.
> 
> Are you saying that I made a claim, cherry picked verses to prove it but, the overall message in the Bible is anti slavery, rape, etc?
> Do you cherry pick and ignore the old testament?
> ...


Obviously you didn’t understand my comments. I didn’t expect you to, either.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 9, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am sure that most atheists and Agnostics are more well read, versed and studied on the bible than "Christians".
> You can google that if you want to, I don't mind


Self proclaimed assertion with zero evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Self proclaimed assertion with zero evidence.


Even with the green light to google you would rather go with what you think instead of what is. Talk about self proclaimed assertion...

https://boingboing.net/2010/09/28/american-atheists-an.html

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education.

The groups at the top of the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey were followed, in order, by white evangelical Protestants, white Catholics, white mainline Protestants, people who were unaffiliated with any faith (but not atheist or agnostic), black Protestants and Latino Catholics.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...gnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...-do-atheists-know-more-about-religion/344019/


*Well This Is Awkward,'*observes Truthdig's Ear to the Ground blog, noting that "Mormons and Jews also scored well, and, like Atheists, know more about Christianity than Christians."
*Atheist Effect Holds True When You Control for Other Factors, Too*  "Atheists and agnostics score particularly well on knowing something about world religions," notes Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution, although he also points to their high scores with knowledge of Christianity. "The effect remains even after controlling for education," he adds.
*The Lesson?*  "People believe in what they believe for social reasons and not because they actually know anything about what they believe," concludes blogger Half Sigma. "And the same applies to belief in global warming."
*Atheists Are Unsurprised*, reports The New York Times' Laurie Goodstein, who quotes the president of American Atheists: 
"I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people," Mr. Silverman said. "Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That's how you make atheists."​


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Self proclaimed assertion with zero evidence.


So, you were saying and Izzy was liking.....


----------



## Israel (Apr 10, 2019)

*A Physicist, a Mathematics Professor, and a Statistician go out on a hunting trip.*





They all spot a deer, sitting out in the open, totally exposed. The mathematics professor loads his rifle, shoots, and misses by 5 inches to the right. The shot shocks the deer and it freezes in place. The physicist then loads his rifle, shoots, and misses by 5 inches to the left. The statistician cries out with excitement "We got him, boys! Right between the eyes!"


----------



## Israel (Apr 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So, you were saying and Izzy was liking.....


Of course I liked it...you resorted to statistics.

(Did you really think that would be the unknown?)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> Of course I liked it...you resorted to statistics.


Yep I used statistics which point to the facts which totally refute spotlite's comment..which you happened to like before I used statistics...


----------



## Israel (Apr 10, 2019)

Of course you had to rely upon statistics.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> Of course you had to rely upon statistics.


And they worked to explain why I said what I did.
Try it sometime


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> Of course you had to rely upon statistics.


Statistics are not philosophical.
BOOORRRRIIING.....


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Obviously you didn’t understand my comments. I didn’t expect you to, either.


LOL! Good one. Nice chat.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2019)

Israel said:


> Of course you had to rely upon statistics.


You guys are hilarious. "Well, if you are going to resort to facts, this conversation is over."


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So, you were saying and Izzy was liking.....





Let me enlighten you on something.....part of what I do for a living is analyzing public feedback from certain messages that are required by the feds to be delivered and evaluated in my industry.

An analogy that the Auditors use when identifying valid results is “if you’re asking for the best tasting peanut butter, prove that only those that actually eat peanut butter were surveyed”

Just for the “Christian” portion of their survey.........can you, or they, at least prove those Christians are not 14 year olds that only go to church seasonally so they can play on the church league softball team????

The only thing factual about this is they surveyed people.

The Dems found out there’s no validity to their polls.....either ??


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2019)

660griz said:


> LOL! Good one. Nice chat.


Absolutely. Till next time ?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The only thing factual about this is they surveyed people.


https://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS) among a national sample of 3,412 adults living in the continental United States, 18 years of age or older, from May 19-June 6, 2010* (2,393 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 1,019 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 444 who had no landline telephone). Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.  

Interviewing 

All interviews were conducted using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system, which ensures that questions were asked in the proper sequence with appropriate skip patterns. CATI also allows certain questions and certain answer choices to be rotated, eliminating potential biases from the sequencing of questions or answers. 

For the landline sample, half of the time interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult male currently at home and the other half of the time asked to speak with the youngest adult female currently at home. If no respondent of the initially requested gender was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender who was currently at home. For the cell-phone sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone; interviewers verified that the person was an adult and could complete the call safely.  

In an attempt to maximize survey response, unless an interview was completed or a callback scheduled for a respondent at a phone number in the sample, each number was contacted approximately seven times at varied times of day and days of the week. Cellphone respondents also were offered a reimbursement of $5 to cover any costs of taking the call on their mobile phones. 

Sampling 

The survey of the full national population used “random digit dial” (RDD) methodology.  Samples of landline and cell phone exchanges were generated by Marketing Systems Group, a sister company of SSRS. The landline sample was “list-assisted,” meaning numbers were sampled from active “blocks” (area code plus three-digit exchange plus  two-digit block number) that contained at least three residential directory listings; this is  intended to exclude blocks dedicated for business or other nonresidential purposes.  

The cell sample was not list-assisted but was drawn from systematic sampling of blocks dedicated to wireless phones and shared-service blocks with no directory-listed landline  numbers. 

The sample of 3,412 respondents included interviews with a nationally representative sample of 3,013 adults as well as an oversample of 399 people who are Jewish, Mormon, atheist or agnostic.  One goal of the study was to attain sufficient numbers of interviews with members of these groups to permit reliable analysis of their religious knowledge. Oversampling was necessary because these groups account for a relatively small share of the overall population. Jews and Mormons each comprise roughly 1.7% of U.S. adults, according to the Pew Forum’s 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, while atheists and agnostics combined account for about 4% of the adult population, meaning that most surveys – even those based on large samples – do not include enough interviews with members of these groups to permit analysis of their views and characteristics.  

Oversampling was accomplished by recontacting respondents from previous SSRS  surveys. SSRS conducts nationally representative dual-frame (landline and cell phone) random-digit-dial surveys every week and asks respondents their religion; for this study, SSRS recontacted households it had reached in the preceding six months that contained at least one adult who reported being Jewish, Mormon or having no religion. Adults reached in those households were asked to confirm whether they were Jewish, Mormon, or atheist or agnostic and then the interview proceeded.  

In total, the sample includes 212 interviews with Jewish respondents (56 interviewed as part of the main national sample and 156 interviewed as part of the oversampling), 215 
Sampling Error 

Sample size 
Margin of sampling error (in percentage points) Total 3,412 +/- 2.5     Christian 2,528 +/- 2.5   Protestant 1,605 +/- 3.0     White evangelical 667 +/- 5.0     White mainline 490 +/- 5.5     Black Protestant 202 +/- 8.5   Catholic 679 +/- 5.0     White Catholic 484 +/- 5.5     Hispanic Catholic 117 +/- 11.0   Mormon 215 +/- 8.5 Jewish 212 +/- 8.5 Unaffiliated 546 +/- 5.5   Atheist/Agnostic 212 +/- 8.5   Nothing in particular 334 +/- 6.5 
Other religious groups, including Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, participated in the survey and are included in the estimates for the total population, though the survey did not include enough interviews to report on these groups separately. 
PEW RESEARCH CENTER‟S  FORUM ON RELIGION & PUBLIC LIFE May 19-June 6, 2010 
58 PEW FORUM ON RELIGION & PUBLIC LIFE 

interviews with Mormons (54 interviewed as part of the national sample and 161 as part of the oversampling), and 212 interviews with atheists and agnostics (130 interviewed as part of the national sample and 82 as part of the oversampling). The survey included a total of 74 self-described atheists, by themselves too small a group for reliable statistical analysis, so those individuals were aggregated with the 138 agnostics for this analysis.  

The accompanying table shows the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey. 
 Weighting 

A two-stage weighting design was applied to ensure an accurate representation of the national population.   

The first stage, the base or design weight phase, included four steps. The first was a correction for the disproportionate oversamples and was created by dividing the percentage of each of the four oversampled groups (Jews, Mormons, atheists and agnostics) by their corresponding percentage in the main RDD sample. (Atheists and agnostics were treated as separate groups in this stage of the weighting process.) The second step was a correction for the unequal probabilities of selection that result from some households having more qualified adults than others; households reporting having a single adult received a weight of 1, while those with two or more adults received a weight of 2 (cell respondents were given the average weight of 1). Third, a weight of 0.5 was applied to all respondents who reported having both a landline and a cell phone, as they were twice as likely to be sampled as respondents who only had one phone type. Finally, the recontact sample was provided a propensity weight to account for the potential bias associated with recontacting (panel bias). These four corrections (sample type, household adults, dual frame and recontact propensity) were then multiplied together to arrive at a final base (design) weight. 

The data were then put through a second weighting stage, a post-stratification sample balancing routine utilizing national estimates from the Census’ Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for age, race and ethnicity, gender, education and region of the country; from the decennial census for population density; and from the National Health Interview Survey for telephone usage (landline-only, cellonly or dual usage according to whether the respondent mostly uses the cell phone or uses the landline regularly).  
59 U.S. RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE SURVEY 


www.pewforum.org 

Sample Disposition and Response Rate 
The overall response rate for this study is 17.2% using formula “RR3” of the Standard Definitions of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (see  http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions1 for detail  on this calculation). Following is a full disposition of the sample selected for this survey: 

     Sample Dispositions        Landline Cell Oversample Total Total phone numbers used 50,076 35,466 2,575 88,117        
 Eligible, Interview (Category 1)       Complete 2,010 1,003 400 3,413*        
 Eligible, non-interview (Category 2)       Refusal                 4,279 4,407 265 8,951   Break off 752 686 52 1,490   Physically or mentally unable/incompetent 118 128 3 249   No interviewer available for needed language 1 0 2 3        
 Unknown eligibility, non-interview (Category 3)       Always busy 834 88 1 923   No answer 5,790 5,518 159 11,467   Answering machine-don't know if household 4,518 5,910 215 10,643   Call blocking 124 68 12 204   Technical phone problems 300 46 0 346   No screener completed 17 1,726 198 1,941        
 Not eligible (Category 4)       Fax/data line 2,713 631 43 3,387   Non-working number 25,894 13,827 297 40,018   Business, government, other organizations 2,329 629 23 2,981   No eligible respondent 333 799 250 1,382   Quota filled 64 0 655 719        Interview Outcomes     
 I=Complete interviews  2,010 1,003 400 3,413* 
 P=Partial interviews  0 0 0 0 
 R=Refusal and break off  5,031 5,093 317 10,441 
 O=Other 119 128 5 252 
 e=Estimated proportion of cases of unknown      eligibility that are eligible 0.186 0.282 0.363 0.225 
 UH=Unknown household  11,566 11,630 387 23,583 
 UO=Unknown other 17 1,726 198 1,941 
       Response Rate 3     
 I/((I+P) + (R+NC+O) + e(UH+UO) ) 20.0% 10.0% 42.8% 17.2% 
       *One respondent qualified for the survey via the oversampling of Jews, Mormons and atheists/agnostics but was later determined not to belong to any of these groups and was subsequently dropped from the dataset.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2019)

Awesome find 660griz...but for Spotlite's sake, so he can analyze it further...do they like peanut butter ???


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Awesome find 660griz...but for Spotlite's sake, so he can analyze it further...do they like peanut butter ???


Atheist and agnostics preferred smooth. All religious preferred nutty. 
Weird.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

660griz said:


> Atheist and agnostics preferred smooth. All religious preferred nutty.
> Weird.



When possible, I add nuts to my Extra Crunchy.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2019)

660griz said:


> The sample of 3,412 respondents included interviews with a nationally representative sample of 3,013 adults as well as an oversample of 399 people who are Jewish, Mormon, atheist or agnostic.
> In total, the sample includes 212 interviews with Jewish respondents
> 
> 
> ...


Awesome.
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, participated in the survey. 

But bullets claim was this - “I am sure that most atheists and Agnostics are more well read, versed and studied on the bible than "Christians” 


Y’all do know the difference don’t you???? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Awesome find 660griz...but for Spotlite's sake, so he can analyze it further...do they like peanut butter ???




For Spotlite’s sake, still waiting on you to validate your claim ?

Only interested in atheist, agnostics being more well versed than Christians. You know, the ones that follow the teachings of Jesus???


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Awesome.
> Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, participated in the survey.
> 
> But bullets claim was this - “I am sure that most atheists and Agnostics are more well read, versed and studied on the bible than "Christians”
> ...




Did you look to see if it's true or false?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> For Spotlite’s sake, still waiting on you to validate your claim ?
> 
> Only interested in atheist, agnostics being more well versed than Christians. You know, the ones that follow the teachings of Jesus???


It tells you the sample size and even breaks it down into different Christian Denominations and Race.


----------



## redwards (Apr 11, 2019)

FWIW.....Guess I need to study up on Mother Teresa's religious roots, Jewish Sabbath, and Hinduism....missed 3 of the questions....


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It tells you the sample size and even breaks it down into different Christian Denominations and Race.


I get that, you’re right. Add all the Christian groups up and take an average lol

Most Baptist don’t know what Catholics teach. Most Mormons don’t know what Baptist teach. 

Find 50 preachers of one denomination that’s preached at least 10 years and poll them. Set some parameters, ensure you’re polling the right people with the same amount of experience (not seasonal softball players or Easter Sunday members).....if you’re looking for validity.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I get that, you’re right. Add all the Christian groups up and take an average lol
> 
> Most Baptist don’t know what Catholics teach. Most Mormons don’t know what Baptist teach.
> 
> Find 50 preachers of one denomination that’s preached at least 10 years and poll them. Set some parameters, ensure you’re polling the right people with the same amount of experience (not seasonal softball players or Easter Sunday members).....if you’re looking for validity.


Unless the contents and words of the Bible change between the denominations, you are making yet more excuses in order to avoid the results.  
If I were you I would ask your God why he can't get his information to his flock universally and correctly in a way that they can understand it.

If your excuses had merit then the poll would show that Atheists were only able to best some Christian denominations while others thrived(probably your denomination due to the Correct Pastor teaching the Correct doctrine and all to people who are able to understand it Correctly..eye roll here...). But yet somehow the Atheists who were polled are able to understand it as a whole and do better than all the Christians who were polled as a whole. And I am sure those Atheists who were once believers, were not all from the same Christian denomination. So how could they know it better while Christians cannot?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2019)

The answer is that the Atheists,  no matter of what former denomination they belonged to and the Atheists who never were once believers take the time to research ,study, scrutinize  and educate themselves, while by your very admittance,  believers just go with what whoever tells them and it ends there.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> For Spotlite’s sake, still waiting on you to validate your claim ?
> 
> Only interested in atheist, agnostics being more well versed than Christians. You know, the ones that follow the teachings of Jesus???


Hey spot, exactly which ones and how many follow the teachings of Jesus?


----------



## Madman (Apr 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It tells you the sample size and even breaks it down into different Christian Denominations and Race.


Geographical location enters into the mix also, as does available resources.


----------



## j_seph (Apr 16, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The answer is that the Atheists,  no matter of what former denomination they belonged to and the Atheists who never were once believers take the time to research ,study, scrutinize  and educate themselves, while by your very admittance,  believers just go with what whoever tells them and it ends there.



Yet the Atheist, regardless of denomination and those who never believed are doing the same thing! They are going by what someone else told someone else. They believe in test or studies done by someone else. IMO the difference in you and us is that we are willing to stand behind our beliefs that there is a God. Yet someone else comes out with a new theory on something y'all change your minds and say yup that is correct.
_EX:The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that some 19th century scientists erroneously thought to exist on Mars. First detected in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, modern telescopes and imaging technology completely debunked the myth. The “canals” were actually found to be a mere optical illusion._

_EX:Spontaneous generation or equivocal generation is an obsolete principle concerning the origin of life from inanimate matter. The hypothesis was brought out by Aristotle who advocated the work of earlier natural philosophers. It was proven wrong in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, drawing influence from Francesco Redi who was an early proponent of germ theory and cell theory. _

_EX:The aether (or ether) was a mysterious substance that was thought to transmit light through the universe. The idea of a luminiferous aether was debunked as experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light, and later Einstein’s special theory of relativity, came along and entirely revolutionized physics. _

See we believe in God, we are not willing to accept/believe there is not one. Folks accepted the above and many more just to be debunked and have to change their minds to agree with another man that what once was was all a lie/mistake. One day those canals y'all keep seeing is going to show that all these years they were an optical illusion to y'all.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Yet the Atheist, regardless of denomination and those who never believed are doing the same thing! They are going by what someone else told someone else. They believe in test or studies done by someone else. IMO the difference in you and us is that we are willing to stand behind our beliefs that there is a God. Yet someone else comes out with a new theory on something y'all change your minds and say yup that is correct.
> _EX:The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that some 19th century scientists erroneously thought to exist on Mars. First detected in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, modern telescopes and imaging technology completely debunked the myth. The “canals” were actually found to be a mere optical illusion._
> 
> _EX:Spontaneous generation or equivocal generation is an obsolete principle concerning the origin of life from inanimate matter. The hypothesis was brought out by Aristotle who advocated the work of earlier natural philosophers. It was proven wrong in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, drawing influence from Francesco Redi who was an early proponent of germ theory and cell theory. _
> ...


It certainly says a lot about each group doesn't it?
One goes with the best available evidence the other goes with what they want or need to true.


----------



## j_seph (Apr 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It certainly says a lot about each group doesn't it?
> One goes with the best available evidence the other goes with what they want or need to true.


I will stick with the evidence that is never changing myself.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2019)

j_seph said:


> I will stick with the evidence that is never changing myself.


Faith over Facts. Best Wishes


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe God created everything at the same time and then stuck it in the timeline as he saw fit. Yet we do know from just something as simple as dandelions that they have a sort of free will or natural selection.
> 
> If you cut a yard full of dandelions, with a lawn mower, tall ones and short ones, eventually the tall ones won't live long enough to reproduce. Eventually you'll just have a yard full of short dandelions. This process is called Natural Selection. Perhaps it is God giving nature a bit of free will like he does man as well.
> 
> Plants and animals mutate. Is that God or God giving nature free will?



Perhaps it is the natural consequence of reproduction and variation. No need to insert a deity into the equation. It works without that.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Unless the contents and words of the Bible change between the denominations, you are making yet more excuses in order to avoid the results.
> If I were you I would ask your God why he can't get his information to his flock universally and correctly in a way that they can understand it.
> 
> If your excuses had merit then the poll would show that Atheists were only able to best some Christian denominations while others thrived(probably your denomination due to the Correct Pastor teaching the Correct doctrine and all to people who are able to understand it Correctly..eye roll here...). But yet somehow the Atheists who were polled are able to understand it as a whole and do better than all the Christians who were polled as a whole. And I am sure those Atheists who were once believers, were not all from the same Christian denomination. So how could they know it better while Christians cannot?


Now you’re getting somewhere. The problem with lumping is show me how many Westboro folks are in this Christian group, or show me how many once a year Easter Sunday egg hunters are in this Christian group. If you want a legitimate poll, these things that have to be established. What your poll might be saying is Atheist know more than those that claim...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Now you’re getting somewhere. The problem with lumping is show me how many Westboro folks are in this Christian group, or show me how many once a year Easter Sunday egg hunters are in this Christian group. If you want a legitimate poll, these things that have to be established. What your poll might be saying is Atheist know more than those that claim...


Spotlite, enlighten us on WHO actually is a "REAL" Christian  and what the criteria is to be a "REAL" Christian.
Until you weed out the wannabes and the claimers the 1.2 Billion number comes down to YOU and which other five?
Thank you for admitting that Christianity, like every other religious group, is made up of a majority of people who as individuals think they are 4th in rank after the Holy Spirit and think they are all WAY MORE REAL than the next Christian in line, but in actuality are a majority of fakers who know nothing about their religion or being a Christian.

I get it ....."the majority who make up the Christian faith are not real" ....today this is your excuse to brush off why the stats do not favor your religion.
Tomorrow it will be Christianity is mostest bestest because "WE" are the majority.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, enlighten us on WHO actually is a "REAL" Christian  and what the criteria is to be a "REAL" Christian.
> Until you weed out the wannabes and the claimers the 1.2 Billion number comes down to YOU and which other five?
> Thank you for admitting that Christianity, like every other religious group, is made up of a majority of people who as individuals think they are 4th in rank after the Holy Spirit and think they are all WAY MORE REAL than the next Christian in line, but in actuality are a majority of fakers who know nothing about their religion or being a Christian.
> 
> ...


Your poll should have established who was who. You and I have no idea who your poll, polled. You’re not new to this, you know there are tons of those who claim to be a believer and a non believer depending on the circumstances at the time. 

If you can take pride in that poll go for it. Before I will hang my hat on a poll that claims that Christians know more about the Bible than Athiest do, I want to know if these are real Atheist or just poll answers over a phone. I am willing to bet there are a good number of “Christians” that got locked up today and can’t even tell what church they attend.......or the last time they even prayed. 

Statistics are foolish and unreliable.

And you’re welcome. But to make sure Im pointing out your agenda.......I’m sure that Christians are not the only ones that frown on Westboro Baptist. There are a lot deeper issues for anyone that thinks that is Christianity.

And you’re not doing Atheist any favors here, make sure you’re not saying that Atheist know more than that group lol. Most 10th graders do as well!!! And correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t most Atheist the ones beating the chest and pointing at Christians to go get educated on the Bible lol ????

And if you believe everyone that claims it and their actions speak otherwise, that’s called “gullible”.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Your poll should have established who was who. You and I have no idea who your poll, polled. You’re not new to this, you know there are tons of those who claim to be a believer and a non believer depending on the circumstances at the time.
> 
> If you can take pride in that poll go for it. Before I will hang my hat on a poll that claims that Christians know more about the Bible than Athiest do, I want to know if these are real Atheist or just poll answers over a phone. I am willing to bet there are a good number of “Christians” that got locked up today and can’t even tell what church they attend.......or the last time they even prayed.
> 
> ...


Spot, I cannot accurately say you are at the top of Biblical knowledge here in the AAA forum and that poll seems to mirror the participants in here. Both in Biblical knowledge and History of Christianity


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spot, I cannot accurately say you are at the top of Biblical knowledge here in the AAA forum and that poll seems to mirror the participants in here. Both in Biblical knowledge and History of Christianity


But I’m not looking to “impress” you with anything, either. There’s a time and a place to dig deep and it’s not with someone who’s already determined their outcome on the topic. 

My only point is your little poll isn’t what you need it to be. Atheist may or may not know more than some, most, or all Christians. But that poll doesn’t validate that in the manner it was conducted. 

I will ask you again, show us how many of these “Christians” in this poll are part of the Westboro Baptist church that even some Atheist, particular one here, would not consider “Christian”. 

I’m not too prideful, hard headed, or shameful to admit I learn something every day, so someone, anyone, even Atheist knowing more than I do is not a disgrace to me at all. But, are you too prideful or hard headed to admit that your poll can’t extract some “wantta bees” from their results that’s an attempt to prove Atheist know more about the Bible than Christians? 

If you’re going to win a poll, don’t you want to at least know you beat the right people??


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But I’m not looking to “impress” you with anything, either. There’s a time and a place to dig deep and it’s not with someone who’s already determined their outcome on the topic.
> 
> My only point is your little poll isn’t what you need it to be. Atheist may or may not know more than some, most, or all Christians. But that poll doesn’t validate that in the manner it was conducted.
> 
> ...


My poll?

What can you tell us about the Atheists that were in this poll?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/Survey-of-Bible-Knowledge-ATHEISTS-BEAT-EVANGELICALS.html


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> My poll?
> 
> What can you tell us about the Atheists that were in this poll?



I’m assuming the poll in the above post -  Atheist beat Evangelicals.?

What changed?? What can you tell us about the Atheist? Who are they smarter than? Is their oversampling results really all that great, an accurate representation and reflection of what you’re wanting to prove??

“Jews, Mormons and atheists/agnostics were oversampled to allow analysis of these relatively small groups.

Nearly six-in-ten U.S. adults say that religion is "very important" in their lives, and roughly four-in-ten say they attend worship services at least once a week.

[NEWTONSTEIN NOTE: Since there is only seating capacity for 18% of Americans to attend a house of Worship, one must assume that the 40% is "intentions" - not actual -

> Even them, seating capacity is rarely full,

> However, actual checking of neighborhoods at random in the Midwest - neither the Bible Belt south nor the North-East or North-west - shows between 8-10% actually attend worship any given Sunday of decent weather].”

I tried to tell you this before you rambled off the deep end about real and fake Christians......


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But I’m not looking to “impress” you with anything, either. There’s a time and a place to dig deep and it’s not with someone who’s already determined their outcome on the topic.
> 
> My only point is your little poll isn’t what you need it to be. Atheist may or may not know more than some, most, or all Christians. But that poll doesn’t validate that in the manner it was conducted.
> 
> ...





> I will ask you again, show us how many of these “Christians” in this poll are part of the Westboro Baptist church that even some Atheist, particular one here, would not consider “Christian”.


Im probably that one you mentioned above as its no secret what I think about those scumbag, waste of good air, piles of feces, morons. Satan would be right proud of the thoughts Ive had and the actions Ive considered when I see them with their signs at military funerals etc.
However they are, in fact, Christians. They believe in/worship the Christian God and therefore are technically Christians.
Just as they would technically be Atheists or whatever group they belong to.
They are just the tiniest minority, worst possible example, make the rest look bad, of the group that they belong to.
"Good" Christians, such as yourself, have to accept that. You cant disqualify them just because they dont act right.
If they were an A/A I would say the exact same thing.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Im probably that one you mentioned above as its no secret what I think about those scumbag, waste of good air, piles of feces, morons. Satan would be right proud of the thoughts Ive had and the actions Ive considered when I see them with their signs at military funerals etc.
> However they are, in fact, Christians. They believe in/worship the Christian God and therefore are technically Christians.
> Just as they would technically be Atheists or whatever group they belong to.
> They are just the tiniest minority, worst possible example, make the rest look bad, of the group that they belong to.
> ...


They’re  not a “bad” Christian, a follower of Christ is being Christian. The Bible is pretty clear on the fruits of the spirit.

I, we, don”t qualify or disqualify anyone. Only their actions do. And, I’m familiar with the cop-out of “better Christians” or real and fake when a Christian makes that statement.

But if you’re neighbor says he’s an honest man and steals your horse......his actions made him a thief.

Maybe I’m considered as being judgmental by saying this, but according to the fruits of the spirit, they’re a fine example of what it means when he says there will be many in that day that he said he never knew. They can continue to profess, but their actions will simply continue to prove otherwise. That’s just my opinion based on what I understand scripturally.

And that’s sort of what I’ve been trying to drive home. “Identify” the right people. It doesn’t bother me if Atheist know more about the Bible than I do, one reason I attend Wednesday night Bible study is because I don’t know everything. But I do know that one can memorize and not understand anything he just memorized.

But yes, you’re who I was referring to. I remember some previous post about that group........you and I share the same disgust for them.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 26, 2019)

What actions disqualify someone from being a Christian?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 26, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> They’re  not a “bad” Christian, a follower of Christ is being Christian. The Bible is pretty clear on the fruits of the spirit.
> 
> I, we, don”t qualify or disqualify anyone. Only their actions do. And, I’m familiar with the cop-out of “better Christians” or real and fake when a Christian makes that statement.
> 
> ...


Here's why we are going to see it differently -
You are applying all that "fruits of the spirit" and "he never knew" stuff.....
Im going strictly off the definition of Christian.
Its the difference in terminology issues I mentioned to Ambush in the other thread.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 26, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> What actions disqualify someone from being a Christian?


And "who" is qualified to make that decision?
I remember what I was taught......


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 26, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> And "who" is qualified to make that decision?
> I remember what I was taught......



I’m sure we will get a scriptural answer to both questions.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 26, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I’m sure we will get a scriptural answer to both questions.



Properly discerned, no doubt.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 26, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Properly discerned, no doubt.



Maybe even several different scriptural answers, and all properly discerned.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 26, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> What actions disqualify someone from being a Christian?


I guess it depends on who believes what.

I’m basing my belief in Galatians 5.......fruits of the spirit and works of the flesh being contrary to one another. 

IF you’re going to live in the spirit......ALSO walk in it. 

I realize everyone doesn’t believe scripture, but if you’re going to claim you do and claim you live by it.....Galatians is pretty cut and clear.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I guess it depends on who believes what.
> 
> I’m basing my belief in Galatians 5.......fruits of the spirit and works of the flesh being contrary to one another.
> 
> ...



What are these fruits of the spirit? Not your definition but a scriptural definition. The Bible says all have sinned and fallen short so that can’t be your criteria for disqualifying someone as a Christian.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 30, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> What are these fruits of the spirit? Not your definition but a scriptural definition. The Bible says all have sinned and fallen short so that can’t be your criteria for disqualifying someone as a Christian.


Biblically - love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.

And......it’s not me that qualifies or disqualifies anyone. All have sinned, but continuing in it or changing makes a difference. Repentance is turning around, if you keep on doing what you’ve been doing......what did you turn from?

But again, it’s not me that decides.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Biblically - love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.
> 
> And......it’s not me that qualifies or disqualifies anyone. All have sinned, but continuing in it or changing makes a difference. Repentance is turning around, if you keep on doing what you’ve been doing......what did you turn from?
> 
> But again, it’s not me that decides.



Yet with the possible exception of faith, nonbelievers also exhibit those “fruits” yet they aren’t Christians. Seems to me you folks want to cast a wide net with your all have sinned and salvation by grace message but then want to disown some members of your flock when it’s convenient.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Biblically - love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.
> 
> And......it’s not me that qualifies or disqualifies anyone. All have sinned, but continuing in it or changing makes a difference. Repentance is turning around, if you keep on doing what you’ve been doing......what did you turn from?
> 
> But again, it’s not me that decides.


Bringing in the conversation from another thread, how do you know anyone or anything beyond human decides?
We have established that nobody knows anything for sure. We have established that even believers dont know that a specific god even "is" for sure. And we definitely agreed that the contents of the bible is untrustworthy.

So you say something else decides ..according to what? Faith?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 30, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Yet with the possible exception of faith, nonbelievers also exhibit those “fruits” yet they aren’t Christians. Seems to me you folks want to cast a wide net with your all have sinned and salvation by grace message but then want to disown some members of your flock when it’s convenient.


No one said you have to be a Christian to posses any or all of those. Those don’t make you a Christian. With the exception of faith, a non believer can posses every one of those fruits.

It’s saying Christians are NOT supposed to posses the works of the flesh that are listed in the same chapter.

Your argument is with those that cast that net and disown.

If you see the fruits of the spirit and not the works of the flesh with the actions of westboro Baptist.......you shouldn’t be questioning me.....I don’t justify them with anything.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 30, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Bringing in the conversation from another thread, how do you know anyone or anything beyond human decides?
> We have established that nobody knows anything for sure. We have established that even believers dont know that a specific god even "is" for sure. And we definitely agreed that the contents of the bible is untrustworthy.
> 
> So you say something else decides ..according to what? Faith?


I don’t decide anything. Peoples actions do. The example I always use is stealing a horse .....what made the man a thief? How do you know? 

We haven’t agreed that the contents of the Bible are untrustworthy.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t decide anything. Peoples actions do. The example I always use is stealing a horse .....what made the man a thief? How do you know?
> 
> We haven’t agreed that the contents of the Bible are untrustworthy.


Peoples actions decide they do...with WHO?

Spotlite,  you yourself told me that you believe God started evolution which goes against a 6 day Creation.
So which is it?

Do you trust that the Universe and everything in it was made in 6 days? Or had it got it's start 13+ Billion years ago and formed to what it is today?

Was the biblical Adam the first man?
Or can modern man be traced back 20,000+ years and his ancestors back 2 million years?


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 30, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Peoples actions decide they do...with WHO??


What do YOU think of a man that steals horses? If a man intentionally kills someone.....what do YOU think he is? And based on WHAT?


bullethead said:


> Spotlite,  you yourself told me that you believe God started evolution which goes against a 6 day Creation.
> So which is it??


To be clear, I didn't state that I believe that God started evolution - I simply asked questions designed for those that claim to know what is and what isn`t  - "Why can’t God use evolution" 


bullethead said:


> Do you trust that the Universe and everything in it was made in 6 days? Or had it got it's start 13+ Billion years ago and formed to what it is today??


 See above. Also my other comment from that same post - "evidence points to the evolution model (as we understand evidence and evolution)"Do we really have it figured out? So you got a skull that you believe is older than what most Christians believe man is..........ace in the hole for evolution? Did you consider that per the creation story......man came along after the animal? Have you got all of that timing figured out? Do you really know what a day was? Think it was 24 hours? Bible says one day is with the Lord as a thousand years. So how long was that day? I ask this to the creationist and the evolutionist.        



bullethead said:


> Was the biblical Adam the first man?
> Or can modern man be traced back 20,000+ years and his ancestors back 2 million years?


 See above. Plus, I think the earth and man are much older than the 6 to 7 thousands years................but it is hard to imagine the 2 million years. Somehow there`s a gap with science........we discover things that are at least a million years old.....we cant seem to find anything 5,000 years old. Seriously, we are digging around hunting things, we cant find the younger stuff on the top layers???? Where does it go for a million years? BTW, did you know that we lost 1/3 of the earths food producing land to pollution and erosion in just 40 years? Imagine what would happen in 2 million!. I would ask you again - "Why can’t God use evolution"

Yea I question both sides that claim to know what is and what isn`t........and I will restate my claim - I only know what I believe.


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> What do YOU think of a man that steals horses? If a man intentionally kills someone.....what do YOU think he is? And based on WHAT?


I think the man who steals is a thief.
If a man intentionally kills someone is a killer.
And they are both based off of the situation, local laws and the particular society that it happens in as to what  punishment will be once the circumstances are heard.




Spotlite said:


> To be clear, I didn't state that I believe that God started evolution - I simply asked questions designed for those that claim to know what is and what isn`t  - "Why can’t God use evolution"


Oh. Ok



Spotlite said:


> See above. Also my other comment from that same post - "evidence points to the evolution model (as we understand evidence and evolution)"Do we really have it figured out? So you got a skull that you believe is older than what most Christians believe man is..........ace in the hole for evolution? Did you consider that per the creation story......man came along after the animal? Have you got all of that timing figured out? Do you really know what a day was? Think it was 24 hours? Bible says one day is with the Lord as a thousand years. So how long was that day? I ask this to the creationist and the evolutionist.


Yes a day is 24hrs.
So now you are using "Bible Time".
Are you saying that the people in the Bible who were said to have lived to HUNDREDS of years old, which we know is utter nonsense are now Hundreds of Thousands of years old because every day they were alive was a Thousand years? Jesus was 33 THOUSAND years old??
Spotlite you are not using that math as justification for your whacked out excuses are you?
Explain to us when a day is actually 24hrs in the Bible and When a day is 1000 years. I am positive it is at the convenience of the person who has to use those numbers to try to wiggle themselves out of not acknowledging that the Bible then does not add up to or is accurate to what we know now.
A day is 1000 years..
Jonah lived in a great fish for THOUSANDS OF YEARS not a few days.
The Jews wandered the desert for 40,000 years.
Jesus has risen on the 3000th day.

Classic Spotlite, I mean it. You have hit a new level.



Spotlite said:


> See above. Plus, I think the earth and man are much older than the 6 to 7 thousands years................but it is hard to imagine the 2 million years. Somehow there`s a gap with science........we discover things that are at least a million years old.....we cant seem to find anything 5,000 years old. Seriously, we are digging around hunting things, we cant find the younger stuff on the top layers???? Where does it go for a million years? BTW, did you know that we lost 1/3 of the earths food producing land to pollution and erosion in just 40 years? Imagine what would happen in 2 million!. I would ask you again - "Why can’t God use evolution"


You cannot imagine 2 million years but you can imagine and obviously believe in men that lived to be hundreds of now thousands of years old, talking donkeys, talking snakes, invisible sky buddies and zombie reanimation...but yeah that Science stuff is to far fetched.
Ever find an arrowhead? How old?
Science, anthropology and archeology is LOADED with items that are dated at 5000 years and younger.
You saying there isnt is another one of your far fetched bullsnort assertions from ignorance.
Grab a shovel a dig for yourself. Things ARE found on the top layers.

Wherever land is taken away from one area it is deposited in another. Constant cycle of change. The earth now does not look exactly as it did 1000 years ago, nor 100,000 years ago nor 2 million, nor 2 billion, but it WAS here despite your uneducated statements based off of the facts that you refuse to inform yourself a d acknowledge the information that IS available.
"Why cant God use evolution "
The same reasons why you will not ever see Scooby and Shaggy driving the Mystery Machine.




Spotlite said:


> Yea I question both sides that claim to know what is and what isn`t........and I will restate my claim - I only know what I believe.


And you believe that (based off of your claims above) out of sheer ignorance of what is actually going on in the world around you because you do not want to believe it.


----------



## atlashunter (May 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No one said you have to be a Christian to posses any or all of those. Those don’t make you a Christian. With the exception of faith, a non believer can posses every one of those fruits.
> 
> It’s saying Christians are NOT supposed to posses the works of the flesh that are listed in the same chapter.
> 
> ...



You completely missed the point. Those qualities cannot be a litmus test for who is and isn’t a Christian if non-Christians also exhibit them.


----------



## Spotlite (May 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I think the man who steals is a thief.
> If a man intentionally kills someone is a killer.
> And they are both based off of the situation, local laws and the particular society that it happens in as to what  punishment will be once the circumstances are heard.
> 
> ...


And correct on the man above....that’s how actions determine. 

For the rest:
From the same post you were previously confused about, I also stated this - “And I have been asked “where did God start” from an evolutionist. I can’t answer that any more than you or anyone else can answer where did the universe come from”

Your comment to that was - “I with you so far”

Has your position changed????? 

Keep in mind, I’m simply asking questions to those (believer and non believer) that claim to know what is and what isn’t. And, it’s not called wiggling......I would ask either one of you that uses any portion of the Bible for or against your position, have you looked at all of the Bible?

If you’re confused with my questions, I have no comment on the “sheer ignorance” statements.


----------



## atlashunter (May 1, 2019)

And I bet everyone on this forum can think of Christians that were lacking in those areas. WBC May be an outlier in their delivery but their message with respect to homosexuals and what becomes of nations who turn away from god is very much within the christian mainstream. So is their core belief that salvation comes through Christ.


----------



## Spotlite (May 1, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You completely missed the point. Those qualities cannot be a litmus test for who is and isn’t a Christian if non-Christians also exhibit them.


It’s not a test to see who is or isn’t. Those things DONT make you a Christian. I stated that fact.

The Christian isn’t supposed to posses the works of the flesh. There’s more criteria in being a Christian than possession of the fruits of the spirit. Being a good person isn’t just it.


----------



## Spotlite (May 1, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> And I bet everyone on this forum can think of Christians that were lacking in those areas. WBC May be an outlier in their delivery but their message with respect to homosexuals and what becomes of nations who turn away from god is very much within the christian mainstream. So is their core belief that salvation comes through Christ.


Most of us know the difference in the Charles Manson’s and the Billy Graham’s.


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> And correct on the man above....that’s how actions determine.
> 
> For the rest:
> From the same post you were previously confused about, I also stated this - “And I have been asked “where did God start” from an evolutionist. I can’t answer that any more than you or anyone else can answer where did the universe come from”
> ...


Spotlite,  a man can steal horses to resale and make money or a man can steal a horse because he was lost, tired, hungry and wanted to find a way back to town.
A man can kill someone out of vengeance and anger or he can kill someone in war.
Not every situation is the same.
Who's Judging??

I still dont know a god let alone where such a creature would start other than in the mind of an individual.

You are wiggling.
You did not explain where a day is 24hrs and a day is a thousand years. Which is which? You are using them to fit without being sure of any.

You know we look at and are familiar with ALL of the Bible,  that is why at least I feel the way I do about it.

You skip over the things that prove you wrong.
A day is 1000 years and Science doesn't find things 5000 years old or younger...
Are you serious? Or will  you admit that you are stating these things without ever checking into them?


----------



## atlashunter (May 1, 2019)

Here you go spot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi

Something that is 5,000 years old. I don’t know where you got the idea that we haven’t found anything of that age.

Not sure if you are making the claim god used evolution but if he did you’ve got some issues with that book you call the word of god.


----------



## atlashunter (May 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Most of us know the difference in the Charles Manson’s and the Billy Graham’s.



Of course. Just like I know that not all Muslims are terrorists. Many of them are genuinely good people. That doesn’t mean I’m buying the claim that islamists aren’t “real” Muslims when their core religious beliefs are the same. There is a broad spectrum of behavior between naughty and nice. Nobody falls exclusively on one end or the other in every facet of life and given that people of all faiths fall on various parts of that spectrum at various times it doesn’t work in deciding who is and isn’t a believer. That is based on _belief._


----------



## atlashunter (May 1, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It’s not a test to see who is or isn’t. Those things DONT make you a Christian. I stated that fact.
> 
> The Christian isn’t supposed to posses the works of the flesh. There’s more criteria in being a Christian than possession of the fruits of the spirit. Being a good person isn’t just it.



You’re attempting to way oversimplify this. Sin is presumably not a fruit of Christians and yet all Christians continue to sin throughout their lives. Does that mean they aren’t really Christians? You guys can’t even agree on whether some behaviors are actually sins or not. WBC might point the naughty finger at you for not being as obedient as them in proclaiming gods message. They might consider themselves closer to following the Bible than you. Differences aside, your core belief in salvation through Christ is the same. Your belief that homosexuality is an abomination to god is the same. You may not always sing the same tune but don’t pretend you aren’t singing from the same sheet of music.


----------



## atlashunter (May 1, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite,  a man can steal horses to resale and make money or a man can steal a horse because he was lost, tired, hungry and wanted to find a way back to town.
> A man can kill someone out of vengeance and anger or he can kill someone in war.
> Not every situation is the same.
> Who's Judging??
> ...



This whole a day is really a thousand years thing is such a weak argument for apologists to use for several reasons. Genesis 1:5 defines day and night and calls an evening and a morning a day. There is no way from this passage you would get 365,000 cycles of light and dark as one day! Secondly, the verse comparing a day to a thousand years says it is “as” a thousand years to the lord. It doesn’t say it actually is a thousand years. Lastly even if we grant the whole day actually means a thousand years argument where does that leave the creationist? With a 7,000 year creation! Is that really an improvement over a 7 day creation in the context of science that indicates a 13 billion year old universe and 4-5 billion year old earth? It gets you no where. You may as well stick with the 7 day creation story.


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> This whole a day is really a thousand years thing is such a weak argument for apologists to use for several reasons. Genesis 1:5 defines day and night and calls an evening and a morning a day. There is no way from this passage you would get 365,000 cycles of light and dark as one day! Secondly, the verse comparing a day to a thousand years says it is “as” a thousand years to the lord. It doesn’t say it actually is a thousand years. Lastly even if we grant the whole day actually means a thousand years argument where does that leave the creationist? With a 7,000 year creation! Is that really an improvement over a 7 day creation in the context of science that indicates a 13 billion year old universe and 4-5 billion year old earth? It gets you no where. You may as well stick with the 7 day creation story.


Agreed, the common and too often repeated tactic used in here by the believers is to make these claims and assertions and hope nobody calls them on it. And when called out, they continue on avoiding the questions and providing nothing that backs up their claims. Then have the stones to ask us if WE read the bible...!!!


----------



## j_seph (May 2, 2019)

Actually a day is more like 23 hours and 56 minutes


----------



## Baroque Brass (May 11, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Agreed, the common and too often repeated tactic used in here by the believers is to make these claims and assertions and hope nobody calls them on it. And when called out, they continue on avoiding the questions and providing nothing that backs up their claims. Then have the stones to ask us if WE read the bible...!!!


Here’s something I wonder about: if an educated, logically thinking person who claims to believe the Bible, had never heard of religion and god but picked up the modern bible and began to read it, would he believe what he’s reading or would he see it as a collection of absurd fairy tales?


----------



## ambush80 (May 11, 2019)

Barouque Brass said:


> Here’s something I wonder about: if an educated, logically thinking person who claims to believe the Bible, had never heard of religion and god but picked up the modern bible and began to read it, would he believe what he’s reading or would he see it as a collection of absurd fairy tales?



This sounds like a bit of a contradiction.  Can you clarify?  If a person said they "believed the Bible" (and by that I assume that they believe that the things in it are real), I would say that they've already somewhere along the line heard of religion and God.  Also, if someone were "educated" they would have been exposed to those ideas as well.  

Your thought experiment might work better if we imagine an alien who's species developed along the same lines as ours and scientifically understood the natural world the same way that we do but his species never developed the notion of God or religion.  If a being like that got a hold of a Bible and you asked them where to shelve it in the library they would put it in Fiction or Mythology (which is actually a subset of Fiction).


----------



## ambush80 (May 11, 2019)

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-mythology-and-fiction


----------



## Baroque Brass (May 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> This sounds like a bit of a contradiction.  Can you clarify?  If a person said they "believed the Bible" (and by that I assume that they believe that the things in it are real), I would say that they've already somewhere along the line heard of religion and God.  Also, if someone were "educated" they would have been exposed to those ideas as well.
> 
> Your thought experiment might work better if we imagine an alien who's species developed along the same lines as ours and scientifically understood the natural world the same way that we do but his species never developed the notion of God or religion.  If a being like that got a hold of a Bible and you asked them where to shelve it in the library they would put it in Fiction or Mythology (which is actually a subset of Fiction).



Ok, let’s go with that. If today’s believers were an alien life form, and were handed a bible and told it contained the words of god, how many would believe it?


----------



## ambush80 (May 12, 2019)

Barouque Brass said:


> Ok, let’s go with that. If today’s believers were an alien life form, and were handed a bible and told it contained the words of god, how many would believe it?



That number would be all of them.

I think you're trying to ask "What would happen if people who had never heard of the Bible or God were given a Bible? How many would believe it's the word of god?"  Is that about right?  In that case you would have to educate them on who this "god" is that's mentioned in the first sentence.  I imagine a similar number of them would believe the Bible to be factual as would believe the Odyssey to be factual or the Star Wars saga, were you to expose them to those works.

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a great adventure took place."  Yup.  A few of them would believe it actually happened.  Add young kids to the mix and the number would go up.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 13, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That number would be all of them.
> 
> I think you're trying to ask "What would happen if people who had never heard of the Bible or God were given a Bible? How many would believe it's the word of god?"  Is that about right?  In that case you would have to educate them on who this "god" is that's mentioned in the first sentence.  I imagine a similar number of them would believe the Bible to be factual as would believe the Odyssey to be factual or the Star Wars saga, were you to expose them to those works.
> 
> "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a great adventure took place."  Yup.  A few of them would believe it actually happened.  Add young kids to the mix and the number would go up.





> In that case you would have to educate them on who this "god" is that's mentioned in the first sentence.


And thats where all the trouble starts.........


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That number would be all of them.
> 
> I think you're trying to ask "What would happen if people who had never heard of the Bible or God were given a Bible? How many would believe it's the word of god?"  Is that about right?  In that case you would have to educate them on who this "god" is that's mentioned in the first sentence.  I imagine a similar number of them would believe the Bible to be factual as would believe the Odyssey to be factual or the Star Wars saga, were you to expose them to those works.
> 
> "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a great adventure took place."  Yup.  A few of them would believe it actually happened.  Add young kids to the mix and the number would go up.



I think what he is getting at is the religious belief software really needs to be installed before critical thinking is developed. It’s like root kitting the brain to bypass what would normally set off the bull squeeze detector.


----------



## Spotlite (May 19, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite,  a man can steal horses to resale and make money or a man can steal a horse because he was lost, tired, hungry and wanted to find a way back to town.
> A man can kill someone out of vengeance and anger or he can kill someone in war.
> Not every situation is the same.
> Who's Judging??
> ...


Ok fair enough on the horse thief, the general idea was stealing because he wanted it to be his. But, that is sort of my point.......who is judging? And judging is also applying labels where they don't belong. How ridiculous does it sound to give someone a title they don`t deserve - Christian, fake Christian, etc,?    

To be fair, I know some "Christians" that claim to be able to sit on a park bench and tell you who is and who isn't Christian in a crowd.  And I personally know an atheist that would say anyone in the crowd with a fish symbol on their shirt is Christian. I call bull donkey on both.  

No wiggling going on at all, I don't have anything to explain.........I only asked "how do you know" questions to those that claim they know what is and what isn`t, and some "maybe" or "possibility" questions geared at having an objective view...............none of which were stated as fact. I ask you the same questions that I would ask the Christian.  Me personally, I am not so closed minded that I can`t consider some possibilities.

Because of my personal experiences, I "believe" with everything in me there is a God. And, when I asked how certain you are there is not one, you cant quiet close the door on that and it leaves that very small percentage open. Yet, you make statements that there isn't. That's like me saying there isn't a Santa Clause........... but I am not 100% sure there isn't.

My stance was, and still is "I only know what I believe".............


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You’re attempting to way oversimplify this. Sin is presumably not a fruit of Christians and yet all Christians continue to sin throughout their lives. Does that mean they aren’t really Christians? You guys can’t even agree on whether some behaviors are actually sins or not. WBC might point the naughty finger at you for not being as obedient as them in proclaiming gods message. They might consider themselves closer to following the Bible than you. Differences aside, your core belief in salvation through Christ is the same. Your belief that homosexuality is an abomination to god is the same. You may not always sing the same tune but don’t pretend you aren’t singing from the same sheet of music.


WHO are the "you guys"? I can accept your hatred for Christianity, but please, don't lower yourself into defending WBC to prove it.  

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


Either you have not been around long enough to know that anyone at anytime can make a "no-no" out of anything, justify anything, intentionally use / misuse / pervert the Bible or any other book for their own ideology.......... or you simply have an agenda to push. And, you seem to think that the Bible and its Readers is the only book and people that are subject to disagreeing. Had much experience at a 4 way stop??????


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Here you go spot.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi
> 
> ...


Awesome......lets see if they can promote findings like this the same way they do the millions of years old stuff...............(that was my point) 

How could you take a question and turn it into a claim??????


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok fair enough on the horse thief, the general idea was stealing because he wanted it to be his. But, that is sort of my point.......who is judging? And judging is also applying labels where they don't belong. How ridiculous does it sound to give someone a title they don`t deserve - Christian, fake Christian, etc,?
> 
> To be fair, I know some "Christians" that claim to be able to sit on a park bench and tell you who is and who isn't Christian in a crowd.  And I personally know an atheist that would say anyone in the crowd with a fish symbol on their shirt is Christian. I call bull donkey on both.
> 
> ...


All of your previous points have been addressed.
Me being unable to 100% dismiss a god does NOT mean, in any way shape or form, that the statement means your god is in the running. I say I am not 100% because I have ZERO actual clue or knowledge to what a god may or may not be or if in fact anything that could be called god exists.

What specifics can you give us that the god of the bible is THE god that you think is involved in your life?
I know you can pray to what you believe is your god and 50/50 get favorable results.  I know you can look at a sunrise and automatically insert that.. Well that is proof of the god you beleive in. And I know you can insert the god that you believe in as an answer for anything you want.
But WHAT proof can you offer that actually points to specifics that lead to your god?
For all you and I actually truly know, a god may exist,  and I may be to stubborn to find it and you may be worshipping the wrong one, possibly one that never existed except in the writings of man.

Like Madman, you talk a good game right up until it is time to throw the cards down...but then fold.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> WHO are the "you guys"? I can accept your hatred for Christianity, but please, don't lower yourself into defending WBC to prove it.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
> 
> ...



You guys refers to those who identify themselves as Christians. I didn’t defend WBC. You should either quote me where I did or apologize for the false accusation. I pointed out that like every other Christian group they find sanction for their beliefs in the Bible. With it being a flawed product made by flawed humans I’m not surprised “you guys” can’t get your stories or your theology straight. That’s what I expect. It’s not what one should expect from an infallible author. That’s the point. The book ain’t as advertised and so you get a big tent that includes WBC. Like I said before, you don’t always sing the same tune but you’re singing from the same sheet of music. Stop pretending you’re not.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2019)

bullethead said:


> All of your previous points have been addressed.
> Me being unable to 100% dismiss a god does NOT mean, in any way shape or form, that the statement means your god is in the running. I say I am not 100% because I have ZERO actual clue or knowledge to what a god may or may not be or if in fact anything that could be called god exists.
> 
> What specifics can you give us that the god of the bible is THE god that you think is involved in your life?
> ...



If the standard is set so low that any other god could fill in the blank and meet the standard then it’s no standard at all.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2019)

And we know that the Jewish god originated from a pantheon of Canaanite deities all of which Christians say don’t exist. It’s not only that they think there is a god and they know who it is. It’s like picking a super hero out of a pantheon of super heroes and claiming they are all fictional, except for one.


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> All of your previous points have been addressed.
> Me being unable to 100% dismiss a god does NOT mean, in any way shape or form, that the statement means your god is in the running. I say I am not 100% because I have ZERO actual clue or knowledge to what a god may or may not be or if in fact anything that could be called god exists.
> 
> What specifics can you give us that the god of the bible is THE god that you think is involved in your life?
> ...


lol not folding...........I have always said that I can`t prove anything and don't spend any time trying to do so. I realize that your lack of confidence in something not existing does not mean it actually exist, I don't believe anyone is attempting to use that as their evidence.............my statement / question of being 100% positive is always the same - we often hear something along the lines of "you cant prove a negative" or "until something is proven to exist , it doesn't exist" and 'God is the adult Santa"

My point to that statement / question is - If the above phrases are accurate, and YOU ARE confident that Santa does not exist, why cant you apply the same reasoning to God that you did the rest of the gods / characters? "You" being any non believer.

I don't intended to question your disbelief in any way, I may be asking the question the wrong way. I am really struggling to understand how I can be referred to as a hypocrite in the past because I don't use the same "reasoning" to rule out the God I believe in the same way I ruled out the rest. But when it comes to the non believer, "we took it one god further" and "we put God in the same category as the other make believe characters", and often use Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc. as comparisons of mythical characters.

Yet, this one "character" is never ruled out 100% using the same reasoning that the rest were, or are the others ruled out 100%?


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You guys refers to those who identify themselves as Christians. I didn’t defend WBC. You should either quote me where I did or apologize for the false accusation. I pointed out that like every other Christian group they find sanction for their beliefs in the Bible. With it being a flawed product made by flawed humans I’m not surprised “you guys” can’t get your stories or your theology straight. That’s what I expect. It’s not what one should expect from an infallible author. That’s the point. The book ain’t as advertised and so you get a big tent that includes WBC. Like I said before, you don’t always sing the same tune but you’re singing from the same sheet of music. Stop pretending you’re not.


Ok you got me. You are correct, everyone claiming is exactly what they claim. Now we can remove the word "hypocrite" from the dictionary. Awesome.

But no, there are no apologies to be made. If you cant see WBC for they really are; an anti American hate group perverting the Gospel to push their own ideology, that is your own fault. Continuing to place them as a part of Christianity because they self-identify and quote some scriptures only reveals how gullible you are, or how much you really don't understand about the label "Christian". This Bible you call flawed explains this, so it is not surprise about WBC, different Theologies, and even you.......... 

I assume that you are really convinced that Bruce Jenner is a woman??? "Stop pretending you`re not"...............after all, he claims to be Caitlyn and wears the dress and outward appearance of a woman..........


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> lol not folding...........I have always said that I can`t prove anything and don't spend any time trying to do so. I realize that your lack of confidence in something not existing does not mean it actually exist, I don't believe anyone is attempting to use that as their evidence.............my statement / question of being 100% positive is always the same - we often hear something along the lines of "you cant prove a negative" or "until something is proven to exist , it doesn't exist" and 'God is the adult Santa"
> 
> My point to that statement / question is - If the above phrases are accurate, and YOU ARE confident that Santa does not exist, why cant you apply the same reasoning to God that you did the rest of the gods / characters? "You" being any non believer.
> 
> ...


Spotlite, listen carefully...

What I am saying is that I DON'T KNOW if any god exists. I honestly just do not know. I doubt it. I question it. I find it impossible based on the lack of evidence. I flat out do not know.

You are hung up on "one" god, as if I just cannot rule out YOUR VERSION of a god. I see or know of a grand total of ZERO evidence for your 1 god or any of the other 10,000+. I find your god no more believable than the rest. I think ALL of the gods are made up in and exist nowhere else but in the human mind.
I think why I still say there is such a small percentage of me that leaves the door open for a god is that I can understand the CONCEPT of a god. It is hard not to given my family upbringing, area I live, Country I live in. I can understand why you and other have to believe in a god. I understand that we all have wanted something BEYOND us to exist because it is hard to realize and deal with our own mortality. So only because I am honest I say that I leave the door open. But do not jump to the conclusion that I find "your" god slightly more believable than any other. I DO NOT. I do not know a thing about any one of them FROM any one of them.
I almost want bigfoot to be real too. I know it is ridiculous. Id say none has ever been found and none ever will be found. But if it happens that one is...YAY. I would know that creature as well as I know a god which is ZERO.

How likely is it in your opinion that a fat jolly man dressed in a red suit that flies all over the world pulled by reindeer is going to come down your chimney VS  your ability to figure out some Spirit responsible for all creation just so happens to be the one YOU worship?
Same as mine....we both know it is ZERO despite what we want it to be.
But at one point in our lives we both believed in the Fat Man and the Invisible Man. We both used facts to rule out one.  I have used facts to rule out the other and am just more honest about it than you are.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> lol not folding...........I have always said that I can`t prove anything and don't spend any time trying to do so. I realize that your lack of confidence in something not existing does not mean it actually exist, I don't believe anyone is attempting to use that as their evidence.............my statement / question of being 100% positive is always the same - we often hear something along the lines of "you cant prove a negative" or "until something is proven to exist , it doesn't exist" and 'God is the adult Santa"
> 
> My point to that statement / question is - If the above phrases are accurate, and YOU ARE confident that Santa does not exist, why cant you apply the same reasoning to God that you did the rest of the gods / characters? "You" being any non believer.
> 
> ...


And why can't you prove what you say is truth??


----------



## gemcgrew (May 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> What I am saying is that I DON'T KNOW if any god exists. I honestly just do not know. I doubt it. I question it. I find it impossible based on the lack of evidence. I flat out do not know.


This is a profession of ignorance. An ignorant man just needs to be taught.

Do you agree with that?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 25, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> This is a profession of ignorance. An ignorant man just needs to be taught.
> 
> Do you agree with that?


Kind of depends on what you are teaching him doesnt it?
Its just as likely he will end up being more ignorant than when he started depending on what is being taught.


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> This is a profession of ignorance. An ignorant man just needs to be taught.
> 
> Do you agree with that?


That is honesty based off of what I have learned.
Teachers who don't know the answers themselves really don't teach, instead they try to indoctrinate in order to make up their lack of knowledge about the subject they claim to know.
In this case, the teachers in here day in and day out, cannot give any information about the subject beyond their own personal beliefs...which amounts to a failure on their end. 
Can't learn from those who do not know.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Kind of depends on what you are teaching him doesnt it?


Of course not.


WaltL1 said:


> Its just as likely he will end up being more ignorant than when he started depending on what is being taught.


Then he remains an ignorant man that needs to be taught.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That is honesty based off of what I have learned.


I understand that you have learned that you do not know if any god exists. 


bullethead said:


> Teachers who don't know the answers themselves really don't teach,...


Of course they do. A teacher is one that teaches. They just may teach the wrong answers.


bullethead said:


> In this case, the teachers in here day in and day out, cannot give any information about the subject beyond their own personal beliefs...which amounts to a failure on their end.


Is this your own personal belief?


bullethead said:


> Can't learn from those who do not know.


We can learn nothing from you as to whether or not any god exists.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 26, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> Of course not.
> 
> Then he remains an ignorant man that needs to be taught.


Of course it does.
Teach him incorrectly or only teach him what YOU believe to be true  and not only is he still ignorant but now he has possibly false information.


----------



## bullethead (May 26, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> I understand that you have learned that you do not know if any god exists.


And that is why I still search and research.. but 99.+% is a pretty good indicator that I have a good idea



gemcgrew said:


> Of course they do. A teacher is one that teaches. They just may teach the wrong answers.


That would be a loose title on the level of a Christian is one who believes in Jesus. There is much more to being a teacher as I am sure you would say the same about being a Christian.



gemcgrew said:


> Is this your own personal belief?


No not personal belief.
Fact based off of the evidence gotten in here. Or in this case lack of..



gemcgrew said:


> We can learn nothing from you as to whether or not any god exists.


I am not holding class nor asking anyone to attend my seminars or even believe me. I am asking questions and giving responses in order to learn more myself and make others think. I listen to all answers.
I cannot name one person in here that has the ability to conclusively teach anyone else whether a god exists or not.
Anytime anyone wants to step up....


----------



## ky55 (May 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I cannot name one person in here that has the ability to conclusively teach anyone else whether a god exists or not.
> Anytime anyone wants to step up....



And there never has been even one person...
In the entire history of the world.


----------



## Israel (May 27, 2019)

The thing that takes and makes challenge is adequately disposed of in the Lord's death and rightly revealed through His resurrection.

Of course no man can present "some" evidence as _all is evidence _and such a man can only be found in defeat when seeking to separate out a part from all that is inseparably whole.

The God who is God cannot be divvied up and dragged into creation for man's approval of His being for it is quite the other way round. God's grace in Christ to appear before men and for men to show His approval (even to the Son's being torn open) is a settled thing. God's approval of man rests not upon whether any man _approve_ of God's doing in Christ or even as challenge to man to believe. 

Man either believes there is a righteousness that exceeds his own and a grace to save out from such knowledge that is (apart from such grace) self condemning, or he does not.

It is all that _is not_ "and may the best man win", for He already has.

What is appointed to resistance _must resist, _even to the benefit of what is appointed to peace.

His word is unbreakable, and all occupies till He come.

And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.


So fill your skin with all within that such is seen coming from your eyes.

The man who thinks himself unknown, is unknown only to himself.


----------



## bullethead (May 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> The thing that takes and makes challenge is adequately disposed of in the Lord's death and rightly revealed through His resurrection.
> 
> Of course no man can present "some" evidence as _all is evidence _and such a man can only be found in defeat when seeking to separate out a part from all that is inseparably whole.
> 
> ...


We are long beyond these assertive claims.

You have to establish what is, before you can tell us what it does, wants, acts, thinks.

Again I ask you, why do you claim to know anything,  let alone intricate details about something you say is so easily found and abundant, and then tell us that no man can present some evidence as all evidence?
It's as if you now need to put a disclaimer in your writings.

Izzy where is your "some" evidence to get the ball rolling?
Why is it so hard for you and others in here to provide evidence for the one thing you all agree on is the absolute truth?

What you have written above and all that you write like it are all the things you must convince yourself of to get YOU to YOUR happy place because you know it does not contain a shred of evidence gained from knowledge about a god.
??It must sound like teachings to those that don't do their homework??


----------



## Spotlite (May 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, listen carefully...
> 
> What I am saying is that I DON'T KNOW if any god exists. I honestly just do not know. I doubt it. I question it. I find it impossible based on the lack of evidence. I flat out do not know.
> 
> ...


This is the only place I am hung up............if you are using "facts" to rule the fat jolly man and the one God I am speaking of out.........it appears to be an uncertain stance when you state there is no God / god and then state "I don't know" when it comes to the certainty of one, after comparing the two characters mentioned above and supposedly using the same set of "rules" for both.

But, this helps me better understand your reasoning for making those statements.


----------



## Spotlite (May 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And why can't you prove what you say is truth??


Because it is faith based. I hate using "blind man" analogies because it is overly-used many times to end a conversation, rather than explaining. But, in a physical sense and nothing do with any spiritual rhetoric......... how do you prove the sky is blue to a blind man? 

Researches, documentaries, eye-witness accounts, etc. are a dime a dozen...........but the blind man can`t physically see anything you`re talking about. And for the one that can see it, does it have any merit on the sky not being blue because the blind man can`t see any physical evidence of it? 

The best answer I can give to this is I know my limitations and I realize the blind man`s limitations. I wear glasses to drive at night when it is raining. Years ago I found out that the ditch really is there and, there is a white line to let you know you are headed to it. ( I know history would prove that I saw the white line and ditch many times before I needed glasses, the point is I understand when someone says they cant see something, I get that )


----------



## welderguy (May 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And that is why I still search and research.. but 99.+% is a pretty good indicator that I have a good idea
> 
> 
> That would be a loose title on the level of a Christian is one who believes in Jesus. There is much more to being a teacher as I am sure you would say the same about being a Christian.
> ...



I believe you just taught Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:11?

...."from the least to the greatest"...
I believe that even includes you, agree?


----------



## bullethead (May 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> This is the only place I am hung up............if you are using "facts" to rule the fat jolly man and the one God I am speaking of out.........it appears to be an uncertain stance when you state there is no God / god and then state "I don't know" when it comes to the certainty of one, after comparing the two characters mentioned above and supposedly using the same set of "rules" for both.
> 
> But, this helps me better understand your reasoning for making those statements.


Listen, Tell me exactly what facts you have compiled that without question rule out the existence of every other god but yours.
Not your wants, not your beliefs, not some verses from an ancient writer.

Spell out specifically all the information that you have gathered that unequivocally shows that there are no other gods besides the god you worship.
If you say you are 100% sure then tell us why. The facts have got to be monumental. 
If not, if there is something that you can admit to not knowing or not being able to ever understand or ever know for certain,  then you are where I am at.
Right now as for what I done in my own way to find a god...any god...i see ZERO evidence for any god. Based on that, I can say I am convinced no god exists. But, I am open to hearing something that I have missed. I am open to contact from something that would be called a god.
Till then I stand by my statements.
If I catch a jolly fat man shimmying down the chimney with a sack full of toys I will let you know.
I put the odds at Santa and God the same. Their existence is the same. Some human pretends to talk to, give credit to and be...both.


----------



## bullethead (May 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Because it is faith based. I hate using "blind man" analogies because it is overly-used many times to end a conversation, rather than explaining. But, in a physical sense and nothing do with any spiritual rhetoric......... how do you prove the sky is blue to a blind man?
> 
> Researches, documentaries, eye-witness accounts, etc. are a dime a dozen...........but the blind man can`t physically see anything you`re talking about. And for the one that can see it, does it have any merit on the sky not being blue because the blind man can`t see any physical evidence of it?
> 
> The best answer I can give to this is I know my limitations and I realize the blind man`s limitations. I wear glasses to drive at night when it is raining. Years ago I found out that the ditch really is there and, there is a white line to let you know you are headed to it. ( I know history would prove that I saw the white line and ditch many times before I needed glasses, the point is I understand when someone says they cant see something, I get that )


Plenty of people see what they want to see.
A blind man will make something up in his head that SUITS him. Blue will be anything he chooses to use to associate the word/color to whatever he can conjure up. The blind man reference is a good one Spot. It fits for dang sure..


----------



## bullethead (May 27, 2019)

welderguy said:


> I believe you just taught Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:11?
> 
> ...."from the least to the greatest"...
> I believe that even includes you, agree?


No, references for any religions teachings can be linked to what I said. I apparently teach in many languages and many cultures according to the standards in here.
Not surprised many are so easily able to link simple things to whatever they need while never considering the other possibilities.


----------



## Spotlite (May 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Listen, Tell me exactly what facts you have compiled that without question rule out the existence of every other god but yours.
> Not your wants, not your beliefs, not some verses from an ancient writer.
> 
> Spell out specifically all the information that you have gathered that unequivocally shows that there are no other gods besides the god you worship.
> ...


The question was regarding HOW you ruled two out but not certain about the one that you say “isn’t there”. I’m ok with probably not, but if you’re convinced enough to say it isn’t, I want to know how.
You should be aware of my position, I don’t BELIEVE in any of whatever else may be out there. I don’t think they exist, I don’t believe they exist. That’s a totally different stance of stating something such as there is no.....


----------



## Spotlite (May 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Plenty of people see what they want to see.
> A blind man will make something up in his head that SUITS him. Blue will be anything he chooses to use to associate the word/color to whatever he can conjure up. The blind man reference is a good one Spot. It fits for dang sure..


Yes it does. Maybe the blind man could convince the man that sees the blue........that the blue really isn’t there......or whatever he sees is something besides the blue....

Hopefully you can envision the challenge from both sides??? Sort of back to my original statement that I question those that claim they know what is and what isn’t. I like to hear more than someone’s “lack of” from both sides.


----------



## bullethead (May 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The question was regarding HOW you ruled two out but not certain about the one that you say “isn’t there”. I’m ok with probably not, but if you’re convinced enough to say it isn’t, I want to know how.
> You should be aware of my position, I don’t BELIEVE in any of whatever else may be out there. I don’t think they exist, I don’t believe they exist. That’s a totally different stance of stating something such as there is no.....


I do not see any evidence of any god that man has conjured up. Same with the versions of Santa. No difference. 
If there is something else out there, I dont know about it. The door is unlocked but not cracked open.


----------



## bullethead (May 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yes it does. Maybe the blind man could convince the man that sees the blue........that the blue really isn’t there......or whatever he sees is something besides the blue....
> 
> Hopefully you can envision the challenge from both sides??? Sort of back to my original statement that I question those that claim they know what is and what isn’t. I like to hear more than someone’s “lack of” from both sides.


If someone tells me something exists, they have it and cannot produce it. It Isn't. If they produce it when asked it Is.
So far,  in all of the cultures  which encompass all the people within all of mans existence FACTUALLY nobody has ever provided a hint of a gods existence. Nobody. Ever.  That equals Isn't for me.


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> This is a profession of ignorance. An ignorant man just needs to be taught.
> 
> Do you agree with that?



I’m your huckleberry. Drop some knowledge on me and be prepared to demonstrate your claims with good evidence.


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2019)

Cult members always think outsiders are ignorant.


----------

