# Let's talk about He11



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2013)

The subject has come up quiet a bit lately throughout the threads.  The Atheist seem to have a problem with either the justification of the concept itself or the finality/eternity of it.  Many Christians have a problem with it also for the very same reasons.  On top of that many Christians have at least tacitly accepted the post-modern concept that to even discuss He11 is not PC (politically correct-a term in itself that now encompasses much more than politics).


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 22, 2013)

I have no problem with it. 
Then again, I read my bible regularly.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Many Christians have a problem with it also for the very same reasons.  On top of that many Christians have at least tacitly accepted the post-modern concept that to even discuss He11 is not PC



Maybe that's why there's a resurgence in Universalism.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

We had a pretty decent thread on it up the the spiritual forum a few months ago.  There are so many different ideas as to what it is, where it is, who goes, who doesn't.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

I have a friend who studied this extensively in college. 

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


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The subject has come up quiet a bit lately throughout the threads.  The Atheist seem to have a problem with either the justification of the concept itself or the finality/eternity of it.  Many Christians have a problem with it also for the very same reasons.  On top of that many Christians have at least tacitly accepted the post-modern concept that to even discuss He11 is not PC (politically correct-a term in itself that now encompasses much more than politics).



Heavens basement.
It represents the exact opposite of everything Heaven is supposed to be.
H3ll is the absence of God.
H3ll is a place ruled by The Devil.
God is at a constant battle with the devil. Good vs Evil.
Good cannot beat evil apparently because H3ll must be an impenetrable fortress that God cannot defeat. 
H3ll's existence means God is not all powerful.
If it is said God is a spirit and only God lives forever but people live forever after death either in God's presence or without God's presence then pack my bags and have Adolf carry them down(I assume everything is backwards) to the suite. I can be eternal too.
Maybe we are all in H3ll right now.

OR

God created evil(says so in the Bible)
God needs H3ll and it's tenants to do his dirty work.

OR

If people do not believe in God, they do not believe in Heaven and they also do not believe in H3ll.   That is where I am at.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> We had a pretty decent thread on it up the the spiritual forum a few months ago.  There are so many different ideas as to what it is, where it is, who goes, who doesn't.



I think that's a big deal. The main reason to "believe," whatever that entails, is to avoid he11... but it's not a bit clear what it is..

My link says it's actually the place outside of Jerusalem that was cursed... a place to banish sinners to.. in life. And translation got it to where it is today.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

> Abaddon
> The Hebrew word Abaddon, meaning "destruction", is sometimes interpreted as a synonym of "- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -".[26]
> Gehenna
> In the New Testament, both early (i.e., the KJV) and modern translations often translate Gehenna as "- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -".[27] Young's Literal Translation is one notable exception, simply using "Gehenna", which was in fact a geographic location just outside Jerusalem (the Valley of Hinnom).
> ...




Accurate translations..........


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think that's a big deal. The main reason to "believe," whatever that entails, is to avoid he11... but it's not a bit clear what it is..



I do agree that it is a confusing subject.  But, I don't really think it's the primary reason to believe.  To our lives, burning for eternity is such an abstract concept that I would guess very few are actually influenced to faith in order to avoid it.  When I was a kid, I was afraid of he11.  As an adult, I became more focused on the spiritual side of faith, the current application, than the "eternal blessings / curse."  Such a fate cannot be comprehended.  I don't dwell on them.



TripleXBullies said:


> My link says it's actually the place outside of Jerusalem that was cursed... a place to banish sinners to.. in life. And translation got it to where it is today.



I have heard that as well, in fact, I heard one person say it was actually a landfill of sorts in Jesus' time.  The term Hades is also used......but, I'm not real well read on the subject.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

Yes, landfil, just a junk area. And because of the gasses released by garbage, there were frequently flames... That leads to the possibility (and plenty of people believe it) that there is no real he11 where a soul goes to be tormented for eternity. It was a place used to banish people's physical bodies. Hades isn't nearly the same thing either as what is normally referred to as he11 either. 

I agree that once you believe and it's all truth to you, there's no reason to think about the curse of he11.... but it's definitely sold that way.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yes, landfil, just a junk area. And because of the gasses released by garbage, there were frequently flames... That leads to the possibility (and plenty of people believe it) that there is no real he11 where a soul goes to be tormented for eternity. It was a place used to banish people's physical bodies. Hades isn't nearly the same thing either as what is normally referred to as he11 either.
> 
> I agree that once you believe and it's all truth to you, there's no reason to think about the curse of he11.... but it's definitely sold that way.





centerpin fan said:


> Maybe that's why there's a resurgence in Universalism.


I think you're on to something CF


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

hmmm

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=303


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 22, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Maybe that's why there's a resurgence in Universalism.



Maybe more and more of the Bible starts being widely accepted as metaphor. Maybe this appeals to more people. 

If people came to Christ by reading the Jeffersonian Bible and didn't need any other parts of the Bible wouldn't that be a good thing?

Don't you guys always say that one needn't even read a Bible to be saved if one believes that Christ is Lord (I guess by hearsay....I mean witness).


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

I think I can refute every so called proof text concerning the existence of he11 except the parable of the rich man. Can't do anything with it except to say it is a parable. He11 is not justified in scripture but is "translated in" and is nothing more than a traditional doctrine. Yet many verses support total destruction, not eternal torment, that are not translated incorrectly.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

So you believe that there is no place of eternal torment?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think I can refute every so called proof text concerning the existence of he11 except the parable of the rich man. Can't do anything with it except to say it is a parable. He11 is not justified in scripture but is "translated in" and is nothing more than a traditional doctrine. Yet many verses support total destruction, not eternal torment, that are not translated incorrectly.



That is only because you took the time to research it. How DARE you!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you believe that there is no place of eternal torment?


I think that was a scare tatic of the early, oppressive Catholic church. "Translated in". The original NT writers had something different in mind. Everytime you see the word he11 in scripture, it is ghena. I think I spelled that wrong. The original writers and the original hearers knew this to be the trash dump outside the city. They did not bury trash as we do today. They burned it along with their dung. People were coming every day to dispose of their trash. The fire never went out. It was a place of distruction. But now, our translators have gone beyond the intent of the original writers.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is only because you took the time to research it. How DARE you!


I'm trying to recall, someone here or elsewhere posted a link to a bald head older man who had lots of video's on the the internet. I would like to find them again. I have about given up the fight since I can just refer people to his site. He does a much better job than I can. Especially since those who are interested in the evidence against he11 can go study it where someone has compiled both sides, and the others, well they can just continue to think I'm a rebel


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

1gr8bldr, forgive me if you've posted this answer before, but what happens to unbelievers when they die?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> 1gr8bldr, forgive me if you've posted this answer before, but what happens to unbelievers when they die?


Death. In the beginning, God said "You will surely die". This was the fate of mankind after sin. Man lost his original design. To be in heaven and be eternal creatures. Jesus now regained that for his brothers. I should state that this is only my take on the matter.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think that was a scare tatic of the early, oppressive Catholic church. "Translated in". The original NT writers had something different in mind. Everytime you see the word he11 in scripture, it is ghena. I think I spelled that wrong. The original writers and the original hearers knew this to be the trash dump outside the city. They did not bury trash as we do today. They burned it along with their dung. People were coming every day to dispose of their trash. The fire never went out. It was a place of distruction. But now, our translators have gone beyond the intent of the original writers.


I should have read the post before I posted. I see now that you guys have already had this conversation


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

The use of "eternal destruction" sounds like an oxymoran. But to understand it better, consider that we are in a time period where people are reversing their fate of "You will surely die" by accepting Jesus as messiah and Lord. But at some point, we will no longer have the option. It will be eternal. Eternal destruction would be better understood as irreversible destruction. No longer an option for mankind


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I should have read the post before I posted. I see now that you guys have already had this conversation



You don't post the information you have on here ,you need to post what you have more often. I know you hold back a lot.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

While looking for the videos mentioned, I found this. I have not read it but it seems to have alot of the argument compiled for easy reading

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

Found it. For all those who call themselves "Apologist", here is a thorough examination of both sides of the he11 argument. Since I am biased, if you see something he overlooked, please point it out. I'm trying to recall, I think he does not address the parable of the rich man and Lazuras???? Maybe others of which I would like to know

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

Rev 14: 9-11 looks like he11 but then Rev 20:9 shows us the details where this fire devoures/consumes them and then the devil is thrown in the fire to be tormented. Why would the devil not be killed? Because angels are eternal beings.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Found it. For all those who call themselves "Apologist", here is a thorough examination of both sides of the he11 argument. Since I am biased, if you see something he overlooked, please point it out. I'm trying to recall, I think he does not address the parable of the rich man and Lazuras???? Maybe others of which I would like to know
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4


Those who watch it in full or in part, let me know what you think.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

Lost in translation
Indoctrination
Assertive teachings for centuries by the powerful church

H3ll is just one more thing to add to the list.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

gr8 info 1gr8bldr


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 22, 2013)

This is an easy one, I remember even thinking as a kid - If you believe in heaven, then you have to believe in - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 22, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> This is an easy one, I remember even thinking as a kid - If you believe in heaven, then you have to believe in - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.



Yeah - I'm not even starting to change that one. Seriously, "- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -" on a religious forum?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 22, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Yeah - I'm not even starting to change that one. Seriously, "- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -" on a religious forum?



Yep, ridiculous.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> This is an easy one, I remember even thinking as a kid - If you believe in heaven, then you have to believe in - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.



I agree with that. If there isn't a he11, the heaven isn't nearly as appealing.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Found it. For all those who call themselves "Apologist", here is a thorough examination of both sides of the he11 argument. Since I am biased, if you see something he overlooked, please point it out. I'm trying to recall, I think he does not address the parable of the rich man and Lazuras???? Maybe others of which I would like to know
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4



YIKES... that's over an hour! Luckily, I'm at work


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2013)

Seriously, h3ll was invented because without it there would have been no sacrifices and no tithings.. Priests, etc., in the church would have had to get jobs. The entire fabric of the faith would be ripped apart.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

660griz said:


> The entire fabric of the faith would be ripped apart.



Why would no he11 lead to those consequences?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Found it. For all those who call themselves "Apologist", here is a thorough examination of both sides of the he11 argument. Since I am biased, if you see something he overlooked, please point it out. I'm trying to recall, I think he does not address the parable of the rich man and Lazuras???? Maybe others of which I would like to know
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4



Interesting. It's said many times that god can destroy the soul. I would think someone would argue that you'd still have your spirit?? But to me, that's just as important as the Gehenna interpretation. 

Overall, this is just more evidence that people will believe what they want to believe about the bible. Whatever makes them feel better about it all.. I wasn't raised with an idea like this, but I don't necessarily disagree with the points Fudge makes. I don't agree with it for obvious reasons... He has a lot of people that agree with him.. It's crazy what a southern guy with that tone of voice can do from a pulpit....


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 23, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Rev 14: 9-11 looks like he11 but then Rev 20:9 shows us the details where this fire devoures/consumes them and then the devil is thrown in the fire to be tormented. Why would the devil not be killed? Because angels are eternal beings.



Rev. 20 makes it clear, though, that it's not just Satan and his angels who are thrown into the lake of fire.  This passage agrees with Matt. 25:41.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

One verse makes it clear while 20 more make it unclear. One verse can't help...


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> One verse makes it clear while 20 more make it unclear. One verse can't help...



You'll have to be more specific.  I think Matt. 25 and Rev. 20 are clear.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

Did you watch the video?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Did you watch the video?



Nope.  I didn't even notice it.  Whatever happened to embedding videos?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Did you watch the video?



People's opinions on this matter are usually settled.  Short of a video of Jesus himself explaining that there is a translation issue, very few change their mind.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> People's opinions on this matter are usually settled.  Short of a video of Jesus himself explaining that there is a translation issue, very few change their mind.



I didn't change my mind either. 

The only reason it's more clear to me that he11 is what the bible says is a bad place to spend eternity... is because I was brought up that way. Indoctrination. It's in my head that's what the bible says... although Fudge brought up some good points. I would think the main reason why people don't change their minds is because they're taught not to change question things. If you know this beyond a shadow of a doubt, but someone presents a good argument to prove you wrong, why couldn't someone do it for more of your core beliefs. We see it here all the time...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 23, 2013)

I used to view salvation as "salvation from he!!" instead of "salvation from death." I'm still learning about what my salvation is from. I'm more concerned about the "everlasting life" part of Christianity. 

What is actually in the New Testament concerning salvation form He!!? Is He!! for the unsaved or people who practice "evil deeds?"

The everlasting burning in He!! was a big part of my indoctrination and what I was being saved from.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 23, 2013)

I try to approach it from God's viewpoint. Bear with me:

does this person _really_ love me and want to serve me or just being a good Christian to avoid eternal torment?
Or, to get a reward when they die?  

Yes, God knows what's in your heart/mind. But once you believe in the reality of the lake of fire wouldn't avoiding it always be in your subconscious?  I just think fear is such a negative, depressing concept. Nobody should live in fear of what happens when you die - isn't there enough to worry about on a day-to-day basis?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 23, 2013)

oldfella1962 said:


> I try to approach it from God's viewpoint. Bear with me:
> 
> does this person _really_ love me and want to serve me or just being a good Christian to avoid eternal torment?
> Or, to get a reward when they die?
> ...


 I agree, h3ll should not concern the believer all that much. 
Isn't the use of fear a good thing? Do you tell your kids to look both ways only to make you happy or do you also tell them the risks involved


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> The everlasting burning in He!! was a big part of my indoctrination and what I was being saved from.



Whether it's used as a scare tactic or not, he11 being somewhere that you don't want to spend eternity was part of my indoctrination.. Whether it's something to concentrate on or not, it's a big part of the story.... that would be hard to change people's minds about..


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Why would no he11 lead to those consequences?



Without consequences of not believing, religion would have much less believers. There would not be churches, t.v. evangelist, and surely even the mighty Catholic church would feel the 'heat'. 

When discussing my lack of faith with religious folks, it always ends with their last attempt and of course their real feelings and reason for believing themselves. Why don't I just believe in god just in case there is a h311. Not, just in case there is a heaven...

There is much speculation that the very first religions were a response to human fear. They gave people a feeling of security in an insecure world. Sadly, they must still serve that purpose today.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

660griz said:


> Without consequences of not believing, religion would have much less believers.



I understand your conclusion, but how did you get there?

My faith would not change one bit if somebody could prove to me I was wrong about heaven or he11.  It has nothing to do with it, really.



660griz said:


> Why don't I just believe in god just in case there is a h311. Not, just in case there is a heaven...



Either way, neither is a valid point.  I could try and convince you to walk to Alaska, just in case there really is golden eskimos waiting to grant you 3 wishes.  You must first accept that such a thing exists before pursuing it is even an option.

Same with faith.  If you don't believe in God, the rest is irrelevant.



660griz said:


> There is much speculation that the very first religions were a response to human fear. They gave people a feeling of security in an insecure world. Sadly, they must still serve that purpose today.



There is also speculation that people believe in God because we are hard-wired to do such, because our soul is in his image.....it's an embedded response to the universe.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I understand your conclusion, but how did you get there?


Many years of pulling clues. One, is the visits from people trying to save my soul I mentioned previously. 
Reading up on the beginnings of religion, sacrifice, tithings, etc. One could come to a logical conclusion that without a punishment to hold over the already scared heads, none of the followers would follow blindly.



JB0704 said:


> My faith would not change one bit if somebody could prove to me I was wrong about heaven or he11.  It has nothing to do with it, really.


Exception noted.
Although, I am not trying to prove the existence of heaven or h3!!. Just stating why h3!! is a necessary evil. Pun intended. 




JB0704 said:


> Either way, neither is a valid point.  I could try and convince you to walk to Alaska, just in case there really is golden eskimos waiting to grant you 3 wishes.  You must first accept that such a thing exists before pursuing it is even an option.


Uh...no. I do not have to accept that it exist until I see it.
I can't expect you to understand the concept since you do believe without seeing.  You could tell me there is a unicorn behind that tree. I would not believe you until I looked behind the tree. 



JB0704 said:


> Same with faith.  If you don't believe in God, the rest is irrelevant.


 O.K. I was just stating that in the big religious picture. H3!! is an important part of getting faith. 




JB0704 said:


> There is also speculation that people believe in God because we are hard-wired to do such, because our soul is in his image.....it's an embedded response to the universe.



I think this says the same thing just in a more...'spiritual' way that seems way less demeaning to mankind. Good job.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

660griz said:


> Uh...no. I do not have to accept that it exist until I see it.
> I can't expect you to understand the concept since you do believe without seeing.  You could tell me there is a unicorn behind that tree. I would not believe you until I looked behind the tree.



....... 



660griz said:


> O.K. I was just stating that in the big religious picture. H3!! is an important part of getting faith.



So, my point is valid.  You wouldn't believe in the reward until you believed the source existed.




660griz said:


> I think this says the same thing just in a more...'spiritual' way that seems way less demeaning to mankind. Good job.



My point was, they are both speculation.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> .......
> 
> So, my point is valid.  You wouldn't believe in the reward until you believed the source existed.



I wouldn't believe in the reward even if I knew the source exist.  
I don't believe in magic either.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 23, 2013)

660griz said:


> Uh...no. I do not have to accept that it exist until I see it.
> I can't expect you to understand the concept since you do believe without seeing.  You could tell me there is a unicorn behind that tree. I would not believe you until I looked behind the tree.



Do believe atoms exist? What about protons, neutrons and electrons?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do believe atoms exist? What about protons, neutrons and electrons?



Here we go again....
NONE of them claim to be a God. None of them are held to godlike qualities. They are proven to exist.
Been there, done that and yet you still bring it up.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

If we cannot see electrons and protons -- or smaller particles such as quarks -- how can we be sure they exist?

Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, professors of physics at Northeastern University in Boston, Mass, teamed up to provide this answer:

The central concept here is what we mean by "see." Normally when we say that we "see" an object, what we mean is that we detect with our eyes particles of light called photons, which come from some source like a lightbulb or the sun and bounce off the object.

The idea of being able to "see" things by observing particles that scatter from them is common to particle physics experiments that study tiny objects like electrons, protons, and quarks (out of which protons are made).

For a classical physics picture of how this works, you might imagine being in a large dark room with an object whose shape you don't know. If you have a bucket of tennis balls, you can start to build up a picture of what the object looks like by tossing the balls at it. Instead of tennis balls, particle physicists use small particles, such as electrons at very high energies. Recalling Albert Einstein's famous formula, E=mc2, lots of energy can be traded for a little bit of matter.

So when we use very high energies to see deeply into matter a new phenomenon can occur: not only do we see what's there, but we create matter in the form of new particles. This gives us yet another way to study the structure of the world at its most profound level.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

Atoms can be seen


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do believe atoms exist? What about protons, neutrons and electrons?



Yep. Seen em. Electrons anyway. As for the others. As long as I don't burn in h311 for believing or not. Just doesn't matter what I believe related to them. 

I haven't actually seen alternating current in the wire in my walls but, based on study and logic, it makes sense they exist. I have measured it, and used it.  I haven't seen the wind but, I have seen waves, etc.
I use my logic as I wish, you use yours as you wish.
I think Christopher Hitchens said it well. 

"Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but *we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.* We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

660griz said:


> I wouldn't believe in the reward even if I knew the source exist.
> I don't believe in magic either.



I like apples.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

660griz said:


> I use my logic as I wish, you use yours as you wish.


What? Your Wife is a cow? Why would you say such a thing?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> What? Your Wife is a cow? Why would you say such a thing?



I hope that is not a personal attack, people get banned for things like that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 23, 2013)

660griz said:


> "Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but *we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.* We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."



This is an absurd statement from start to finish.  It dissolves itself.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> What? Your Wife is a cow? Why would you say such a thing?



Out of line brother and childish to boot.  Where the heck did that come from?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> What? Your Wife is a cow? Why would you say such a thing?



Christian much?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Out of line brother and childish to boot.  Where the heck did that come from?


Being told to use logic as I wish. Just making a point.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Christian much?



I think Gem is pointing out that logic can lead in many directions if it goes wherever we want.  At least, I think that's the point.  Gem isn't one for personal attacks that I have noticed in the past.

I certainly don't think he was making a direct statement.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Being told to use logic as I wish. Just making a point.



That's where I thought you were going with it.....you posted this at the same time I made the above post.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That's where I thought you were going with it.....you posted this at the same time I made the above post.


Logic much?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I think Gem is pointing out that logic can lead in many directions if it goes wherever we want.  At least, I think that's the point.  Gem isn't one for personal attacks that I have noticed in the past.
> 
> I certainly don't think he was making a direct statement.



Yeah, clearly no other way to make a point other than bringing someone's wife into it.
Bad taste. Bad way to make a point.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Out of line brother and childish to boot.  Where the heck did that come from?


You guys are killing me.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, clearly no other way to make a point other than bringing someone's wife into it.
> Bad taste. Bad way to make a point.



I could have used my Wife in stead, but I get to use logic as I wish. 

You're just sore that you missed it entirely.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> I could have used my Wife in stead, but I get to use logic as I wish.



yeah, hide behind a poor excuse like that


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, clearly no other way to make a point other than bringing someone's wife into it.
> Bad taste. Bad way to make a point.



I understand what you are saying, but, I also understood what he was saying a few hours ago when I read the post.

Gem's a good person, and I certainly don't think the point was the wife, but how confusing it can be when logic is whatever we wish......the "?"s were my clue.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> I could have used my Wife in stead, but I get to use logic as I wish.
> 
> You're just sore that you missed it entirely.



I'm sore grizz gotta read it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> yeah, hide behind a poor excuse like that




Stop it!


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2013)

The point could have been made like this:

What?  I am a purple monkey from the year 5015?  Why would you say that?

The point was the absurdity of the comment, and not the content.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I understand what you are saying, but, I also understood what he was saying a few hours ago when I read the post.
> 
> Gem's a good person, and I certainly don't think the point was the wife, but how confusing it can be when logic is whatever we wish......the "?"s were my clue.



Still not even a remotely decent way to make a point.

Slap a couple question marks on the end, a smiley face perhaps and crack about someone or their family and then it is "just making a point"


Doubt that would fly on here constantly and the reason no one else does it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The point could have been made like this:
> 
> What?  I am a purple monkey from the year 5015?  Why would you say that?
> 
> The point was the absurdity of the comment, and not the content.



It Wasn't though.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Still not even a remotely decent way to make a point.
> 
> Slap a couple question marks on the end, a smiley face perhaps and crack about someone or their family and then it is "just making a point"
> 
> ...



Are you using logic or emotion? Are you using senses to attack the senses?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you using logic or emotion? Are you using senses to attack the senses?



What I am not doing is saying anything about anyone's wife.

Listen, around my buddies nothing is off limits. Nothing or no one or no topic is sacred. We let it fly in jest as well as anyone else.

I don't know you and your comment bothered me and it wasn't even directed at me. I don't know if you know Grizz. What I do know is things like that said on a forum can and will infuriate people. It is hard enough to get "Merry Christmas" conveyed with it's intended meaning through typed letters and mentioning anyone's family just doesn't cut it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What I am not doing is saying anything about anyone's wife.


Nor did I. You can not use logic or reason and determine that is what I said. Emotions yes, logic no. Your rushing to attack my response, shoved logic and reason aside.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Nor did I. You can not use logic or reason and determine that is what I said. Emotions yes, logic no. Your rushing to attack my response, shoved logic and reason aside.



Wrong.
Logically I can think that you and Grizz have not gotten along well in the past whether in here on previous threads and posts or in grade school or wherever.  Logically I can see the possibility that you used an opportunity to make a crack at him through his wife, yet do it in a way that you would pass off as innocent to others. All within reason.

I am not saying that is what you did. But please don't tell me I cannot use logic or reason to come up with a scenario as to why you posted such a thing.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Wrong.
> Logically I can think that you and Grizz have not gotten along well in the past whether in here on previous threads and posts or in grade school or wherever.  Logically I can see the possibility that you used an opportunity to make a crack at him through his wife, yet do it in a way that you would pass off as innocent to others. All within reason.
> 
> I am not saying that is what you did. But please don't tell me I cannot use logic or reason to come up with a scenario as to why you posted such a thing.


Still emotions.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Still emotions.



Not emotions. Experience.
I have seen where otherwise innocent comments on internet forums were taken wrongly and one person was driving around a neighborhood looking for the other person.

Logically I can see why things like that, even in jest, are not tolerated. Despite us all having a quip like that at the end of our tongues, we find other ways to get a point across.

Pass it off however it makes you feel comfortable. You can argue with me all you want but maybe send Grizz a post telling of your true intentions.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Still emotions.



Emotions based off of Logic and Reasoning.
They go hand in hand.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 24, 2013)

And this is what the subject of he11 does. It evokes strong emotion. Perhaps unacceptable to the Atheist, he11 is a Biblical doctrine and a Christian will turn to the Bible for answers. We will consider objections and through prayer and revelation, obtain Biblical and rational answers.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

Well, I have been on the internet a long time and I have dealt with religious folks a long time. I understand the keyboard bravado and anonymity associated with forums, chat rooms, and bulletin boards(back in the day). I also understand the flawed logic of religious folks. That is why a real debate on the subject is very difficult. If you wish to use your logic to determine my wife is a cow and there is an imaginary thought police in the sky that owns you even after death...go for it. I would love to see that logic flow diagram. Too bad I can't take this in the gutter as well. It is quite entertaining. Pointless...but entertaining.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I understand your conclusion, but how did you get there?
> 
> My faith would not change one bit if somebody could prove to me I was wrong about heaven or he11.  It has nothing to do with it, really.



Your faith right now might not change.... but would it have ever got to where it is without the story you have always known.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> And this is what the subject of he11 does. It evokes strong emotion. Perhaps unacceptable to the Atheist, he11 is a Biblical doctrine and a Christian will turn to the Bible for answers. We will consider objections and through prayer and revelation, obtain Biblical and rational answers.



Oh. Is that what it does? or Does it allow you an opportunity to really push the rules and make a comment like that and then hide behind your scripture instead of doing the right thing and just saying sorry?

Hiding in a book is a decent start.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 24, 2013)

You can't really use logic any way you want.  That's like saying you can use addition any way you want: 2+2=7.

There are rules.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Here we go again....
> NONE of them claim to be a God. None of them are held to godlike qualities. They are proven to exist.
> Been there, done that and yet you still bring it up.



Have you, personally, seen an atom? Or do you take someone elses word for it? Maybe you've seen a picture?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You can't really use logic any way you want.  That's like saying you can use addition any way you want: 2+2=7.
> 
> There are rules.



And that been Gem's point this entire time. Some are missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You can't really use logic any way you want.  That's like saying you can use addition any way you want: 2+2=7.
> 
> There are rules.



I think that was the point Gem was making.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Have you, personally, seen an atom? Or do you take someone elses word for it? Maybe you've seen a picture?



I have never personally seen you.

For all I know on everyone elses computer it is just me replying to blank space thinking I am conversing with someone named string.
The fool is on me if so. Same with atoms.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Have you, personally, seen an atom? Or do you take someone elses word for it? Maybe you've seen a picture?



We have faith that the studies that have given us the evidence are true.. Yes... but we don't worship atoms.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I think that was the point Gem was making.





stringmusic said:


> And that been Gem's point this entire time. Some are missing the forest for the trees.




I see that had a point... but I can't believe y'all are still defending that statement.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And that been Gem's point this entire time. Some are missing the forest for the trees.



Let me be clear. We know gems point. And it could have been made 100+ different ways if all he wanted to do was make a point about logic.
I would not let it slide if it was about your wife, and I would not let it slide if someone "made the point" about Gem's wife. It is just a bad way to make a point.
Had it been the other way around I suspect the Kumbayah singing and "forest through the trees" stuff would be tossed aside in favor of shouts of wrong doing, bad taste and pm's to mods.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> And this is what the subject of he11 does. It evokes strong emotion. Perhaps unacceptable to the Atheist, he11 is a Biblical doctrine and a Christian will turn to the Bible for answers. We will consider objections and through prayer and revelation, obtain Biblical and rational answers.



It does evoke strong emotions. That is the point that we've been trying to make. It evokes emotions so strong that you can get people to believe that they're hearing from an imaginary character in their head... and that they better be good.... and among other things, talk back intimately.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You can't really use logic any way you want.  That's like saying you can use addition any way you want: 2+2=7.
> 
> There are rules.



Perhaps I should have said reasoning. Through my reasoning and logic, I have concluded there is no h311. By definition, I guess you cannot use logic to conclude there is a h311. 

Either way, logic or reasoning, folks come to different conclusions therefor, they are either using logic incorrectly or using reasoning or they are just blindly believing. Hey, there it is. Maybe that is the flaw. I am trying to use logic and reasoning with folks that have not used either. “The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.” -CH 

Now, can we get out of the weeds and get back to the discussion? 

H311...the final frontier.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 24, 2013)

Y'all pardon me from starting a thread and not taking a more active role in it.  We are about to have a baby Friday and no matter how hard I try I simply cannot focus my thoughts.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 24, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Y'all pardon me from starting a thread and not taking a more active role in it.  We are about to have a baby Friday and no matter how hard I try I simply cannot focus my thoughts.



Congratulations!


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It does evoke strong emotions. That is the point that we've been trying to make. It evokes emotions so strong that you can get people to believe that they're hearing from an imaginary character in their head... and that they better be good.... and among other things, talk back intimately.


Correct.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Y'all pardon me from starting a thread and not taking a more active role in it.  We are about to have a baby Friday and no matter how hard I try I simply cannot focus my thoughts.



Congrats, man!


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 24, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Y'all pardon me from starting a thread and not taking a more active role in it.  We are about to have a baby Friday and no matter how hard I try I simply cannot focus my thoughts.


Congrats!


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> By definition, I guess you cannot use logic to conclude there is a h311.



I can agree with that.  Unless heaven is a given, then he11 would be areasonable conclusion, but still not a certainty.



660griz said:


> I am trying to use logic and reasoning with folks that have not used either. “The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.” -CH



Too many assumptions in that statement.  



660griz said:


> Now, can we get out of the weeds and get back to the discussion?
> 
> H311...the final frontier.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> By definition, I guess you cannot use logic to conclude there is a h311.



I believe it is logical that heaven needs a he11. Without he11, heaven isn't nearly as appealing.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Y'all pardon me from starting a thread and not taking a more active role in it.  We are about to have a baby Friday and no matter how hard I try I simply cannot focus my thoughts.



Dude! Congratulations!!!!!!


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I believe it is logical that heaven needs a he11. Without he11, heaven isn't nearly as appealing.



“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” 
â€• Christopher Hitchens

I do get the yinyang thing but, there is still the premise that "yin", in your case heaven, exist.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Too many assumptions in that statement.



I do like me some assumptions.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
> â€• Christopher Hitchens
> 
> I do get the yinyang thing but, there is still the premise that "yin", in your case heaven, exist.



I don't believe in either. I'm just saying that heaven isn't very heavenly without being able to contrast with he11.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't believe in either. I'm just saying that heaven isn't very heavenly without being able to contrast with he11.



Gotcha. Although, I haven't heard if there will be hunting in heaven. If not, how can they get by with calling that heaven? More like a weekend at my mother-in-laws house.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> Gotcha. Although, I haven't heard if there will be hunting in heaven. If not, how can they get by with calling that heaven? More like a weekend at my mother-in-laws house.





Not sure how huntin' will work.  "Catch and release" just doesn't seem like it would have the same effect.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We have faith that the studies that have given us the evidence are true.. Yes... but we don't worship atoms.


Interesting. I thought only silly thiests had faith.


TripleXBullies said:


> I see that had a point... but I can't believe y'all are still defending that statement.





bullethead said:


> Let me be clear. We know gems point. And it could have been made 100+ different ways if all he wanted to do was make a point about logic.
> I would not let it slide if it was about your wife, and I would not let it slide if someone "made the point" about Gem's wife. It is just a bad way to make a point.
> Had it been the other way around I suspect the Kumbayah singing and "forest through the trees" stuff would be tossed aside in favor of shouts of wrong doing, bad taste and pm's to mods.



I haven't defended anything and I haven't sang any songs. You don't like the way he made his point, that's fine, but the point remains.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I believe it is logical that heaven needs a he11. Without he11, heaven isn't nearly as appealing.



It's just as appealing to me.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's just as appealing to me.



I understand that you're way to in to it now. It's too much a part of life to leave or have your mind changed. But had the story started out that way, it wouldn't have the appeal that it it does.

Let me save JB the trouble.......

Speculation.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Interesting. I thought only silly thiests had faith.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never said we didn't have faith. 


You keep trying to harp on the point... I get there was a point. NO ONE is saying there wasn't. It was just a trashy way to make it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I never said we didn't have faith.


Just pretend I said this....


TripleXBullies said:


> I understand that you're way to in to it now. It's too much a part of life to leave or have your mind changed. But had the story started out that way, it wouldn't have the appeal that it it does.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” -I.A.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Let me save JB the trouble.......
> 
> Speculation.



When I first started posting on this forum, one thing I learned very quickly was that a response to any conclusion I posted would be greeted with the question: "how do you know that?"  So, most of my posts are tempered with that question in mind.

"Speculation" is my spin on that statement.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> “We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” -I.A.



Thats certainly another way of presenting the problem of evil.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 24, 2013)

Thanks


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> “We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” -I.A.



Faulty humans, or humans with the ability to choose?

Sure, he knew their choice, but there is a lot to be said in giving us freedom


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Just pretend I said this....



Not following...


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Not following...


My point was, this....


TripleXBullies said:


> I understand that you're way to in to it now. It's too much a part of life to leave or have your mind changed. But had the story started out that way, it wouldn't have the appeal that it it does.



Could be said about your faith in science.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

Had science not already proven (or whatever term you'd like to use) so much, and had less of a knowledge base, then would it be less appealing? Yeah, maybe. Like over the last 300-1500 years, where people bought in to all kinds of stories that we now know to be mumbo jumbo? Stories were more believable when science was less established than it is now. Yeah...


But no I don't think it's the same thing. Science isn't the only or even main reason I changed my mind.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Faulty humans, or humans with the ability to choose?
> 
> Sure, he knew their choice, but there is a lot to be said in giving us freedom



Don't want to recreate the wheel so...

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible. 

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options. 

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature ! images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently? 

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator. 

My point, I could not love a child and then purposely create a being that would harm that child if he chose to do so just because of freewill.

In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.


----------



## hummdaddy (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> My point was, this....
> 
> 
> Could be said about your faith in science.



COULD BE IN MY SCIENCE AND SOMETHING I ACTUALLY SAW


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> Don't want to recreate the wheel so...
> 
> Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.


You're starting with the premis that God created freewill so we could be "happy", why is that? 



> Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.


If good exists, then by default, evil exists, therefor, we have a choice for both. 



> Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature ! images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?


Your first sentence is completely your opinion, and one that relies on the fact that you know what perfect is, and what perfect should be.

As to the second part, just because we are made in God's image, doesn't mean that we have God's mind making us capable of perfect decisions.  



> The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.


Not if there's leeway for human freewill. 




> In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.



That's why I don't deny the Sovereignty of God.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> COULD BE IN MY SCIENCE AND SOMETHING I ACTUALLY SAW



You don't have to scream.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If good exists, then by default, evil exists, therefor, we have a choice for both.



It is not by default. It is a reasonable assumption. But it could also be a reasonable assumption that good exists and by default, indifference exists.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> good exists and by default, indifference exists.



Good is indifferent if there is no evil.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're starting with the premis that God created freewill so we could be "happy", why is that?
> 
> 
> If good exists, then by default, evil exists, therefor, we have a choice for both.
> ...



String you start everything with the premise that there is a God.
What are we doing that is any different?

You go on down the line making valid points that all can be applied to your premises, assertions and opinions.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> String you start everything with the premise that there is a God.
> What are we doing that is any different?
> 
> You go on down the line making valid points that all can be applied to your premises, assertions and opinions.



When a non believer is arguing a position about God, he is assuming the position that there is a God, in which case my argument comes from the same position.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're starting with the premis that God created freewill so we could be "happy", why is that?


Because there is nothing that says otherwise




stringmusic said:


> If good exists, then by default, evil exists, therefor, we have a choice for both.


Assertion or Premise?




stringmusic said:


> Your first sentence is completely your opinion, and one that relies on the fact that you know what perfect is, and what perfect should be.


Who knows any better?



stringmusic said:


> As to the second part, just because we are made in God's image, doesn't mean that we have God's mind making us capable of perfect decisions.


Why not?  




stringmusic said:


> Not if there's leeway for human freewill.


Is someone asserting there is Leeway?






stringmusic said:


> That's why I don't deny the Sovereignty of God.


But  660grizz was not asking you if you were or not.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Because there is nothing that says otherwise


Except the bible. 660 is making accusation against the God of the bible, so yes, he has to go by what the bible says about that God to make those accusations, and as far as I know, the bible does not indicate that God created free will so that humans can be happy.



> Assertion or Premise?


It's an assertion based on logic. 



> Who knows any better?


Who know what perfect is and should be more than humans? I think you know as well as I do that humans are not perfect.



> Why not?


Because we actually would have the mind of God if that were true.  



> Is someone asserting there is Leeway?


The leeway for human freewill renders 660's accusation/assertion false.



> But  660grizz was not asking you if you were or not.


He didn't ask anything, and I didn't answer a question. He made a statement and so did I.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

How are you two keeping this up across 2 different threads  

I can't keep up today..........


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.


Somebody has been reading some Pink.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Except the bible. 660 is making accusation against the God of the bible, so yes, he has to go by what the bible says about that God to make those accusations, and as far as I know, the bible does not indicate that God created free will so that humans can be happy.


Does it say anywhere what the purpose of God creating Free Will is and that happiness is not included?




stringmusic said:


> It's an assertion based on logic.


and further proof that logical assertions are not necessarily correct assertions




stringmusic said:


> Who know what perfect is and should be more than humans? I think you know as well as I do that humans are not perfect.


As far as i know of, humans are as close as anything else at being perfect because there is nothing better out there.




stringmusic said:


> Because we actually would have the mind of God if that were true.


I say we do. In fact I say God is in our mind.




stringmusic said:


> The leeway for human freewill renderes 660's accusation/assertion false.


What Leeway?




stringmusic said:


> He didn't ask anything, and I didn't answer a question. He made a statement and so did I.


That,s a wash then


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> How are you two keeping this up across 2 different threads
> 
> I can't keep up today..........



I don't know, I really need to working. 


I'll be back in a few.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> How are you two keeping this up across 2 different threads
> 
> I can't keep up today..........



It's easy.
He asks, I answer. He asks again, I answer again. He asks the same exact question again to which I give the same exact answer again...and it goes until I bring it to his attention and then he asks me the exact same question again so I just tell him what he wants to hear so the madness ends.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Good is indifferent if there is no evil.



Good can be contrast to indifferent to seem good. Good might seem better when there is evil, but it doesn't require it. You can go about your life and never affect me in an evil way until one day you do something good for by coincidence. Your good might seem better when compared to evil things other people might do, but it doesn't require the contrast of evil to be good.

Which is why heaven seems more appealing when compared to he11 and less appealing when compared to nothing.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Somebody has been reading some Pink.



Yeppir. (Not the singer.)


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yeppir. (Not the singer.)



The singer is probably a more reliable theologian.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're starting with the premis that God created freewill so we could be "happy", why is that?



Well, cause he was a good god. You are right though, I probably should have started with, "you are starting with the premise there is a god, a premise that he gave us freewill, that freewill is mentioned in the bible. The premise that some verses may be interpreted as free will while other verses can be interpreted as stating you do not have free will. 
You are correct. As a non-believer I have to start on numerous premises or we wouldn't be having what amounts to me as a discussion about Santa Claus. It is all really for the sake of argument correct? Are we really going to get in to the meticulous examination of every word in a sentence so to make the entire subject more material? I never asked to be shown anywhere in the bible where the term "free will" is used. It is not there, Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit therefor they have free will? Perhaps we should have defined free will vs freedom. 
It seems that free will as defined for biblical discussions is the will to follow or not to follow. Follow God or die. That is kind of like the massive spread of christianity back in the day. You can be a christian...or die. Free will.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> The singer is probably a more reliable theologian.



Yes, we need reliable sources of mythical beings and concepts. Very important. 
Or, perhaps you mean, able to show up at functions...at all. 
Then yes, pick the singer.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 24, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> The singer is probably a more reliable theologian.


Any links to the singer's theological works?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Any links to the singer's theological works?



I think she has a song, God is a DJ or something like that. Couldn't post it cause it has wirty dords in it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> I think she has a song, God is a DJ or something like that. Couldn't post it cause it has wirty dords in it.



I'm sure CF is looking for a fitting video.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 24, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> I'm sure CF is looking for a fitting video.



You know me too well.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yes, we need reliable sources of mythical beings and concepts.



We need reliable sources for everything.  This guy, for example, is not the best choice for tax policy analysis.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Does it say anywhere what the purpose of God creating Free Will is and that happiness is not included?


No, I never said happiness was not included, just that it was not the sole purpose.



> As far as i know of, humans are as close as anything else at being perfect because there is nothing better out there.


And what do you base that off of?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No, I never said happiness was not included, just that it was not the sole purpose.
> 
> 
> And what do you base that off of?



I base that off of my extensive space travel, meeting new worlds with new civilizations and subjecting them to ink blot tests.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I base that off of my extensive space travel, meeting new worlds with new civilizations and subjecting them to ink blot tests.



About what I was expecting...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> About what I was expecting...



Well cut to the chase.
God did it right?


All I can say is that is the stuff that makes the best sense in my own mind.
Break out the leather couch and lay me down on it so we can discuss it further....


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I base that off of my extensive space travel, meeting new worlds with new civilizations and subjecting them to ink blot tests.



If you want to torture them, introduce their culture to soccer.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

660griz said:


> Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit therefor they have free will?



Regardless of the nature of the story, did they not act against a specific instruction?  Wouldn't that indicate there was a choice in the matter?

Let's assume for a moment that the story is a total fabrication designed by an ancient goat herder in order to get his town folks to behave......did he intend for the reader to believe there was no choice in one's actions?

Does the answer change according to why the story was written?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Regardless of the nature of the story, did they not act against a specific instruction?  Wouldn't that indicate there was a choice in the matter?



Can get the same message from Star Wars


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Can get the same message from Star Wars



I will be more than happy to debate the merits of star wars if that's where the trail takes us.......but, I think the question was relevant to free will not being in the Bible.

If your up for discussing the free will of ewocks, I am too.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I will be more than happy to debate the merits of star wars if that's where the trail takes us.......but, I think the question was relevant to free will not being in the Bible.
> 
> If your up for discussing the free will of ewocks, I am too.



Your right, it was mentioned pertaining to the Bible.

I have a hard time seeing a choice as a choice if the outcome is already known (despite the story) and holding others accountable for the actions.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have a hard time seeing a choice as a choice if the outcome is already known (despite the story) and holding others accountable for the actions.



If you path is already taken, then no, there is no choice.  I'm not 100% certain what I think about this one.  Each time I think I reason my way through it, I find a logical roadblock.

I am almost certain that the "no-free-will" position is the most consistent, but, that is not what I believe currently.  I have my reasons that would seem ridiculous to discuss in this forum.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If you path is already taken, then no, there is no choice.  I'm not 100% certain what I think about this one.  Each time I think I reason my way through it, I find a logical roadblock.
> 
> I am almost certain that the "no-free-will" position is the most consistent, but, that is not what I believe currently.  I have my reasons that would seem ridiculous to discuss in this forum.



Just glad your always thinking


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Just glad your always thinking


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If you path is already taken, then no, there is no choice.  I'm not 100% certain what I think about this one.  Each time I think I reason my way through it, I find a logical roadblock.
> 
> I am almost certain that the "no-free-will" position is the most consistent, but, that is not what I believe currently.  I have my reasons that would seem ridiculous to discuss in this forum.



"Free Will" is the topic on through The Wormhole right now on Sci channel


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "Free Will" is the topic on through The Wormhole right now on Sci channel



I'll try and find it.....currently watching the braves whoop the mets, but, I think Tim Hudson's career was just ended.   Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "Free Will" is the topic on through The Wormhole right now on Sci channel



Found it.....gonna check it out.  Thanks again


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Just glad your always thinking


"Can you choose your thoughts before you think them?" Sam Harris


----------



## 660griz (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Can get the same message from Star Wars



Or, The Matrix.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "Free Will" is the topic on through The Wormhole right now on Sci channel



Dang it! Past my bedtime.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And what do you base that off of?



How about what do we NOT base it on... one book..


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your right, it was mentioned pertaining to the Bible.
> 
> I have a hard time seeing a choice as a choice if the outcome is already known (despite the story) and holding others accountable for the actions.



The goat herders overlooked that part... or his town did...


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 25, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> How about what do we NOT base it on... one book..



That's great, but I wanted to know what you DO base it on.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Well cut to the chase.
> God did it right?


God did what? We are not having a conversation about what God did or didn't do.

You said there is nothing better out there than humans, as far as being perfect. I'm asking you how you define "better".


----------



## 660griz (Jul 25, 2013)

> bullethead wrote: As far as i know of, humans are as close as anything else at being perfect because there is nothing better out there.





stringmusic said:


> And what do you base that off of?



I base it on book(s). I have never read one that was worth a crappola from any other species.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 25, 2013)

660griz said:


> I have never read one that was worth a crappola from any other species.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> God did what? We are not having a conversation about what God did or didn't do.
> 
> You said there is nothing better out there than humans, as far as being perfect. I'm asking you how you define "better".



God did everything. He is perfect
That is where this is going so I eliminated the three pages of usual back and forth.

I define better the same way you define better.
One on one, bare naked and in an imperfect environment humans are on par with any other creature.
With the right tools we can make due.
In groups we can excel.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> One on one, bare naked and in an imperfect environment humans are on par with any other creature.



?????  If you are correct about origins, isn't that the way it all started?  If so, then your conclusion is incorrect.

One on one, bare naked, we somehow found a way to become dominant over every other critter.  Through intelligence.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ?????  If you are correct about origins, isn't that the way it all started?  If so, then your conclusion is incorrect.
> 
> One on one, bare naked, we somehow found a way to become dominant over every other critter.  Through intelligence.




"On Par" meant we have no advantage over any other..

Nope. Had to do it in groups.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "On Par" meant we have no advantage over any other..



But, we obviously did, because.....



bullethead said:


> "Nope. Had to do it in groups.



.....Our ability to organize would be evidence of our superiority.  Many animals live, travel, etc in groups.  We do it better.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> But, we obviously did, because.....
> 
> 
> 
> .....Our ability to organize would be evidence of our superiority.  Many animals live, travel, etc in groups.  We do it better.



All gotta work together because it is too tough to make it as one.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> All gotta work together because it is too tough to make it as one.



Isn't that oppotunity available to whatever species chooses to do so?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't that oppotunity available to whatever species chooses to do so?



Yes and we are no different.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes and we are no different.



Then why are we the only ones who are "on par" but does whatever the heck we want?  Why haven't the otters ganged up to put an end to our global reign of terror?  Life must really stink for all the critters who are just as capable as we are but somehow manage to constantly lose to us any time there is a conflict.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then why are we the only ones who are "on par" but does whatever the heck we want?  Why haven't the otters ganged up to put an end to our global reign of terror?  Life must really stink for all the critters who are just as capable as we are but somehow manage to constantly lose to us any time there is a conflict.



One on one a person stands just as good or just as bad of a chance out in the wild as any other mammal, bug, reptile, bird or fish.

Through evolution involving our brain, physical attributes and social skills we have been able to dominate. Timing plays a heck of a roll too. Not sure if we would have been able to survive the predatory dinosaur years AND survive whatever wiped out most life on earth then either. 

Your guess is as good as mine about the otters, but I'd bet they are going to be smart accurate guesses as to why they are not gonna take over the world..

Now, it seems to me you are thinking that I am saying every animal on this planet is as well off as we are. I said that for a One on One match up. If you were to get marooned on an island with only your birthday suit and you have to survive with every other creature on that island the odds certainly do not favor you (or me) to come out on top. Yes we are as modern and hopefully advanced as we come but crash me on that island with nothing and if you hope I can figure out how to build a TV, craft an AR15 from iron ore, or roll out through the breakers with a hot new 150 horse Mercury outboard on a 16ft Miami Vice looking boat and your gonna lose the bet. I might be able to sharpen a stick long enough to gather some food, and fend off any big predators long enough until a cut on my big toe goes septic and a little microscopic bug kills me.
Many hundreds of thousands of years ago we were on the verge of not making it as a species. We have discussed here before about fire and socialization and how they have benefited us in ways unique to OUR species. Those things have not had the same effect on other species. Other things have benefited other species in unique ways to them yet have done nothing for us. We have discussed the how's and why's of all that before and it is well documented if anyone wants to research it. It is all based around living together in groups and the social skills that evolved with that.

What I am fairly confident in saying is that we are Top Dog on the planet right now. We have not been since that first week 2 people were created....ahem.....like 13 Billion years before, and we might hold the belt for just a blip longer as far as time on this earth goes. A thousand more years? 10,000? 100,000? Million more? I don't know. Right now it is our time. For how long that is going to be is anyone's guess.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then why are we the only ones who are "on par" but does whatever the heck we want?  Why haven't the otters ganged up to put an end to our global reign of terror?  Life must really stink for all the critters who are just as capable as we are but somehow manage to constantly lose to us any time there is a conflict.



Why didn't we do what we want when T-Rex was running things?
Why didn't we challenge the Veloci Raptors (call them "otters")for their dominance?
Did life stink for them when we were dominating the planet with our Global reign of terror a couple Billion years ago?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 26, 2013)

It would have been interesting to know how humans would have faired back in the dinosaur days. It may have speeded up the invention of the 45-70. 

Large primates(other than humans for this example) usually rule the roost wherever they are. When compared with body weight, the primate brain is larger than that of other terrestrial mammals. A leopard may take a small baboon caught all alone but, a group will kill a leopard.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2013)

660griz said:


> It would have been interesting to know how humans would have faired back in the dinosaur days. It may have speeded up the invention of the 45-70.
> 
> Large primates(other than humans for this example) usually rule the roost wherever they are. When compared with body weight, the primate brain is larger than that of other terrestrial mammals. A leopard may take a small baboon caught all alone but, a group will kill a leopard.



I honestly think that if humans got their early start back then, we would not be here to talk about our current start now.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I honestly think that if humans got their early start back then, we would not be here to talk about our current start now.



I am not sure. It could wipe us out, make us stronger or no change. 

Do you think we would be much further advanced if not for religion holding up progress?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2013)

660griz said:


> I am not sure. It could wipe us out, make us stronger or no change.
> 
> Do you think we would be much further advanced if not for religion holding up progress?



I think we would always have some sort of religion because we need to be with someone to socialize with. When alone we make someone up. Snowballs from there.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2013)

I gotta go to work but am anxious to know why none of the believers want to touch:


> One on one a person stands just as good or just as bad of a chance out in the wild as any other mammal, bug, reptile, bird or fish.
> 
> Through evolution involving our brain, physical attributes and social skills we have been able to dominate. Timing plays a heck of a roll too. Not sure if we would have been able to survive the predatory dinosaur years AND survive whatever wiped out most life on earth then either.
> 
> ...


and


> Why didn't we do what we want when T-Rex was running things?
> Why didn't we challenge the Veloci Raptors (call them "otters")for their dominance?
> Did life stink for them when we were dominating the planet with our Global reign of terror a couple Billion years ago?


__________________


----------



## 660griz (Jul 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think we would always have some sort of religion because we need to be with someone to socialize with.



We could just invent forums and gatherings for folks with like interest to socialize.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Not sure if we would have been able to survive the predatory dinosaur years AND survive whatever wiped out most life on earth then either.



Have you seen Jurassic Park? We CAN'T dominate them....


----------



## 660griz (Jul 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Have you seen Jurassic Park? We CAN'T dominate them....



Make one where it is a hunting preserve instead of a tourist 'trap'. 
That would be fun.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> ....long enough until a cut on my big toe goes septic and a little microscopic bug kills me.



Disease kills more than wars... And definitely more than animal attacks. Microscopic bugs are a nuisance... we have developed ways to be bear resistant... and bug resistant... but we can't shake them.... are we really top dog?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 26, 2013)

660griz said:


> Make one where it is a hunting preserve instead of a tourist 'trap'.
> That would be fun.



The T Rex killed the bald headed dude with the elephant gun...


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 26, 2013)

660griz said:


> Make one where it is a hunting preserve instead of a tourist 'trap'.



That was _The Lost World_ (the sequel.)


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The T Rex killed the bald headed dude with the elephant gun...



No!  The bald guy (Pete Postlethwaite) got the T Rex with a tranquilizer.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The T Rex killed the bald headed dude with the elephant gun...



There ya go. He should have had a t-rex gun.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> No!  The bald guy (Pete Postlethwaite) got the T Rex with a tranquilizer.



You're right... How did he end up dying? A raptor in the tall grass?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You're right... How did he end up dying?



He didn't die.  I'm pretty sure his last scene just showed him sitting there with his gun across his lap.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 26, 2013)

Hmm... Imma have to watch it again


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Hmm... Imma have to watch it again



I found a video clip of the scene but it won't run.  Here's the dialogue:

_Roland knows where the nest is. I want it on my jet.
I'll take it directly to the infirmary in San Diego.
Hurry. I want to be airborne before the female knows.
You probably saved InGen.
We lost everything we came after on this trip.
But this animal and its infant will bail us out.
Congratulations.
You've got your trophy!
A buck.
But it's alive! Everyone will line up and appreciate it and what you did for us.
What's the matter?
He didn't make it. Ajay.
I'm sorry.
Really, I am.
I remember the people who help me.
There's a job for you in San Diego, if you want it.
No, thank you.
I've spent enough time in the company of death._


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2013)

All that and nobody wants to get into why we did not dominate the dinosaurs a couple billion years ago....


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> All that and nobody wants to get into why we did not dominate the dinosaurs a couple billion years ago....



We were not here 

There's a lot of physically superior critters out there now.....we do just fine.  I saw a hunting show where some dude killed an elephant, and I think people have killed lot's of rhinos.  I also watch Swamp people every week, and it seems folks have no trouble dominating the alligator (I think it kind-a qualifies as a dino).

I think we do whatever we want.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> We were not here
> 
> There's a lot of physically superior critters out there now.....we do just fine.  I saw a hunting show where some dude killed an elephant, and I think people have killed lot's of rhinos.  I also watch Swamp people every week, and it seems folks have no trouble dominating the alligator (I think it kind-a qualifies as a dino).
> 
> I think we do whatever we want.



I am not asking about what we do now and loaded to the hilt with firepower to boot.

Why didn't we rule the earth when T-Rex and his buddies were running things?

In modern times those swamp people are not out there filling tags by poking those gators with a sharp stick.  I think weapons and tactics have evolved along with us. rightfully so, that is why we run the joint now, but us running things has not always been the case.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> We were not here



I think you might be the only one that wants to admit that.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> rightfully so, that is why we run the joint now, but us running things has not always been the case.



We have as long as we've been here.  We didn't rule in the time of T-Rex because we weren't here.  Had T-Rex been here about the same time, I tend to think we would have figured out a way to win.  

Oh, and Indians hunted gators too.....with huge sticks and stuff.  I learned that on Swamp People


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> We have as long as we've been here.  We didn't rule in the time of T-Rex because we weren't here.  Had T-Rex been here about the same time, I tend to think we would have figured out a way to win.
> 
> Oh, and Indians hunted gators too.....with huge sticks and stuff.  I learned that on Swamp People



Why were we not here when T-rex was around?

I think we would have been able to hide from the big dinosaur predators just long enough to be wiped out by whatever caused the mass extinctions.
We lived in trees for thousands of years until we figured something better out a few billion years after the Dino age.

Sure enough Indians hunted gators with sticks. And were successful enough to survive. I am guessing it was not as it is today and I don't think they did it to fill tags and collect a paycheck. I would tend to think the gator harvest to the Indians was not much better than the Indian harvest to the gators. Each took what they needed to survive.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Why were we not here when T-rex was around?



Heck if I know. 



bullethead said:


> I think we would have been able to hide from the big dinosaur predators just long enough to be wiped out by whatever caused the mass extinctions.



We may have domesticated them.



bullethead said:


> Sure enough Indians hunted gators with sticks. And were successful enough to survive. I am guessing it was not as it is today and I don't think they did it to fill tags and collect a paycheck. I would tend to think the gator harvest to the Indians was not much better than the Indian harvest to the gators. Each took what they needed to survive.



I am pretty certain they didn't do it to fill tags, and they may have traded the skins or meat, so the paycheck part might be wrong.

But.......I don't know why you think Indian v gator was an even deal.  I recon gators got a few.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Heck if I know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now I know you were not part of an Indian tribe that hunted gators but you have some pretty insightful thoughts about it anyway. Certain about a few things too.
I am surprised you do not have as much to say about where people were when the Dinos roamed the earth. All of a sudden thoughts escape ya JB, lolol


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am surprised you do not have as much to say about where people were when the Dinos roamed the earth. All of a sudden not so much to say.





I don't know why we weren't here.  Some folks believe we were.  But, I answered your question, and I fail to see the relevance.

My point with the Indians was that man has found a way to kill gators way before we had the big guns and airboats.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know why we weren't here.  Some folks believe we were.  But, I answered your question, and I fail to see the relevance.
> 
> My point with the Indians was that man has found a way to kill gators way before we had the big guns and airboats.



Lots of folks believe lots of things and then there is the truth.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Lots of folks believe lots of things and then there is the truth.



Yes.  FWIW, I don't think we were here with the dinos.  But, if I am proved wrong, I'm okay with that too.  It is not a matter of faith, but of origins, and I'm not a scientist or a Bible scholar.  I work with the best information available to reach my personal conclusion.

I think that science indicates something lived through the mass extinction to begin the era of mammals.  Seems a bit convenient when it could have been nothing, or insects, or just fish......or people had we been around.

Lot's of possibilities.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  FWIW, I don't think we were here with the dinos.  But, if I am proved wrong, I'm okay with that too.  It is not a matter of faith, but of origins, and I'm not a scientist or a Bible scholar.  I work with the best information available to reach my personal conclusion.
> 
> I think that science indicates something lived through the mass extinction to begin the era of mammals.  Seems a bit convenient when it could have been nothing, or insects, or just fish......or people had we been around.
> 
> Lot's of possibilities.



Yes. 
http://news.yahoo.com/dinosaur-kill...-140115877.html;_ylt=A2KJ2UZBlPRR9zMAZXLQtDMD


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2013)

Good reasons why we are able to get those gators:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/05/15/tools-are-in-our-nature/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2013)

More thoughtful articles at the bottom of this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/greek-myths-human-origins-114500434.html


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Disease kills more than wars... And definitely more than animal attacks. Microscopic bugs are a nuisance... we have developed ways to be bear resistant... and bug resistant... but we can't shake them.... are we really top dog?



We get killed by crocs, tigers, snakes, spiders and smaller/microscopic bugs all the time. Microscopic are probably our biggest threat of those. Do we have dominion over all of these things? What is the consequence when they disobey our god given right to have dominion over them when they kill us?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> What is the consequence when they disobey our god given right to have dominion over them when they kill us?



Vaccines.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 29, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Faulty humans, or humans with the ability to choose?
> 
> Sure, he knew their choice, but there is a lot to be said in giving us freedom




Please reconcile this for me.

Goldilocks is faced with the bowls of porridge. She tries them all but always eats the same one; every freaking time.  Did she really have a choice? God already knows if i will repent. God knew what Adam would do.  Are those really choices?

Sounds like your trying to say that the chose what they were always gonna do. Maybe Willard can come up with some philosophical loophole that excuses god from reason.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We get killed by crocs, tigers, snakes, spiders and smaller/microscopic bugs all the time. Microscopic are probably our biggest threat of those. Do we have dominion over all of these things? What is the consequence when they disobey our god given right to have dominion over them when they kill us?




The  god of allowed us to bring the bot fly upon us by eating the magic fruit.  I wonder if it was soft and juicy like a peach or crisp like an apple.  Did it have a skin that needed peeling?  Seeds? Where is it now?  I don't recall it being destroyed.  Maybe some one can use their discernment x-ray vision and read  through to the real meaning of the story


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Please reconcile this for me.
> 
> Goldilocks is faced with the bowls of porridge. She tries them all but always eats the same one; every freaking time.  Did she really have a choice? God already knows if i will repent. God knew what Adam would do.  Are those really choices?
> 
> Sounds like your trying to say that the chose what they were always gonna do. Maybe Willard can come up with some philosophical loophole that excuses god from reason.



When Goldilocks sat down at the table, did she choose which porridge she wanted to eat?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> When Goldilocks sat down at the table, did she choose which porridge she wanted to eat?



Just an illusion. God gave her sensitivity to hot and cold soups. She was always pre-destined to eat the same one. 

You have to travel 20 miles over the mountain carrying 200 lbs of goods, please choose between this goldfish, this rock, or this mule. 

Yes, you get to choose.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 29, 2013)

I like my pizza cold, but I'd prefer it fresh out of the oven...


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I like my pizza cold, but I'd prefer it fresh out of the oven...



So, to everyone else, "Hey, Ol TripleX is choosing cold pizza." Little did they know, you were made that way.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2013)

660griz said:


> Just an illusion. God gave her sensitivity to hot and cold soups. She was always pre-destined to eat the same one.
> 
> You have to travel 20 miles over the mountain carrying 200 lbs of goods, please choose between this goldfish, this rock, or this mule.
> 
> Yes, you get to choose.



As oppose to her biological makeup choosing for her? Does anybody have a choice at all, in anything?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> As oppose to her biological makeup choosing for her? Does anybody have a choice at all, in anything?



Isn't God responsible for her biological makeup? 

"Anything" as you know, covers a lot and we will probably not have the time or energy to go through and pick out the true choices...if any. 

Technically, the act of choosing between two or more options is choosing. In some situations, it could be the only choice with the illusion of options. However, I don't believe this has anything to do with free will as it relates to the bible.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2013)

660griz said:


> Isn't God responsible for her biological makeup?



My point was, from a naturalistic point of view, Goldilocks didn't have a choice, she's bound by her biological makeup.

Fatalistic determination.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> My point was, from a naturalistic point of view, Goldilocks didn't have a choice, she's bound by her biological makeup.
> Fatalistic determination.



Same conclusion, multiple points of view.  She didn't have a choice.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2013)

660griz said:


> Same conclusion, multiple points of view.  She didn't have a choice.


So we can expect no more criticizing God for not giving her a choice from now on?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2013)

Another thing that has puzzled me. Why do Christians cry at funerals? They say "he is going to a better place." Wouldn't you be happy and throw a party when somebody dies...assuming they have met the proper criteria to go up.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2013)

660griz said:


> Another thing that has puzzled me. Why do Christians cry at funerals? They say "he is going to a better place." Wouldn't you be happy and throw a party when somebody dies...assuming they have met the proper criteria to go up.



You're wondering why a I would cry at my momma's funeral?

Think about it, it'll come to ya.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're wondering why a I would cry at my momma's funeral?
> 
> Think about it, it'll come to ya.



Is she not going to a better place? 

Yes, I am wondering or I wouldn't have asked. I cried at my parents funeral but, I know they are gone and I will NEVER get to see them again. You ever going to get to see your momma again?

Sounds as if the death of a Christian should be a joyous occasion for other Christians. No?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2013)

660griz said:


> Is she not going to a better place?
> 
> Yes, I am wondering or I wouldn't have asked. I cried at my parents funeral but, I know they are gone and I will NEVER get to see them again. You ever going to get to see your momma again?



Yes, she is going to a better place. It is common for people to cry after losing a loved one. Jesus Himself wept right before raising Lazarus from the dead. I would cry that my mother was gone, that I could no longer spend time with her, I could no longer make memories with her and that I wouldn't be able to see her for a very long time.

Please don't asked my why I wouldn't just off myself.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, she is going to a better place. It is common for people to cry after losing a loved one.


 Really? P.S. I think this was covered in my original question. 


stringmusic said:


> I would cry that my mother was gone, that I could no longer spend time with her, I could no longer make memories with her and that I wouldn't be able to see her for a very long time.


Do you consider this to be selfish reasons?


stringmusic said:


> Please don't asked my why I wouldn't just off myself.



Well, I know that would probably be a sin. You could take up some more risky hobbies however.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2013)

I searched for an answer and the top/best answer on Yahoo was:

I've often wondered the same thing. Apart from the obvious tragedy and sadness as a result of losing a loved one, (which. . . let's be perfectly honest here, is somewhat of a self-indulgent and selfish state of mind) I think that some part of them is actually aware that there is no "hereafter," that there is no great reward, and that the person is simply dead and done.

A "true" Christian, meaning someone who actually believes all that they claim to, should be overcome with joy to see their dearly departed catching the bus to Utopia.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Jesus Himself wept right before raising Lazarus from the dead.



WHY? He knew what he was about to do. He missed him? He was with him... er he was with god... who is him.... no?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 29, 2013)

660griz said:


> Another thing that has puzzled me. Why do Christians cry at funerals? They say "he is going to a better place." Wouldn't you be happy and throw a party when somebody dies...assuming they have met the proper criteria to go up.



I know several people who have requested their funerals to be more like a festivity than a funeral...
I have been to several happy funerals, although sometimes my flesh wants to be selfish and mourn what I no longer have.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 29, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Please reconcile this for me.
> 
> Goldilocks is faced with the bowls of porridge. She tries them all but always eats the same one; every freaking time.  Did she really have a choice? God already knows if i will repent. God knew what Adam would do.  Are those really choices?
> 
> Sounds like your trying to say that the chose what they were always gonna do. Maybe Willard can come up with some philosophical loophole that excuses god from reason.



We have been here before  ambush. 
I will say foreknowledge and being outside of time results in different repercussions than actual causality. 


You will disagree. lol


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Jesus Himself wept right before raising Lazarus from the dead.



Or so the story goes.....


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I know several people who have requested their funerals to be more like a festivity than a funeral....



I have specified that mine be a cookout.  I have always hated funerals (I'm a softy), and don't want to subject mine to such.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So we can expect no more criticizing God for not giving her a choice from now on?



If you agree she was not made by God. Sure.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> We have been here before  ambush.
> I will say foreknowledge and being outside of time results in different repercussions than actual causality.
> 
> 
> You will disagree. lol




Who exists out of time and how does that effect the warp drive engines?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 31, 2013)

God is outside of time. Had to be in order to create it. Consider the link between space and time and you understand where I'm coming from.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> God is outside of time. Had to be in order to create it. Consider the link between space and time and you understand where I'm coming from.




Recon he remembers the moment that he started time?


----------

