# Does our life have a purpose, meaning?



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 2, 2013)

If so what is it?

I ask this assuming all the Atheist are going to say "No.  You live.  You conduct your live as you wish. You die.  That's it."  But, I was wondering if all Atheist take that position or are there other views (a middle ground, if you will) I'm unaware of.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 2, 2013)

A life doesn't need a god to worship to have purpose or meaning. Do you mean anything to your kids? End of story...


----------



## JFS (Jul 2, 2013)




----------



## stringmusic (Jul 2, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> A life doesn't need a god to worship to have purpose or meaning. Do you mean anything to your kids? End of story...



Essential meaning.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

for life to exist at all requires 'purpose'.   Even though scientists still get paid to try and figure out how life could have ever got started, it's been shown that life ex-nihilo is statistically impossible....plus, chemicals would have had no 'desire' to be anything more than they were, or organize in any kind of information-containing patterns.   Purpose, intellect does that.   

I saw a video on MSN not long ago that was an animated story about how life began.       It was full of one unbelievable odds-defying miracle after another...until the end....when genetic material (as if that is simple) injected itself into some make believe protocell.       As if it wanted to....   what a joke.

Life requires purpose.


----------



## JFS (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> it's been shown that life ex-nihilo is statistically impossible



Not really.  No one knows.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

1 in 10^250


----------



## pnome (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> 1 in 10^250



Even if that is true.  The universe is a big place.  

The conditions of this universe are such that life can exist.  And because the universe is so big, life, somewhere, is going to exist.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say it must exist.  And if that's true, then it's expected.  If it's expected, then whatever the purpose of this existence may be, life is a part of it.

The interesting thing to me is that once life does get started, it's remarkably tenacious.   About unstoppable really.  I'd be surprised if anything less than a supernova could completely wipe it out.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

hypothesized.     Only tenacious life is right here under our noses.   We can't compare it to anything else.

1 in 10^250 is 1 in more atoms than there are in the whole universe.   I guess it could happen, though.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 2, 2013)

It may be more than there are atoms in the universe... but each atom has that chance. That chance can occur anywhere at any time. While it is an unbelievably minuscule chance, multiply it by a equally unbelievably giant number of tries it had.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

a common atheist misconception.    Teleology.    

it wasn't trying.    every step along the way would have been a pure accident.    chemicals didn't care to be anything else.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> 1 in 10^250



And like the Jackpot, that "1" can be had on the first pull, last pull, or anywhere in between.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It may be more than there are atoms in the universe... but each atom has that chance. That chance can occur anywhere at any time. While it is an unbelievably minuscule chance, multiply it by a equally unbelievably giant number of tries it had.



Not to mention that all of those "tries" in 13 billion years, the things that happened together and "work" were kept and built upon and the things that happened together and had no effect still go on as nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> a common atheist misconception.    Teleology.
> 
> it wasn't trying.    every step along the way would have been a pure accident.    chemicals didn't care to be anything else.



That's right, nothing was trying, but when the right combo got together the reaction continued until something else joined in and something else after that and so on.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

I am still waiting for the people that are quick on the draw with the "odds" against life spawning from nothing to 1. show us how certain they are there was a time when there was nothing. and 2. lay down some hard odds on a God or intelligent entity being part of the equation at all. What are those numbers?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

lol    you guys need to brush up on your math.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That's right, nothing was trying, but when the right combo got together the reaction continued until something else joined in and something else after that and so on.



lol    Pure conjecture....with no supporting evidence.     Shocker.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    Pure conjecture....with no supporting evidence.     Shocker.



as compared to your version..........? Equally not as shocked.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

Evidence points to design, my friend.    If it couldn't have come together by chance, then it must have been put together!  

1 in 10^250 is beyond anyone's imagination.     It's impossible x infinity.      

We all believe in miracles.


----------



## JFS (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> 1 in 10^250


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

I love your odds. What are the Odds that an entity is in spirit form and has existed forever and can create things in the physical form? Then add in the odds of it being your specific God....

Not sure if .000000000000000000001 X Infinity^Infinity covers it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

lol      again.....making up stats.

We know the odds that life spontaneously came about.   1 in 10^250

Your odds of an 'entity' are just made up...and there's no way you can know if there is an entity or not.   

Designer....there is evidence of design....   none for the original cell.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol      again.....making up stats.
> 
> We know the odds that life spontaneously came about.   1 in 10^250
> 
> ...



WHOA WHOA... So you're saying that we KNOW that it COULD have happened spontaneously? If we KNOW the ODDS.. Then we KNOW it's possible.

AND... there's no way YOU can know if there's an entity or not...


Deduce from those two statements....................


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> WHOA WHOA... So you're saying that we KNOW that it COULD have happened spontaneously? If we KNOW the ODDS.. Then we KNOW it's possible.
> 
> AND... there's no way YOU can know if there's an entity or not...
> 
> ...



Exactly TripleX.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol      again.....making up stats.
> 
> We know the odds that life spontaneously came about.   1 in 10^250
> 
> ...



Give me the stats so I do not have to make any up.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

Yep....it could have happened.    and the odds of that were like picking one atom successfully from all the atoms in the universe.       there is a chance!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 2, 2013)

So there is a chance of spontaneous life... But there's no way to know if there is an entity or not... So your holy ghost is no way to know if there is an entity... according to you.. Case closed..  I trust healthy arguments with you are over now.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 2, 2013)

I was being facetious.    1 in 10^250 means there is no chance.     I forget what odds are considered impossible, but it's way way less than 1 in 10^250


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 2, 2013)

1 in anything... means that it can happen.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 2, 2013)

JFS said:


> Not really.  No one knows.



Uhhhhh.  Yeah.  We do.  Like he said, its statistically impossible.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Uhhhhh.  Yeah.  We do.  Like he said, its statistically impossible.



Give us the statistics on the possibility of a God being responsible for creating life, then give the stats of that God being the God of the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

1in10^250 is the chance given to ONE scenario.
Read on:
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

Here are some nice rebuttals to these "odds" that are constantly posted by Theists.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 2, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> 1 in anything... means that it can happen.



Man you are grasping at straws.  Even the skeptic scientist are grudgingly acknowledging that the fine tuning of the universe points to design.  Some are still grasping at straws like the multiverse or m theory but that only pushes back the question of origin.  It doesn't answer it.  

My friend science is no longer on your side in this.  You better find another ally.  Don't take my word for it.  Read up on the current literature yourself.  I would suggest some books but you would not believe the authors despite them being skeptics.  

Oh, and by the way, that evolution concept you're so fond of.  Stick a fork in it and call it chicken cause it ain't looking so healthy either.  But again I don't expect you to believe it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Man you are grasping at straws.  Even the skeptic scientist are grudgingly acknowledging that the fine tuning of the universe points to design.  Some are still grasping at straws like the multiverse or m theory but that only pushes back the question of origin.  It doesn't answer it.
> 
> My friend science is no longer on your side in this.  You better find another ally.  Don't take my word for it.  Read up on the current literature yourself.  I would suggest some books but you would not believe the authors despite them being skeptics.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, that evolution concept you're so fond of.  Stick a fork in it and call it chicken cause it ain't looking so healthy either.  But again I don't expect you to believe it.



Waiting on those odds that a God did it...and YOUR God did it.....


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 2, 2013)

What a fast derailment that was...

FEMA has no chance to get to this accident site before many deaths occur...lol


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> What a fast derailment that was...
> 
> FEMA has no chance to get to this accident site before many deaths occur...lol



No derailment. Answers are not so simple and many things must be covered in order to lead to an answer to the original question.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> it's been shown that life ex-nihilo is statistically impossible....



Has it ever been shown that there was ever "nothing" for life to come out of?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 2, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> What a fast derailment that was...



Not nearly as fast as two guys that are totally avoiding the hard questions scooting off after replying to less complicated ones.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Waiting on those odds that a God did it...and YOUR God did it.....



Very simple.  All arguments come down to just two.  Either the universe is eternal or God is.  Science has proven the universe had a beginning, hence it's not eternal and ironically this is just what the Bible tells us.  We are left with only one option, but what a wonderful option it is.

Since God created us we have a purpose.  That fact gives each one of our lives infinite value and infinite sanctity because purpose, by definition, assigns value.
Now we are back on track.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 3, 2013)

lol     again, it comes down to two choices....     accident or design.   When we know the odds of it accidentally happening are impossible, then there is only one alternative.   You can stick your head in the sand and avoid it all you want, but logic tells us that if it couldn't have come about by chance (and I looked it up....   anything over 10^50 is a statistical impossibility) then it had to be designed.  

There's only two choices...and we know the odds of life from nothing.     Designer is the only other logical explanation, and it's why almost half of scientists believe in God.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> ....My friend science is no longer on your side in this...



Precisely.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Man you are grasping at straws.  Even the skeptic scientist are grudgingly acknowledging that the fine tuning of the universe points to design.  Some are still grasping at straws like the multiverse or m theory but that only pushes back the question of origin.  It doesn't answer it.
> 
> My friend science is no longer on your side in this.  You better find another ally.  Don't take my word for it.  Read up on the current literature yourself.  I would suggest some books but you would not believe the authors despite them being skeptics.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, that evolution concept you're so fond of.  Stick a fork in it and call it chicken cause it ain't looking so healthy either.  But again I don't expect you to believe it.



You stick a fork in it to call it done... not chicken...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 3, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol     again, it comes down to two choices....     accident or design.   When we know the odds of it accidentally happening are impossible, then there is only one alternative.   You can stick your head in the sand and avoid it all you want, but logic tells us that if it couldn't have come about by chance (and I looked it up....   anything over 10^50 is a statistical impossibility) then it had to be designed.
> 
> There's only two choices...and we know the odds of life from nothing.     Designer is the only other logical explanation, and it's why almost half of scientists believe in God.



So, please understand what a STATISTICAL impossibility is.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Very simple.  All arguments come down to just two.  Either the universe is eternal or God is.  Science has proven the universe had a beginning, hence it's not eternal and ironically this is just what the Bible tells us.  We are left with only one option, but what a wonderful option it is.
> 
> Since God created us we have a purpose.  That fact gives each one of our lives infinite value and infinite sanctity because purpose, by definition, assigns value.
> Now we are back on track.



I LOVE it when you religious guys reject Science at every cost until you seem to think it goes along with something religious....
Science's best calculations put the current Universe being @14 Billion years old. I won't argue that as I tend to think science is accurate. What science has not said is exactly how this Universe came into being, what was there before this Universe and who/what is responsible.

Narrow minds conclude TWO arguments. Reality says much different. Your deductive and circular reasoning does not back up nor have any truth whatsoever.

"Since God created us...."
That works with 4 years olds. Back it up if you want it to work here.

I still await the odds I asked for. You have it at 50/50 or 1 out of 2. Epic miscalculation on your end. Like Bandy says " you are making up stats and you need to brush up on your math"


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol     again, it comes down to two choices....     accident or design.   When we know the odds of it accidentally happening are impossible, then there is only one alternative.   You can stick your head in the sand and avoid it all you want, but logic tells us that if it couldn't have come about by chance (and I looked it up....   anything over 10^50 is a statistical impossibility) then it had to be designed.
> 
> There's only two choices...and we know the odds of life from nothing.     Designer is the only other logical explanation, and it's why almost half of scientists believe in God.



If you looked it up then you can provide the odds of it being a god and then give us the odds that statistically prove that it is the God of the Bible.

You must have missed the 10^44 chance in one of the articles I provided. Statistically possible.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 3, 2013)

How is it circular reasoning?   

lol    awaiting odds of god.     When the odds of it being an accident are infinite, then the odds of a Designer are 100% 

There....you have the odds!  

If life's not an accident, and wasn't designed, then what is/are the other options?   (since I'm being narrow minded)


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If you looked it up then you can provide the odds of it being a god and then give us the odds that statistically prove that it is the God of the Bible.
> 
> You must have missed the 10^44 chance in one of the articles I provided. Statistically possible.



yep....I guess I missed the 10^44 article.   I'd appreciate the link again.    Even if one of your scientists says it's 10^44....1 in 10 followed by 44 zeroes     you believe it?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> yep....I guess I missed the 10^44 article.   I'd appreciate the link again.    Even if one of your scientists says it's 10^44....1 in 10 followed by 44 zeroes     you believe it?



You gave the 10^50 stat. Science said it might be a tad better than that....now you don't like it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> How is it circular reasoning?
> 
> lol    awaiting odds of god.     When the odds of it being an accident are infinite, then the odds of a Designer are 100%
> 
> ...



Circular reasoning.
God created life. Life cannot come from nothing. God is not nothing. Therefore God exists.

Making up stats Bandy? I know you can provide some solid scientific stats to back up the 100% claim, heck you have half the scientists on your side....so you claim.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You gave the 10^50 stat. Science said it might be a tad better than that....now you don't like it.



lol    I love 10^44 power!    Who said I didn't like it?  (no one, as usual)     It shows me that, at the least, there's a few scientists that refuse to believe the other scientists' 10^250 power stats.     and, it shows me that you are happy with those odds.  

What is the other choices, other than accident or design?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Circular reasoning.
> God created life. Life cannot come from nothing. God is not nothing. Therefore God exists.
> 
> Making up stats Bandy? I know you can provide some solid scientific stats to back up the 100% claim, heck you have half the scientists on your side....so you claim.



lol    You, my friend, claimed that almost half believed in God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 3, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You stick a fork in it to call it done... not chicken...



I like chikin better


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I LOVE it when you religious guys reject Science at every cost until you seem to think it goes along with something religious....
> Science's best calculations put the current Universe being @14 Billion years old. I won't argue that as I tend to think science is accurate. What science has not said is exactly how this Universe came into being, what was there before this Universe and who/what is responsible."



Science can't answer those and never will.  They are philosophical questions, not scientific ones and are outside the scope of science.



bullethead said:


> Narrow minds conclude TWO arguments. Reality says much different. Your deductive and circular reasoning does not back up nor have any truth whatsoever.



Really?  Well let's hear you offer another if you are aware of one.



bullethead said:


> "Since God created us...."
> That works with 4 years olds. Back it up if you want it to work here.



I have to the point a 4 year old could grasp it.  Oddly you can't.



bullethead said:


> I still await the odds I asked for. You have it at 50/50 or 1 out of 2. Epic miscalculation on your end. Like Bandy says " you are making up stats and you need to brush up on your math"



I'm guessing math isn't your strong point. Its not a ratio as you portray.  In light of the fact that you cant postulate another explanation for origin, it becomes an either/or proposition because both cant be correct.  To the point you are referencing   2 - 1= 1.  1 = 100%.  Which leaves the chance of the universe being eternal at 0%.  Follow me?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Science can't answer those and never will.  They are philosophical questions, not scientific ones and are outside the scope of science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Follow you, heck I alerted every major and minor University professor and science lab that has anything to do with trying to figure out such things. They in turn have contacted NASA and every other organization that is studying the Universe and it's cause.
I am guessing with the ground breaking stats you have just provided it will be no time that you are contacted by any or all of these organizations in order to hold a world wide press conference so you can share with everyone that you have figured out what these others could not have.
I am astounded.
Congrats. Seriously, Congrats.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Follow you, heck I alerted every major and minor University professor and science lab that has anything to do with trying to figure out such things. They in turn have contacted NASA and every other organization that is studying the Universe and it's cause.
> I am guessing with the ground breaking stats you have just provided it will be no time that you are contacted by any or all of these organizations in order to hold a world wide press conference so you can share with everyone that you have figured out what these others could not have.
> I am astounded.
> Congrats. Seriously, Congrats.



This is the usual tactic SFD, when an argument points to God existing, the only thing left in the tank is saying that since the entire scientific world doesn't agree with it, then it can't be true. I experienced the same thing when discussing the topic about the Dallas Willard argument.

Bullet, the logic in his post is sound, why is it hard to accept?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 3, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This is the usual tactic SFD, when an argument points to God existing, the only thing left in the tank is saying that since the entire scientific world doesn't agree with it, then it can't be true. I experienced the same thing when discussing the topic about the Dallas Willard argument.
> 
> Bullet, the logic in his post is sound, why is it hard to accept?




Yeah I know.  I saw the Dallas Willard thread.  What I find comical is they continually rant "Show me the evidence!" and when it's presented they stick their heads in the sand and say "What evidence?"  Bottom line is, some are going to rebel regardless of any evidence placed in front of them.
Same thing happened to Jesus himself.  They couldn't deny the miracles so they attributed it to Satan to keep their personal agendas.  Same thing here.  It's utterly absurd the foolish positions they will put themselves in to deny what is obvious to a child.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 3, 2013)

Last I heard, the odds of life occurring on earth and evolving to its current level to not jive with the time allotted. I think Dawkins pointed to aliens seeding earth. I may have some details wrong, but what do ya'll think about that theory? 
Not to derail, but it seems to be linked


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If so what is it?
> 
> I ask this assuming all the Atheist are going to say "No.  You live.  You conduct your live as you wish. You die.  That's it."  But, I was wondering if all Atheist take that position or are there other views (a middle ground, if you will) I'm unaware of.



This would be a great discussion over in the Christian forum.
.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 3, 2013)

Everything has a purpose.

A river.
A tree.
A grandfather clock.
A grain of sand.
A hair.
A dog.
A fragrant flower.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This is the usual tactic SFD, when an argument points to God existing, the only thing left in the tank is saying that since the entire scientific world doesn't agree with it, then it can't be true. I experienced the same thing when discussing the topic about the Dallas Willard argument.
> 
> Bullet, the logic in his post is sound, why is it hard to accept?



You guys crack me up. NOTHING points to a God existing. Literally nothing. And even less than nothing points to any specific God existing.
Not one single shred of anything shows it. 
All we think we can be certain of is that around 14 billion years ago the Universe that we now reside in began and started to form. We have some good ideas about how planets,stars and sub-planets formed but none of that involves a God either.
No one knows what was around before our current Universe. 
Keep on trying boys.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah I know.  I saw the Dallas Willard thread.  What I find comical is they continually rant "Show me the evidence!" and when it's presented they stick their heads in the sand and say "What evidence?"  Bottom line is, some are going to rebel regardless of any evidence placed in front of them.
> Same thing happened to Jesus himself.  They couldn't deny the miracles so they attributed it to Satan to keep their personal agendas.  Same thing here.  It's utterly absurd the foolish positions they will put themselves in to deny what is obvious to a child.



Dallas still to this very second has not shown us a God or any specific God. He makes a great case for something intelligent doing the designing but any number of fables, myths and folklore that has been thought up in the history of mankind can be inserted in there and made to look like it fits.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Last I heard, the odds of life occurring on earth and evolving to its current level to not jive with the time allotted. I think Dawkins pointed to aliens seeding earth. I may have some details wrong, but what do ya'll think about that theory?
> Not to derail, but it seems to be linked



Well then God created the aliens........
No matter how far back you go, no matter what route you take, God gets the credit.
 That is the logic that everyone must accept.
It does not matter what gloopity glop mixed with some other splatter of splunk from pieces of stars and other space matter. All the slop came from God, AND The GOD of The Bible to be exact.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

I'll leave you "logic"  guys with these:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/24079-natural-phenomena-for-conservation-and-invariance/

http://scienceforums.com/topic/23724-universe-from-nothing/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 3, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Everything has a purpose.
> 
> A river.
> A tree.
> ...




Aids
Cancer
Birth defects
Viruses

What is each of their purposes and who is responsible for making them?


----------



## JFS (Jul 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You guys crack me up. NOTHING points to a God existing. Literally nothing.



And that's why it isn't an honest argument.  It's just a god of the gaps looking for gaps.  See, god causes floods, locusts, frogs, lice, boils, hail or whatever, right up to the point we understand natural events.  And then god recedes and hides behind the next unknown, but the followers still carry on notwithstanding their prior beliefs have been debunked.  But wait- no one was here billions of years ago, lets cling to our origin myth, no one can disprove that!  Some solace, refuge in the god of ignorance.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 5, 2013)

JFS said:


> And that's why it isn't an honest argument.  It's just a god of the gaps looking for gaps.  See, god causes floods, locusts, frogs, lice, boils, hail or whatever, right up to the point we understand natural events.  And then god recedes and hides behind the next unknown, but the followers still carry on notwithstanding their prior beliefs have been debunked.  But wait- no one was here billions of years ago, lets cling to our origin myth, no one can disprove that!  Some solace, refuge in the god of ignorance.



Again, a straw man.  I don't know anyone who believes in a God of the gaps.  We believers contend that God is sovereign  over all of creation, not just the gaps science can't explain.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Aids
> Cancer
> Birth defects
> Viruses
> ...



What's the purpose of suggesting such a list?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Aids
> Cancer
> Birth defects
> Viruses
> ...



Population control? Was Aids on the Ark or did God use evolution to bring it out later? 
We tend to mention nice things in nature as from God but not the bad things. I'm not sure what I believe, mostly I believe in randomness. Maybe God knows but doesn't control. That's what Christians say about who becomes part of the elect. God knows who will come but he doesn't choose. God knows a tree will fall but he didn't choose that tree to fall. If I have freewill then so does nature.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What's the purpose of suggesting such a list?



I'd like to know, from those "in the know", what the purpose of these Bad things are, not just the cutsie things.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Population control? Was Aids on the Ark or did God use evolution to bring it out later?
> We tend to mention nice things in nature as from God but not the bad things. I'm not sure what I believe, mostly I believe in randomness. Maybe God knows but doesn't control. That's what Christians say about who becomes part of the elect. God knows who will come but he doesn't choose. God knows a tree will fall but he didn't choose that tree to fall. If I have freewill then so does nature.



First you need to establish that there was an Ark in order to see if Aids was on it. So far, not a toothpick found in 5000+ years.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Aids
> Cancer
> Birth defects
> Viruses
> ...



Cancer?  Most are probably caused by manmade products, etc.

Birth defects?  Word is that there are a multitude of reasons and causes of birth defects.
My daughter had 5 miscarriages and one stillbirth. Then they realized that she had a form of lupus that was causing the problems.

The other stuff?  I don't know.  But God won't mind you claiming that He could have prevented them from ever existing.  
And why am I responding to you?  You're off on a camping trip?????  In the rain most likely.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'd like to know, from those "in the know", what the purpose of these Bad things are, not just the cutsie things.



Surely the first 87 times this has been discussed with you were enough.
.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 6, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Population control? Was Aids on the Ark or did God use evolution to bring it out later?
> We tend to mention nice things in nature as from God but not the bad things. I'm not sure what I believe, mostly I believe in randomness. Maybe God knows but doesn't control. That's what Christians say about who becomes part of the elect. God knows who will come but he doesn't choose. God knows a tree will fall but he didn't choose that tree to fall. If I have freewill then so does nature.



Every time I read _Goldilocks and the Three Bears_ she ends up in baby bears bed.  Does she REALLY have a choice?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Cancer?  Most are probably caused by manmade products, etc.
> 
> Birth defects?  Word is that there are a multitude of reasons and causes of birth defects.
> My daughter had 5 miscarriages and one stillbirth. Then they realized that she had a form of lupus that was causing the problems.
> ...



Sincerely, Sorry to hear of your daughter's misfortunes.

Lupus. What is it's purpose? Is it man made?
Cancer. "Most are probably...." Many modern man made things are linked to causing certain forms of cancer, I agree with you there,  but do you have any knowledge of how long cancer has been around in humans? There are many forms of cancer. Tumors have been found in mummies. No chemical factories around then. There is a real possibility that cancer(in one form or another) is in everyone and is activated by certain things. Good old sunlight (God's creation you know) gives us some wicked cancer. Not sure of it's purpose though.

The other stuff.....
I applaud you for admitting that you do not now. Neither do I. But where we differ is giving the credit.
The good stuff has to come from God because the purpose of these wonderful things must be from a wonderful entity. No proof of that, it is just constantly asserted. When the not so good stuff is introduced into the mix God does not get the honors of being linked to that stuff. No explanation and certainly none that are tied in with the God of the good.

Rained during the night. Days were sunny.  River was cool. Good food. Great friends and Family.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 8, 2013)

This thread quickly went off track to origin.  Again I would like to refer back to the OP and hope for some more pointed input.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This thread quickly went off track to origin.  Again I would like to refer back to the OP and hope for some more pointed input.



Gotta trim a lot of branches in order to get to the 2x4.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If so what is it?
> 
> I ask this assuming all the Atheist are going to say "No.  You live.  You conduct your live as you wish. You die.  That's it."  But, I was wondering if all Atheist take that position or are there other views (a middle ground, if you will) I'm unaware of.



Life is what you make of it while alive. The memories you leave behind for friends and loved ones is what carries you on. If no one knows about you a generation or two later then you really did not make an impact. If friends and family pass you along with fond memories then you have accomplished something.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If so what is it?
> 
> I ask this assuming all the Atheist are going to say "No.  You live.  You conduct your live as you wish. You die.  That's it."  But, I was wondering if all Atheist take that position or are there other views (a middle ground, if you will) I'm unaware of.



It's what YOU make of it.  That's what everybody does.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'd like to know, from those "in the know", what the purpose of these Bad things are, not just the cutsie things.



Pain and suffering have a purpose.  This is obvious even from an evolutionary perspective.  On a physiologic basis it warns us of danger.  Touching a hot pan, we realize the pain and move our hand.  Therefore it's protective in one aspect. 

 On a deeper cognitive level you could say that it alerts us that something is amiss or not as it should be.  When we see suffering we almost universally have the feeling that something is 'wrong'......that this shouldn't be.  

The Christian worldview justifies this perception and gives an explanation.  It tells us it is because we live in a fallen, imperfect world inhabited by fallen imperfect beings.

In direct opposition to this is Naturalism.  Naturalism not only can't  justify this feeling but denies it even exist, because if its just nature behaving as nature then it should be expected.
To quote Dawkins
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”  So Dawkins says we can't even justify asking the question regarding pain and suffering, because it doesn't exist.  


Which one does your conscious and reason tell you is the better explanation?


----------



## David Parker (Jul 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If so what is it?
> 
> I ask this assuming all the Atheist are going to say "No.  You live.  You conduct your live as you wish. You die.  That's it."  But, I was wondering if all Atheist take that position or are there other views (a middle ground, if you will) I'm unaware of.



I'll bite....

purpose?   the purpose of humans are the same as any other matter, to sustain and perpetuate.  We are here and until the majority wants to end it all, we all strive to remain and provide a place for our future generations to remain as well.

meaning?  sure, it's the sum of everything you were a part of.

I tend to think in terms of energy.  If you live productively and intensely, your energy that is dispersed back into the ether is significant.  If you are a wasteful leech, you offer little back.  So my personal purpose is to provide as much energy back into this world as I can w/o consuming so much.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The Christian worldview justifies this perception and gives an explanation.  It tells us it is because we live in a fallen, imperfect world inhabited by fallen imperfect beings.



That leaves you in the same place. Your god put us in this word of fallen imperfect beings and to understand that we must have pain and suffering? Either way, he made it so.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pain and suffering have a purpose.  This is obvious even from an evolutionary perspective.  On a physiologic basis it warns us of danger.  Touching a hot pan, we realize the pain and move our hand.  Therefore it's protective in one aspect.
> 
> On a deeper cognitive level you could say that it alerts us that something is amiss or not as it should be.  When we see suffering we almost universally have the feeling that something is 'wrong'......that this shouldn't be.
> 
> ...



Explaining pain and suffering is cake. They are the easy ones. I don't think I asked about pain and suffering though.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Explaining pain and suffering is cake. They are the easy ones. I don't think I asked about pain and suffering though.



You provided this list
Aids
Cancer
Birth defects
Viruses 
And said this 
"I'd like to know, from those "in the know", what the purpose of these Bad things are, not just the cutsie things."


If you are not referring to the pain and suffering caused by the items on your list,what "bad things" are you referring to, because honestly if those things didn't cause pain and suffering I have a hard time understanding how you label them "bad".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That leaves you in the same place. Your god put us in this word of fallen imperfect beings and to understand that we must have pain and suffering? Either way, he made it so.



No. We put ourselves in this position, but you know that.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You provided this list
> Aids
> Cancer
> Birth defects
> ...



Is your position that the purpose of those things is to cause pain and suffering?
If so, they also serve another purpose to "alert" someone that they(listed things) are the problem of the persons pain and suffering??

Your gonna have to clear that up for me.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 9, 2013)

Threads like this make me really wish to be a Calvinist.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Threads like this make me really wish to be a Calvinist.



If you become a Calvinist then you were meant to.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> If you become a Calvinist then you were meant to.





Yes, and there would be answers to these questions.  In that sense, it is a consistent and simple system to comprehend.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No. We put ourselves in this position, but you know that.



No, I don't know that.. You may be able to claim that we get ourselves to that  position, but the path to that position and the position itself were part of the plan.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, and there would be answers to these questions.  In that sense, it is a consistent and simple system to comprehend.



If I were to convert, it seems the only logical place to end up.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 10, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It's what YOU make of it.  That's what everybody does.





I agree with this completely. Whether you are religious or not, your own life is what YOU make of it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Is your position that the purpose of those things is to cause pain and suffering?
> If so, they also serve another purpose to "alert" someone that they(listed things) are the problem of the persons pain and suffering??
> 
> Your gonna have to clear that up for me.



You gonna answer my question?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> No, I don't know that.. You may be able to claim that we get ourselves to that  position, but the path to that position and the position itself were part of the plan.



That's an absurd a statement as saying it was all part of your plan to have your child ran over by an automobile by telling them to stay away from the highway.  Keep it up brother.  You're on a roll.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

That's not the same at all. I didn't create EVERYTHING with regards to that situation. I didn't create the highway, or the cars, or humans, or the properties that create DEATH when a car hits a human, or the concept of life and death in the first place. ALL of everything operates within the framework of "creation." There MAY BE free will and decisions we make may drive certain things, but all of it operates within the created framework.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's not the same at all. I didn't create EVERYTHING with regards to that situation. I didn't create the highway, or the cars, or humans, or the properties that create DEATH when a car hits a human, or the concept of life and death in the first place. ALL of everything operates within the framework of "creation." There MAY BE free will and decisions we make may drive certain things, but all of it operates within the created framework.



Choice.  You want all the benefits and none of the consequences.  Like I said, absurd.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Choice.  You want all the benefits and none of the consequences.  Like I said, absurd.




Does God know if I'll be saved some day?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

I'm taking the question of free will out of the equation. It may still be involved but whether it is or isn't is irrelevant to what I'm saying.  For sake of argument, we'll say we DO have free will. That will satisfy those who need it.

I have the free will to CHOOSE, YES, SFD... FINE I HAVE THE CHOICE. There is absolutely no reason that a choice as an imperative part of any plan in the first place. Go way back before the choice even happens. Your god constructed this framework of how it had to be and that there were consequences at all. I know the argument, he's god he can do what he wants to do... But There's no loving reason to start off with that framework in the first place.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Like I said, absurd.




I think it's obvious that we both feel that way about each others perspective on a major part of life. That's unnecessary and gets the conversation no where. And I do not claim innocence in every case either.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> But There's no loving reason to start off with that framework in the first place.



What framework would you suggest He started with then?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

We've been over this before. I'm not suggesting anything different. I'm just saying it didn't have to be that particular way. He decided to make it that way.

But as in the previous thread, whichever that was, you'll likely demand it so I'll say this. 

Live, Die, Go to the afterlife. 

That's a pretty simple framework. All of the other details aren't NECESSARY... Those three details aren't even necessary. +

Came up with some more. 

If I was god I could sit around and twiddle my thumbs for eternity, but I am not bound by time so I wouldn't get bored of nothing to do. Or I could make humans just like the other animals and just make funny animal fail videos all day long.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Live, Die, Go to the afterlife.


Is that not the exact framework we have? 



> That's a pretty simple framework. All of the other details aren't NECESSARY... Those three details aren't even necessary. +


What do you mean the other details are not necessary?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

sure that's the very basic framework, but there is a lot more of a frame than that. It is not limited to that. There's the rest of the framework between live and die that is much more important to your framework than those three steps.

The detail that humans are bound for he11. That Jesus must be the sacrifice for the sin of the world and that you must accept that in order for to be a happy afterlife. That part of the framework aren't a necessary part of a creation equation. They could be completely left out.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> sure that's the very basic framework, but there is a lot more of a frame than that. It is not limited to that. There's the rest of the framework between live and die that is much more important to your framework than those three steps.
> 
> The detail that humans are bound for he11. That Jesus must be the sacrifice for the sin of the world and that you must accept that in order for to be a happy afterlife. That part of the framework aren't a necessary part of a creation equation. They could be completely left out.



Everything you just named is completely necessary if we are created by a perfect God.

Got any other ideas?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You gonna answer my question?



I was referring to the very items in my list as the Bad Things. Your Question is answered.

Why are they there in the first place? Who made them? What is their purpose? It would take an intelligent designer to whip up some of those nasty concoctions( no way can such evil, bad and painful things just happen on their own). If they are designed then there must be an intelligent designer and if there is an intelligent designer it has GOT to be your God and since it is your God what the heck is the purpose of these things?????

Aids does not break down your immune system and cause pain and suffering in order to let you know that you have Aids.

Birth defects do not happen so that the parents can see there is something wrong with the child.

Viruses do not occur so that the sick know something is wrong with them.

The purpose of Cancer is not to grow in your body and cause pain by eating away organs in order to let you know you have Cancer.

They all have a purpose and are present LONG before pain and suffering.. Pain and Suffering are by products of the actions of each of these things. If everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of these things?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Everything you just named is completely necessary if we are created by a perfect God.
> 
> Got any other ideas?



So a perfect god must create imperfect beings with the inherent need to go to he11, after the creation fudged up, unless this perfect god sacrifices his son to pay (pay who, satan?) for the rest of creation's sin. The creation of Satan who rebelled is the action of a perfect god? 

I fail to see anything about that which could indicate it's all necessary for a perfect god to do....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I was referring to the very items in my list as the Bad Things. Your Question is answered.
> 
> Why are they there in the first place? Who made them? What is their purpose? It would take an intelligent designer to whip up some of those nasty concoctions( no way can such evil, bad and painful things just happen on their own). If they are designed then there must be an intelligent designer and if there is an intelligent designer it has GOT to be your God and since it is your God what the heck is the purpose of these things?????
> 
> ...



Let me get this straight.  You are asserting God is responsible for the problem, i.e. "those nasty concoctions" , but they are not "nasty", they have another purpose.  That's interesting.  What is it?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

Someone else said that they have a purpose...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let me get this straight.  You are asserting God is responsible for the problem, i.e. "those nasty concoctions" , but they are not "nasty", they have another purpose.  That's interesting.  What is it?



You did not get it straight.

I want to know what God's purpose is for making these things. What purpose did he have in mind when he thought "You know what would go good right now in the human body....Cells that attack other cells and rot them out eventually killing the person in agonizing ways....I think I'll call it CANCER!"

You are saying their purpose IS to be nasty....I want to know why that was their designed purpose.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pain and suffering have a purpose.  This is obvious even from an evolutionary perspective.  On a physiologic basis it warns us of danger.  Touching a hot pan, we realize the pain and move our hand.  Therefore it's protective in one aspect.
> 
> On a deeper cognitive level you could say that it alerts us that something is amiss or not as it should be.  When we see suffering we almost universally have the feeling that something is 'wrong'......that this shouldn't be.
> 
> ...



You... actually....


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You... actually....



Yep.
According to SFD, the purpose of all those bad things is pain and suffering. Mission accomplished God.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You did not get it straight.
> 
> I want to know what God's purpose is for making these things. What purpose did he have in mind when he thought "You know what would go good right now in the human body....Cells that attack other cells and rot them out eventually killing the person in agonizing ways....I think I'll call it CANCER!"



You missed the most important part....

And it will be for my glory, because I love them.... For a good purpose!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You missed the most important part....
> 
> And it will be for my glory, because I love them.... For a good purpose!



Tru-Dat

Ans impressive since God is so far above the human intellect yet some believers know exactly what God thinks and they speak for him while God sits back in total silence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Everything you just named is completely necessary if we are created by a perfect God.
> 
> Got any other ideas?



Why do they never argue that they should not have the ability to choose.  That would solve all their arguments.  

You don't hear that from them, because they want, in fact demand, the freedom to rebel yet are bitter that there are consequences.  

I think it could be argued that 99% of Atheist only support the belief to justify one or two aspects of their life in order to avoid the concept of consequences, however they conduct all other aspects of their lives on the basis that consequences do exist.  They live within the law, they are model employees, devoted and sincere partners in marriage, etc.   In the words of Doc Holliday in the movie Toombstone, "My (Their) hypocricy only goes so far." The other 1% who DO TRUELY LIVE OUT the concept that there ARE no consequences to to their actions we call Psychopaths.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You did not get it straight.
> 
> I want to know what God's purpose is for making these things. What purpose did he have in mind when he thought "You know what would go good right now in the human body....Cells that attack other cells and rot them out eventually killing the person in agonizing ways....I think I'll call it CANCER!"
> 
> You are saying their purpose IS to be nasty....I want to know why that was their designed purpose.



Straw man.  You know as well as I do that it is the result of living in a fallen world that was the direct result of choice.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

I have consequences that I have to answer to while I am here on Earth. I'm sure there are some people who don't want to believe just because they don't like the thought of an eternal consequence. If anything, in your eyes, I am accepting my own eternal consequence for myself when I don't really have to.

I by no means think that 99% of christians look at it this way, but in general, you have an equal thought of consequences of sin that you think I  have. Most sin at least. YOU will not have be punished for your sins. Your Jesus died on a cross for your sins, so you're golden.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Straw man.  You know as well as I do that it is the result of living in a fallen world that was the direct result of choice.



Cancer and birth defects are the result of living in a fallen world? Ok then...

"You know as well as I do"
Are you serious? We would not be here in this forum having these conversations if we knew as you do. Please spare this stuff. It's not helpful for anything. 

Do you REALLY think that we "atheists" know deep in our minds (or you can refer to it as our heart or soul) that we're lying to ourselves and we just don't want to admit it??


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Cancer and birth defects are the result of living in a fallen world? Ok then...
> 
> "You know as well as I do"
> Are you serious? We would not be here in this forum having these conversations if we knew as you do. Please spare this stuff. It's not helpful for anything.
> ...



Yes.  Without a doubt.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  Without a doubt.



Would you care to add Hindus & Pagans to the denial of Christianity?  Are they all denying their belief in the one true God? God gave everyone the ability to know right from wrong so deep down people of other religions know Christianity is correct.
I know you want to single out just the Atheist but God doesn't, why should we? Jesus said, you are either with me or against me.

You appear to believe Atheist are different from other non-Christians. I would think it easier to convert an Athiest to Christianity than a Hindu.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  Without a doubt.



If that's the case, and really I guess it's apparent by the way you talk in here, there is no wonder why you run in to brick walls every time you speak.


When a believer presents a logical explanation for something in the bible, I can consider buying it. It hasn't yet been able to make the whole idea more believable for me, but I've been swayed on certain subjects by believers here... but that's because I'm open to it a line of reasoning. Starting with your assumption, you'll never get there... 
I would have much more respect for any believer AND their beliefs if they would give the same consideration for any contrary line of reasoning. I think JB exemplifies that pretty well. Those who have zero open mind imo don't have any place in apologetics. I'm not saying open to changing their mind, I'm saying that they understand the position that they are in.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you care to add Hindus & Pagans to the denial of Christianity?  Are they all denying their belief in the one true God? God gave everyone the ability to know right from wrong so deep down people of other religions know Christianity is correct.
> I know you want to single out just the Atheist but God doesn't, why should we? Jesus said, you are either with me or against me.
> 
> You appear to believe Atheist are different from other non-Christians. I would think it easier to convert an Athiest to Christianity than a Hindu.



Is that why you're here and not a foreign missionary? That sounds like a lazy christian to me


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  Without a doubt.



You use the word absurd a lot.. Is it absurd to think that it's really you that knows deep down in the depths of something/somewhere that you're chasing a fairy tale? You'd probably think that's absurd.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Straw man.  You know as well as I do that it is the result of living in a fallen world that was the direct result of choice.



Straw man?

I am not delusional. I don't buy into that fallen word crapola. Two nitwits on earth did not and do not represent me. You bought into the religious hype that tries to make excuses for a fictitious perfect God in an a real imperfect world. You HAVE to believe it or your world falls apart.

You have No answer for why your God would have anything to do with such horrible things like Aids, Cancer etc..
This is one thing you can't even pretend to speak for your God or make excuses for.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  Without a doubt.



You should seek professional help


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You should seek professional help



Agreed... and it's so bad your pastor may even be able to help this....


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Straw man.  You know as well as I do that it is the result of living in a fallen world that was the direct result of choice.



There is a large part of the population of this world that does not agree with your outlook and never will.  

Man sins, and that sin produces illness and disease?  

Childhood leukemia, just one example, is the product of man going against God's will???

This crap makes me want to vomit.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> There is a large part of the population of this world that does not agree with your outlook and never will.
> 
> Man sins, and that sin produces illness and disease?
> 
> ...




drippin' rock, you have nailed it with that post. The delusional ways people come up with in order to justify awful things is beyond comprehension.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 13, 2013)

This morning the 'vomit' part reads a little harsh, but the idea remains. I will NEVER buy into the theory that man's original sin is the cause of our suffering today, that eating the forbidden fruit caused all our problems.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> This morning the 'vomit' part reads a little harsh, but the idea remains. I will NEVER buy into the theory that man's original sin is the cause of our suffering today, that eating the forbidden fruit caused all our problems.



Not near as harsh as making excuses for the inexcusable and pretending to think that others agree but are too ignorant to admit it.

Prime example:


> Straw man. *You know as well as I do that it is the result of living in a fallen world that was the direct result of choice.*


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2013)

Like all animals on this planet...live, propagate the species, die. Have as much fun as possible in between.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 13, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> This morning the 'vomit' part reads a little harsh, but the idea remains. I will NEVER buy into the theory that man's original sin is the cause of our suffering today, that eating the forbidden fruit caused all our problems.




..Not to mention ETERNAL SUFFERING IN HE11!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> ..Not to mention ETERNAL SUFFERING IN HE11!!!!!!!!!



But, he loves you.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> But, he loves you.



In a way that you couldn't possibly understand.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> In a way that you couldn't possibly understand.



Now that is a fact.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 13, 2013)

Well, ya'll can do what you please, but I thank God for a little pain every now and then. 

“Meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain. Meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.” Chesterton 
Ever heard of "hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy?"

Personally, I think of a lot of pain as a reminder that we need God and that he has provided a way to enjoy life here on earth and in the afterlife.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Well, ya'll can do what you please, but I thank God for a little pain every now and then.
> 
> “Meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain. Meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.” Chesterton
> Ever heard of "hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy?"
> ...



You may enjoy the occasional joint pain, heck maybe you like a little food poisoning to let you know you are still mortal, but you are totally skirting the big ones like Cancer in order to give your God a pass.
If you think cancer spreading through your body and eating your organs away until you cannot keep a sip of fluid down and you slowly die over weeks is a reminder that we need God you just go ahead and try it. Give me an honest opinion about it sometime if you ever are so "fortunate by your God" to watch a loved one whither and die right before your eyes


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

Again, naturalism's contention is that there is no good or evil, no such thing as pain and suffering.  Cancer, birth defects are just there and should be expected.  So I ask you again, By what rationale do you even justify you're position that these things are bad?  Atheism/Naturalism denies the very premise on which the assertion is made.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, naturalism's contention is that there is no good or evil, no such thing as pain and suffering.  Cancer, birth defects are just there and should be expected.  So I ask you again, By what rationale do you even justify you're position that these things are bad?  Atheism/Naturalism denies the very premise on which the assertion is made.



You lump people in groups that you seem to think are some sort of cult and everyone thinks and acts the same within these groups. Naturalism, Atheism etc.

I fit in neither of those groups. I just live. I can have a sense of good and bad. I have been around the block. I am not some twit that roams around in circles with slobber dripping out of the corner of my mouth because I am too stupid to realize that Cancer is bad. I am very capable of deciding what is best for me while still following the rules society has set in place. I do not have to carry a card on me stating that I am a member of some whacked out religion or idealism or ANYTHING and therefore I think and act just like every other smack-job carrying the same card.
You are somehow unable to separate the fact that an individual can exist being an individual while still following societies rules, while still being successful, while still being a good person, father and husband and all the while NOT attaching themself to some load of manure clique,group or club or religion that is defined and hides behind some dictionary term. There are no two Christians the same out of a couple billion of them and you should not expect it to be any different with everyone else.

If you believe in a God and you think God has a purpose for everything then tell us what the purpose is for Cancer and the likes that I have mentioned earlier that every single one of you are avoiding by trying to deflect it and hope it goes away.

If Cancer is natural. If it is a substance in our bodies that is either suppressed by or immune systems or is not suppressed and or triggered by other outside influences like chemicals, smoking etc..that cause our bodies not to be able to fight it then that is what it is. I am fully capable of knowing that I don't like it and therefore determine it to be something bad as I see it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You lump people in groups that you seem to think are some sort of cult and everyone thinks and acts the same within these groups. Naturalism, Atheism etc.
> 
> I fit in neither of those groups. I just live. I can have a sense of good and bad. I have been around the block. I am not some twit that roams around in circles with slobber dripping out of the corner of my mouth because I am too stupid to realize that Cancer is bad. I am very capable of deciding what is best for me while still following the rules society has set in place. I do not have to carry a card on me stating that I am a member of some whacked out religion or idealism or ANYTHING and therefore I think and act just like every other smack-job carrying the same card.
> You are somehow unable to separate the fact that an individual can exist being an individual while still following societies rules, while still being successful, while still being a good person, father and husband and all the while NOT attaching themself to some load of manure clique,group or club or religion that is defined and hides behind some dictionary term. There are no two Christians the same out of a couple billion of them and you should not expect it to be any different with everyone else.
> ...



Oh I agree it's bad.  My question to you is why do you consider it 'bad' instead of 'normal'.  What do you base your determination on?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh I agree it's bad.  My question to you is why do you consider it 'bad' instead of 'normal'.  What do you base your determination on?



It's all in my post.
Along with my question, again, for you about why your God made Cancer and what is it's purpose.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh I agree it's bad.  My question to you is why do you consider it 'bad' instead of 'normal'.  What do you base your determination on?



If you eat something, do you flip through a couple of chapters in the Bible in order to find out why you should  like it or don't like it? Or do you know about the time it hits your taste buds?
 I base my determinations off of my senses, upbringing, family, society and most of all my personal feelings about the matter or subject.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It's all in my post.



Don't see it.  If I understand you correctly you are saying it is 'bad' based on your experience, but that was not the question. I'm asking you to justify the very concept of your label 'bad'.  If you are going to posit a 'bad' then a 'good' is by definition implied, thus you are making either a value judgement, a moral judgement or both.  Inherent to either assertion is the underlying premise that an external standard,( i.e. either a value law or moral law ) exist.  To posit an external standard, you must posit n external standard giver (God).  This is the very concept you are denying.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don't see it.  If I understand you correctly you are saying it is 'bad' based on your experience, but that was not the question. I'm asking you to justify the very concept of your label 'bad'.  If you are going to posit a 'bad' then a 'good' is by definition implied, thus you are making either a value judgement, a moral judgement or both.  Inherent to either assertion is the underlying premise that an external standard,( i.e. either a value law or moral law ) exist.  To posit an external standard, you must posit n external standard giver (God).  This is the very concept you are denying.



You might need that stuff in order to justify your feelings. I do not.
I do not need anything underlying or implied. We went over the moral stuff before and you refuse to accept answers there so you continue along your ways like we have never discussed it before as if this is the first time you have heard it. I have not and did not posit any sort of external standard. If you NEED an answer so you can sleep tonight. Go with 250,000 years of human evolution has brought me to know right from wrong, good and bad, as i see it now. Other influences such as upbringing, society, laws, family, friends, home area all play a part.

Not sure if you missed it or not but you forgot to include your answer about Cancer that I have repeatedly asked........I'll just leave it that even you cannot put a good enough spin on it for your god.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If you eat something, do you flip through a couple of chapters in the Bible in order to find out why you should  like it or don't like it? Or do you know about the time it hits your taste buds?
> I base my determinations off of my senses, upbringing, family, society and most of all my personal feelings about the matter or subject.



Great example.  Taste change, senses change, family, society, and especially personal feelings change.  My neighbor loved his wife until 2 days ago when he found out she was cheating on him now he wants to kill her.  Some people love their neighbors, some eat them.  All based on feelings.  Do you have a preference?  

A relative moral standard is no standard at all and is no more useful to man than a numberless, ungraduated ruler is to a carpenter.  For any standard to exist and be useful it must be unchanging and accepted by all, just as a meter is a meter no matter where you go in the world.  

You posit viruses are "bad" based on your feelings.  Others could posit they are 'good' based on their feelings.  Without an external standard reference there is no way of determining who is correct, but it is this very standard you deny because of its implications.   So again I ask you upon what grounds do you even justify making a statement regarding good/bad, right/wrong, just or unjust?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You might need that stuff in order to justify your feelings. I do not.



I'm not basing my beliefs and decision on feelings.  That would be you.  May I refresh your memory on what you just said:


> I base my determinations off of my senses, upbringing, family, society and most of all my personal *feelings* about the matter or subject.






bullethead said:


> I do not need anything underlying or implied.



So let me get this straight.  You're saying you need nothing more than feelings to justify your moral judgements.  OK





bullethead said:


> We went over the moral stuff before and you refuse to accept answers there so you continue along your ways like we have never discussed it before as if this is the first time you have heard it. I have not and did not posit any sort of external standard. If you NEED an answer so you can sleep tonight.



It's much deeper than just not accepting.  I can't find any sound reasoning in your position.  I'm sorry but I do NEED for something to make a bit of common sense to me before I see the validity of it.



bullethead said:


> Go with 250,000 years of human evolution has brought me to know right from wrong, good and bad, as i see it now.



Brother there is absolutely no sound evidence that evolution will do that.  In fact current thinking on evolution suggests just the opposite.

See
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-M...&ie=UTF8&qid=1373844581&sr=1-1&keywords=Nagel

BTW The author is a skeptic.



bullethead said:


> Other influences such as upbringing, society, laws, family, friends, home area all play a part.



See post above



bullethead said:


> Not sure if you missed it or not but you forgot to include your answer about Cancer that I have repeatedly asked........I'll just leave it that even you cannot put a good enough spin on it for your god.



The reason I keep ignoring the request is that it was answered previously.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not basing my beliefs and decision on feelings.  That would be you.  May I refresh your memory on what you just said:
> 
> So let me get this straight.  You're saying you need nothing more than feelings to justify your moral judgements.  OK



Feelings are based off of the experiences I have had while dealing with such things, or knowledge gained by learning.







SemperFiDawg said:


> It's much deeper than just not accepting.  I can't find any sound reasoning in your position.  I'm sorry but I do NEED for something to make a bit of common sense to me before I see the validity of it.


That has been proven by you over and over with your stance on invisible guys in the sky





SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother there is absolutely no sound evidence that evolution will do that.  In fact current thinking on evolution suggests just the opposite.
> 
> See
> http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-M...&ie=UTF8&qid=1373844581&sr=1-1&keywords=Nagel
> ...



http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ality-come-from-a-demonstration-with-monkeys/





SemperFiDawg said:


> See post above


back atcha





SemperFiDawg said:


> The reason I keep ignoring the request is that it was answered previously.


If so it has not stuck out


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

The problem with your moral provider is that there are equal morals worldwide and they all have a provider too.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

If some sort of God put any sort of morals in each of us we would all be on the same page. Morals come from sociology passed down and taught by others.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist, Steven Weinberg


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

Are you going to offer a reasonable answer to the question of how you even justify a position on good/bad, right/wrong, just and unjust, or are you just going to posit "feelings" and dodge to another rabbit trail?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you going to offer a reasonable answer to the question of how you even justify a position on good/bad, right/wrong, just and unjust, or are you just going to posit "feelings" and dodge to another rabbit trail?



SFD, I have given you what you asked for over and over. I don't care if you don't like it.
God or Not, I choose "Not". For the reasons I have already given.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If some sort of God put any sort of morals in each of us we would all be on the same page. Morals come from sociology passed down and taught by others.
> 
> Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.
> 
> Nobel Prize Winning Physicist, Steven Weinberg



Prime example that intelligence and wisdom are two completely separate often oppositional entities.  May I suggest that most reasonable people would read this and conclude the statement itself is an insult to human dignity.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Prime example that intelligence and wisdom are two completely separate often oppositional entities.  May I suggest that most reasonable people would read this and conclude the statement itself is an insult to human dignity.



You suggest things all the time, I didn't expect anything different this time around. Lay down whatever false dilemma you want.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 14, 2013)

Yes, cancer can point to our need for God. 
I have personally watched those close to me wither and die before my eyes. 
To me, it all points to our need for a savior. Our world is collapsing, people are broken, hurting and dying and we need a savior. 
A broken, beaten, cursed, mocked, and scourged Christ can reach out to these people because he was treated in the worst possible ways himself-all the while being innocent. 
So after knowing what man did to Jesus, please, understand that God is able to comprehend suffering. In fact, he took it on and conquered it for YOU.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Yes, cancer can point to our need for God.
> I have personally watched those close to me wither and die before my eyes.
> To me, it all points to our need for a savior. Our world is collapsing, people are broken, hurting and dying and we need a savior.
> A broken, beaten, cursed, mocked, and scourged Christ can reach out to these people because he was treated in the worst possible ways himself-all the while being innocent.
> So after knowing what man did to Jesus, please, understand that God is able to comprehend suffering. In fact, he took it on and conquered it for YOU.



Did God create Cancer so we would need him? 
God did not suffer because of what happened to Jesus. If there is such a thing as God, he knew it was coming, he sent Jesus for the purpose. Hard to be surprised at the ending when you wrote the book.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 15, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Yes, cancer can point to our need for God.
> I have personally watched those close to me wither and die before my eyes.
> To me, it all points to our need for a savior. Our world is collapsing, people are broken, hurting and dying and we need a savior.
> A broken, beaten, cursed, mocked, and scourged Christ can reach out to these people because he was treated in the worst possible ways himself-all the while being innocent.
> So after knowing what man did to Jesus, please, understand that God is able to comprehend suffering. In fact, he took it on and conquered it for YOU.



I don't follow. God conquered pain and suffering?  Does that mean we shouldn't have to go through it ourselves?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> SFD, I have given you what you asked for over and over. I don't care if you don't like it.
> God or Not, I choose "Not". For the reasons I have already given.



Ok I accept your answer that you justify moral decisions based on your feelings. Got it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Yes, cancer can point to our need for God.
> I have personally watched those close to me wither and die before my eyes.
> To me, it all points to our need for a savior. Our world is collapsing, people are broken, hurting and dying and we need a savior.
> A broken, beaten, cursed, mocked, and scourged Christ can reach out to these people because he was treated in the worst possible ways himself-all the while being innocent.
> So after knowing what man did to Jesus, please, understand that God is able to comprehend suffering. In fact, he took it on and conquered it for YOU.




LOL.. Here's the call to worship! He conquered suffering? Then why is it still here????


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh I agree it's bad.  My question to you is why do you consider it 'bad' instead of 'normal'.  What do you base your determination on?



Cancer could be "normal." It's just part of life. I would call it BAD because health, NOT HAVING CANCER, is good. There's your good and bad.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> LOL.. Here's the call to worship! He conquered suffering? Then why is it still here????



He conquered suffering in the sense that we can now have a relationship with Him and go to heaven where there is no suffering.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

Bad diseases exist, therefor God doesn't exist.

Logic fail.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He conquered suffering in the sense that we can now have a relationship with Him and go to heaven where there is no suffering.



Always a catch to be in the club.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He conquered suffering in the sense that we can now have a relationship with Him and go to heaven where there is no suffering.



He conquered it, but not really... is what you're saying. He conquered his own creation. THANKS GOD!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Bad diseases exist, therefor God doesn't exist.
> 
> Logic fail.



I don't think that's the argument. Definitely not for me. Bad diseases exist, god isn't so great. If god isn't so great because he made the diseases, has some "oops" during pregnancy with birth defects, and created the concept of pain and suffering, then he's not the god the bible says he is.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Always a catch to be in the club.


What??

Are you arguing that Christianity claims that Jesus conquered suffering so there would no longer be suffering here on earth?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He conquered it, but not really... is what you're saying.



No, He conquered it, really. Did you read my post that you quoted?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What??
> 
> Are you arguing that Christianity claims that Jesus conquered suffering so there would no longer be suffering here on earth?



Nope, just the rules that get you into the good graces of some god.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't think that's the argument. Definitely not for me. Bad diseases exist, god isn't so great. If god isn't so great because he made the diseases, has some "oops" during pregnancy with birth defects, and created the concept of pain and suffering, then he's not the god the bible says he is.



The concept of pain and suffering is the opposite of joy and happiness, without pain and suffering, there is no joy or happiness. You could just as easily argue that God is not great because He created joy and happiness because with that comes pain and suffering.


The entire argument from the Atheists in this thread is a strawman. The bible doesn't say that humans won't suffer, or the every human gets to live a pain free live without disease.

Are you guys suggesting that nobody should ever get aids or cancer, and that would make God good?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nope, just the rules that get you into the good graces of some god.



Show me where I posted a rule.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The concept of pain and suffering is the opposite of joy and happiness, without pain and suffering, there is no joy or happiness. You could just as easily argue that God is not great because He created joy and happiness because with that comes pain and suffering.
> 
> 
> The entire argument from the Atheists in this thread is a strawman. The bible doesn't say that humans won't suffer, or the every human gets to live a pain free live without disease.
> ...




Can I just call god a straw man and get out of the argument like you seem to want to do every time you use the term?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Show me where I posted a rule.



Not sure if you did, the Bible is full of them though.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The concept of pain and suffering is the opposite of joy and happiness, without pain and suffering, there is no joy or happiness. You could just as easily argue that God is not great because He created joy and happiness because with that comes pain and suffering.
> 
> 
> The entire argument from the Atheists in this thread is a strawman. The bible doesn't say that humans won't suffer, or the every human gets to live a pain free live without disease.
> ...



There is joy and happiness in heaven no? There is NO PAIN AND SUFFERING IN HEAVEN, NO?   How can we understand the joy and happiness in heaven without pain and suffering? 

I realize that the bible doesn't say that humans won't have pain and suffering.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Can I just call god a straw man and get out of the argument like you seem to want to do every time you use the term?



Exactly. 
God is the ultimate straw man. Now that is logic I can be on board with.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Can I just call god a straw man and get out of the argument like you seem to want to do every time you use the term?





bullethead said:


> Exactly.
> God is the ultimate straw man. Now that is logic I can be on board with.



This may help you fellas out.....  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Not sure if you did, the Bible is full of them though.



We're not talking about the rules in the Bible though.

You said....


			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> There's always a catch to be in the club



After I said....


			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> He conquered suffering in the sense that we can now have a relationship with Him and go to heaven where there is no suffering.


What did you mean?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> How can we understand the joy and happiness in heaven without pain and suffering?


And now you know how there can be cancer and aids on earth, and at the same time, God can be good.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This may help you fellas out.....  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html



Got it... SFD does great at these straw men and I think he uses the term more than you... Because apparently all of us atheists are just suppressing our love for god because we want to.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And now you know how there can be cancer and aids on earth, and at the same time, God can be good.



I don't get it....... straw man?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> We're not talking about the rules in the Bible though.
> 
> You said....
> 
> ...





> Originally Posted by stringmusic
> He conquered suffering in the sense that we can now have a relationship with Him and go to heaven where there is no suffering.



And WHERE did you hear about this, this conquering suffering so that we can have a relationship with him?
Did God come to you personally or is it from the Bible?
And there certainly are rules to follow if you want to be with God eternally.
Don't make it so hard....I am using your rules for your religion and you should know that.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:
			
		

> How can we understand the joy and happiness in heaven without pain and suffering?





stringmusic said:


> And now you know how there can be cancer and aids on earth, and at the same time, God can be good.





TripleXBullies said:


> I don't get it....... straw man?



We understand the that there can be joy in heaven without pain and suffering because we have experienced both while on earth.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

I am fuzzy, as is everyone, on what exactly you remember from your human life when you die and go to heaven. You just remember the pain and suffering so that you can enjoy heaven???

So god made it all up. ALL OF EXISTENCE, remember... That you MUST endure pain and suffering on Earth in order to understand the joy in heaven? I can see how happy times are less happy when you don't have a point of comparison. My mind understands that because it operates how your god made it to operate supposedly. He didn't have make happy, any less happy, just because there was no opposite point of comparison. He made it that way.

These people will love me so much more and be so much more happy... if I make the feeling UNhappy also...


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I am fuzzy, as is everyone, on what exactly you remember from your human life when you die and go to heaven. You just remember the pain and suffering so that you can enjoy heaven???


I don't know. My answer is a logical conclusion.



> So god made it all up. ALL OF EXISTENCE, remember... That you MUST endure pain and suffering on Earth in order to understand the joy in heaven?


Got any other ideas?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Got it... SFD does great at these straw men and I think he uses the term more than you... Because apparently all of us atheists are just suppressing our love for god because we want to.



Another straw man.  You substituted love for belief.  Nice try though.
Maybe you should try reading that link String provided again.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

Belief, love, understanding... whatever it is, it's wrong. Straw man you.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

Straw Man and Mr. Spock strike again!


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 15, 2013)

Pain and suffering are not a problem to Christianity. Pain and suffering bought me my life. I will endure tribulation on this earth. But its ok. My savior had to endure it and will guide me through it as well. 

Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live. Get a hold of him and come to life and you can't help but act like him. No rules necessary. Just love.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Pain and suffering are not a problem to Christianity. Pain and suffering bought me my life. I will endure tribulation on this earth. But its ok. My savior had to endure it and will guide me through it as well.
> 
> Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live. Get a hold of him and come to life and you can't help but act like him. No rules necessary. Just love.



What happened before Jesus?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Did God create Cancer so we would need him?
> God did not suffer because of what happened to Jesus. If there is such a thing as God, he knew it was coming, he sent Jesus for the purpose. Hard to be surprised at the ending when you wrote the book.



Which is easier, jumping in front of a truck spur of the moment to push your kid out of the way; or living for years knowing you will soon climb into the electric chair to be executed in your kid's stead?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What happened before Jesus?



God has always pleaded the cause of the innocent. Its in there


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Which is easier, jumping in front of a truck spur of the moment to push your kid out of the way; or living for years knowing you will soon climb into the electric chair to be executed in your kid's stead?



So the almighty most powerful source that has ever or will ever exist pondered each and every thought on how he could save humanity and his best idea was " I am gonna impregnate a mortal woman, have her and her husband raise the kid and run from the King because the kid will always be in danger, then I am gonna have mankind kill my kid and THAT is the best way I see fit to pull this Salvation thing off"....? Not just blink  or snap a finger and have it done......?
Sounds like a bad Three's Company caper


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

Save humanity from the wrath he created...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Save humanity from the wrath he created...



Exactly
One Big circular argument


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 16, 2013)

God cannot say "this is good" and allow that which is bad to have the same outcome as that which is good. 
Otherwise, what is the point of saying one thing is good and another isn't?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> God cannot say "this is good" and allow that which is bad to have the same outcome as that which is good.
> Otherwise, what is the point of saying one thing is good and another isn't?



Now exactly how do you know this?
Either God actually told you, or you are giving the best answer that you can come up with in your own mind and then asserting that it is something that God would say or do.

Which is it?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 16, 2013)

Think mutual exclusivity. 
If bad has the same outcome as good, then the definition of good breaks down and is only an arbitrary word that is meaningless.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Think mutual exclusivity.
> If bad has the same outcome as good, then the definition of good breaks down and is only an arbitrary word that is meaningless.



Oh I know how it works in human terms.

I am interested in how you know that is how it works for God. Did he specifically tell you or are you giving us your version of how you think God would do it?


> God cannot say "this is good" and allow that which is bad to have the same outcome as that which is good.
> Otherwise, what is the point of saying one thing is good and another isn't?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Oh I know how it works in human terms.
> 
> I am interested in how you know that is how it works for God. Did he specifically tell you or are you giving us your version of how you think God would do it?



He's using logic bullet, good cannot be the same as bad, by definition. It's one of the most well known laws of logic, the law of non contradiction.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 17, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> God cannot say "this is good" and allow that which is bad to have the same outcome as that which is good.



Now we have an argument that String says we do all the time. It can't be just because you don't like it? Your all poweful god could do that! He can do whatever he wants.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He's using logic bullet, good cannot be the same as bad, by definition. It's one of the most well known laws of logic, the law of non contradiction.



Logic also tells me with all this evidence, all these logical things that point to a god, then there should be a god. Reality says there still is no God despite the evidence.
Logical conclusion: evidence is not good enough or there is no God.

Like I said before, logic makes for good discussion but it does not guarantee whatever is being talked about is real. People have logical discussion about comic book characters. People use logic and have logical discussions about Star Trek Vulcans.
Logic is not evidence of a God. It makes for good discussion.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He's using logic bullet, good cannot be the same as bad, by definition. It's one of the most well known laws of logic, the law of non contradiction.



So is it good or bad to condemn someone to eternal suffering, with the fire in the eyeballs and such?  What, in your opinion, could someone do to you that you would wish that upon them?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> So is it good or bad to condemn someone to eternal suffering, with the fire in the eyeballs and such?  What, in your opinion, could someone do to you that you would wish that upon them?



Not worship you is probably a good reason.....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> So is it good or bad to condemn someone to eternal suffering, with the fire in the eyeballs and such?  What, in your opinion, could someone do to you that you would wish that upon them?



False statement.  You condemn yourself through the choice you make.  Jesus died on the cross for all.  It's a free gift.  If you don't accept the gift, it's because you chose not to.  What you are doing is akin to leaving a party in which the host has bought everyone a gift, yet you are blaming the host for the fact that you chose not to take your gift when you left.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Not worship you is probably a good reason.....



That would more accurately be called pride.  It's is the direct result of ingratitude and the opposite of humility.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> So is it good or bad to condemn someone to eternal suffering, with the fire in the eyeballs and such?  What, in your opinion, could someone do to you that you would wish that upon them?



See post #201


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Logic also tells me with all this evidence, all these logical things that point to a god, then there should be a god. Reality says there still is no God despite the evidence.
> Logical conclusion: evidence is not good enough or there is no God.


Are you saying that there is now evidence for God? You usually assert the opposite.

You're basically saying that all the evidence and logic in the world for God could be presented to you and you would still reject it because you cannot see God.



> Like I said before, logic makes for good discussion but it does not guarantee whatever is being talked about is real. People have logical discussion about comic book characters. People use logic and have logical discussions about Star Trek Vulcans.
> Logic is not evidence of a God. It makes for good discussion.


I'm not using the philosophical priciple of logic itself as evidence of God, but I am using logic to come to conclusions about God's existence.

Although it is interesting that logic would exist at all in a world without a Creator.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Logic is not evidence of a God. It makes for good discussion.



You are absolutely correct in that logic is not evidence, but you would have to agree based on your post that logic certainly does not directly contradict the idea of God, and that it in fact suggests the idea of God is reasonable, if not provable.

So where do we go from there?  Evidence?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That would more accurately be called pride.  It's is the direct result of ingratitude and the opposite of humility.



Yes, god is prideful and not humble at all.. God is love.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you saying that there is now evidence for God? You usually assert the opposite.
> 
> You're basically saying that all the evidence and logic in the world for God could be presented to you and you would still reject it because you cannot see God.
> 
> ...



What I said was if there is all that evidence and logic that pointed to a God, there would be a God. The discussions are good, the arguments make a good case, but the end result falls short.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are absolutely correct in that logic is not evidence, but you would have to agree based on your post that logic certainly does not directly contradict the idea of god, and that it in fact suggests the idea of God is reasonable, if not provable.
> 
> So where do we go from there?  Evidence?



That has always been the case, right up until provable. Most of that stuff had me as a believer for about 20 years. Too many lose ends that lead to nowhere is what has me where I am at now.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What I said was if there is all that evidence and logic that pointed to a God, there would be a God. The discussions are good, the arguments make a good case, but the end result falls short.



You know I honestly want to say thanks for at least acknowledging the merits of the arguments.  That is more than many are willing to cede and it does you more justice in my eyes than you can know.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know I honestly want to say thanks for at least acknowledging the merits of the arguments.  That is more than many are willing to cede and it does you more justice in my eyes than you can know.



I can acknowledge those merits because it is the reason I come here to chat with you guys. Another reason I can appreciate those arguments is that I used to make the same arguments when I was a believer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2013)

Ravi Zacharias makes this observation regarding faith and I think he is correct.
"God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing. But he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.”

Excerpt From: Zacharias, Ravi. “The End of Reason.” Zondervan, 2008. iBooks.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Jul 17, 2013)

It plainly states in the good book. That God's way is not our way. With the all being knowing how everything will turn out.I just don't buy the argument .That the social structures of different society's would be handicapped on there belief systems.Besides aren't belief systems design too trigger the placebo effect . When insanity sets in.???


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ravi Zacharias makes this observation regarding faith and I think he is correct.
> "God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing. But he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.”
> 
> Excerpt From: Zacharias, Ravi. “The End of Reason.” Zondervan, 2008. iBooks.



Again, great argument but it does not elevate any god to the top of the heap. He asserts these things to a being that literally no one has ever seen or talked to. That same statement can be made for every single thing anyone has ever worshiped. It is a one size fits all gods statement.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Again, great argument but it does not elevate any god to the top of the heap. He asserts these things to a being that literally no one has ever seen or talked to. That same statement can be made for every single thing anyone has ever worshiped. It is a one size fits all gods statement.



It's not an argument for a specific God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2013)

I would point out, and we have been over this time and time again, that no matter what you believe in, the bottom line is all require some leap of faith.  I can somewhat understand when someone states that there is not enough evidence.  I think different people expect different types and amounts of evidence.  I don't agree when someone states there is no evidence.  There is at least some evidence for all beliefs. Personally I think Christianity provides the most comprehensive and cohesive explanation, but I won't say there is no evidence for other beliefs people hold.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's not an argument for a specific God.



Sure sounds like it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Sure sounds like it.


In what way?


SemperFiDawg said:


> Ravi Zacharias makes this observation regarding faith and I think he is correct.
> "God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing. But he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.”
> 
> Excerpt From: Zacharias, Ravi. “The End of Reason.” Zondervan, 2008. iBooks.


It seems Ravi just mentions "God", not any specific God. Although it should be noted that he was indeed talking about the God of the bible, but we only know that because we know Ravi is a Christian apologists. If the quote is taken a face value, the argument does not designate any certian God.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> In what way?
> 
> It seems Ravi just mentions "God", not any specific God. Although it should be noted that he was indeed talking about the God of the bible, but we only know that because we know Ravi is a Christian apologists. If the quote is taken a face value, the argument does not designate any certian God.



He didn't say a God or Gods.
He is talking about the God he worships. Period.
Not sure how you refer to the God of the Bible but most Christians call him God. He specifically says God and specifically says He (implying the one same god)in the next sentence..


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> He didn't say a God or Gods.
> He is talking about the God he worships. Period.
> Not sure how you refer to the God of the Bible but most Christians call him God. He specifically says God and specifically says He (implying the one same god)in the next sentence..


...


stringmusic said:


> It seems Ravi just mentions "God", not any specific God. Although it should be noted that he was indeed talking about the God of the bible, but we only know that because we know Ravi is a Christian apologists. If the quote is taken a face value, the argument does not designate any certian God.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> ...



One sentence he says "God". Next sentence he says "he".
 RZ was talking about one specific god. Your red highlighted stuff is a dollar short and a day late. It was clear who/what/which god RZ was talking about before you posted his religious affiliation. And if you think he was not being specific then you are only fooling yourself.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> One sentence he says "God". Next sentence he says "he".
> RZ was talking about one specific god. Your red highlighted stuff is a dollar short and a day late. It was clear who/what/which god RZ was talking about before you posted his religious affiliation. And if you think he was not being specific then you are only fooling yourself.



Ok, let's pretend we don't know Ravi's a Christian. Which God was he talking about?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, let's pretend we don't know Ravi's a Christian. Which God was he talking about?



I wish we could curse on here because you are really frustrating today.

I am not playing what if. I am taking RZ at his exact words at that exact time in the exact context he meant them.

God has. He has.
is specific.

He did not say "any god" or "they" 

Now are you specifically talking to me? or are you talking to potential bulletheads everywhere in a pretend vague type of direct statement?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I wish we could curse on here because you are really frustrating today.
> 
> I am not playing what if. I am taking RZ at his exact words at that exact time in the exact context he meant them.
> 
> ...



I don't know how to be any more simplistic about this bullet.

You said Ravi was specific by using the word "God" and "He". I said that he was not being specific, but that we only know that which God he was refering to because we know that Ravi is a Christian.

Take Ravi out of it, assume the quote is anonymous, and take it at face value like I mentioned before. 

Which God is the quote refering to?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, let's pretend we don't know Ravi's a Christian. Which God was he talking about?



You always want the Bible to be taken in context. I am willing to bet Ravi's book is specific to one god throughout and I am willing to bet he is talking about one god in that statement.

ONLY if we pretend he is not talking about the God of the Bible is going to be the only way he meant any other god(s).
You know it as well as i do.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't know how to be any more simplistic about this bullet.
> 
> You said Ravi was specific by using the word "God" and "He". I said that he was not being specific, but that we only know that which God he was refering to because we know that Ravi is a Christian.
> 
> ...



Take Jesus out of his quotes in the New Testament and pretend that we do not know who Jesus is and the quotes are anonymous.....NOW do you see how stupid the Bible is?? It sort of takes away the whole purpose of the writings doesn't it?

As long as we are pretending and changing things to suit, we can make anything seem exactly as you want it.

Your Way: An anonymous guy wrote an anonymous book and was very unspecific about which god(s) he was talking about. 
See bullet, I am right when we change it!!!

Yeah. Sure. We will go with that.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You always want the Bible to be taken in context. I am willing to bet Ravi's book is specific to one god throughout and I am willing to bet he is talking about one god in that statement.
> 
> ONLY if we pretend he is not talking about the God of the Bible is going to be the only way he meant any other god(s).
> You know it as well as i do.



That's my point bullet, THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW THAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT HE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS BECAUSE WE KNOW HE IS A CHRISTIAN.

The argument is for God, not the God of the bible, because the God of the bible is not even mentioned in the quote.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Take Jesus out of his quotes in the New Testament and pretend that we do not know who Jesus is and the quotes are anonymous.....NOW do you see how stupid the Bible is?? It sort of takes away the whole purpose of the writings doesn't it?
> 
> As long as we are pretending and changing things to suit, we can make anything seem exactly as you want it.
> 
> ...



The bible is specific about which God, the Ravi quote however......


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's my point bullet, THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW THAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT HE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS BECAUSE WE KNOW HE IS A CHRISTIAN.
> 
> The argument is for God, not the God of the bible, because the God of the bible is not even mentioned in the quote.



IT STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE IS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE DOES. THAT IS WHAT HE IS ALL ABOUT. PEOPLE READ HIS WRITINGS BECAUSE HE IS A CHRISTIAN AND HE WORSHIPS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

If you are at all still confused send him an email and just flat out ask him which God he was talking about in that statement. Just ask that question without interjecting anything else. If he replies "I meant any and all God(s)" then I will apologize to you right here in person and send you a gift certificate to you for your favorite restaurant.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's not an argument for a specific God.


Yes it is... Mr. Straw Man...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ravi Zacharias makes this observation regarding faith and I think he is correct.
> "God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing. But he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.”
> 
> Excerpt From: Zacharias, Ravi. “The End of Reason.” Zondervan, 2008. iBooks.



At this point in time there still is. The intellectual atheists would disagree. I'd argue there were fewer of these IAs 100 years ago... because there is more intellectual material that makes the bible seem less and less believable. There will be a point in understanding the universe where the statement will be more like, 

"The men who wrote the bible put so many lies in it that it is no longer a reasonable thing to have faith in and it is no longer possible to live by sheer faith in that god."

Yes, I BELIEVE this. I have faith that it will happen. I have faith in it happening due to recorded, documented and verifiable history that we live by every day. Like we now know that heaven isn't above the clouds, we can't build a tower to get to it. There is NO MAN OR BEING that rides down to the earth on clouds. I can go on...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That has always been the case, right up until provable. Most of that stuff had me as a believer for about 20 years. Too many lose ends that lead to nowhere is what has me where I am at now.






SemperFiDawg said:


> You know I honestly want to say thanks for at least acknowledging the merits of the arguments.  That is more than many are willing to cede and it does you more justice in my eyes than you can know.



Watch out BH... it looks like he's thinking he's making progress with you


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Watch out BH... it looks like he's thinking he's making progress with you



Reminds me of a poem I heard when I was a little boy.
"Little birdie in the snow, His wing was broke a cripple you know. I lured him in with a piece of bread and then I crushed his little head"


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> False statement.  You condemn yourself through the choice you make.  Jesus died on the cross for all.  It's a free gift.  If you don't accept the gift, it's because you chose not to.  What you are doing is akin to leaving a party in which the host has bought everyone a gift, yet you are blaming the host for the fact that you chose not to take your gift when you left.



But I have to worship the host of the party on my knees.  And because I won't do that he sends me to He11.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> But I have to worship the host of the party on my knees.  And because I won't do that he sends me to He11.




I see.  Well worship is nothing more than showing gratitude.  So in the previous analogy you are blaming the host because you left the party without your free gift.   Now you explain the reason you left without it was because you are so proud you didn't want to have extend the common courtesy to say "Thank You" to the host.
What does this say about you?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 17, 2013)

What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever?
And free means nothing expected in return. Doesn't sound like a free gift to me.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever?
> And free means nothing expected in return. Doesn't sound like a free gift to me.



The gift is a cure to a disease, that if left untreated, causes much pain.

So in essence, by not accepting the free gift, you're torturing yourself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The gift is a cure to a disease, that if left untreated, causes much pain.
> 
> So in essence, by not accepting the free gift, you're torturing yourself.


Thanks for your opinion. Also feel free to address the question/comment that was actually asked.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The gift is a cure to a disease, that if left untreated, causes much pain.
> 
> So in essence, by not accepting the free gift, you're torturing yourself.



What's it like to go through your life believing that you were born diseased.  Is it a happy place?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever?
> And free means nothing expected in return. Doesn't sound like a free gift to me.



It says you had a choice by knowing the consequences of your decision beforehand.  A choice to be proud in his presence and suffer outside of his presence or a choice to be grateful in his presence and to stay there.  

I can't help but wonder how people can come to the conclusion that they should be able to live their life in any fashion they chose yet feel perfectly justified to scream foul when the consequences aren't to their liking.  Whether its their beliefs, their habits, their addictions, whatever,  if you know the consequences of your actions beforehand, it's only fitting that you accept them.  But people don't want to reap what they sew if all they have sewn is thorns.  They demand the right to both sew thorns and to reap a golden harvest and that is not justice.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It says you had a choice by knowing the consequences of your decision beforehand.  A choice to be proud in his presence and suffer outside of his presence or a choice to be grateful in his presence and to stay there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder how people can come to the conclusion that they should be able to live their life in any fashion they chose yet feel perfectly justified to scream foul when the consequences aren't to their liking.  Whether its their beliefs, their habits, their addictions, whatever,  if you know the consequences of your actions beforehand, it's only fitting that you accept them.  But people don't want to reap what they sew if all they have sewn is thorns.  They demand the right to both sew thorns and to reap a golden harvest and that is not justice.


Your response is entirely directed at the actions of the person making the choice while the question was about the actions of the host. Next time please just skip it if you are unable or unwilling to address the actual question that was asked.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 17, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Thanks for your opinion. Also feel free to address the question/comment that was actually asked.



String gave the correct answer.  You just didn't like it.

God created he11 for Satan and his angels.  He created Eden for man. Most men choose to join Satan.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> String gave the correct answer.  You just didn't like it.
> 
> God created he11 for Satan and his angels.  He created Eden for man. Most men choose to join Satan.


No. The question was what does it say about the host if he tortures you for forever if you aren't interested in the "free" gift. Strings entire response was about his opinion of the value of the "free" gift and the consequences for not accepting this "free" gift (which undeniably shows it isn't free as does your response). Not one word addressed the question about what does it say about the host. Same with SFD. Apparently the directness of the question is difficult to answer directly. So I never got an opportunity to like or dislike the answer because there was none.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No. The question was what does it say about the host if he tortures you for forever if you aren't interested in the "free" gift.



O.K.  It says that he gives you exactly what you wanted.  If the two options in very simplistic terms are eternal bliss or eternal torment and you chose eternal torment then you are only getting your wish fulfilled.  But again,  I suspect that in truth that is not your point.  I suspect your point is why can't I chose both the choices and the consequences I want? Why do my choices have to have those consequences?  Is that what you are in fact asking?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> O.K.  It says that he gives you exactly what you wanted.  If the two options in very simplistic terms are eternal bliss or eternal torment and you chose eternal torment then you are only getting your wish fulfilled.  But again,  I suspect that in truth that is not your point.  I suspect your point is why can't I chose both the choices and the consequences I want? Why do my choices have to have those consequences?  Is that what you are in fact asking?




No.

It's not free.  It requires your supplication.

"I offer you this free gift of 'your obedience to me'.  Refuse it and burn forever".

Is that about the gist of it?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The gift is a cure to a disease, that if left untreated, causes much pain.
> 
> So in essence, by not accepting the free gift, you're torturing yourself.



A disease that the host gave you!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Your response is entirely directed at the actions of the person making the choice while the question was about the actions of the host. Next time please just skip it if you are unable or unwilling to address the actual question that was asked.



Another straw man.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> O.K.  It says that he gives you exactly what you wanted.  If the two options in very simplistic terms are eternal bliss or eternal torment and you chose eternal torment then you are only getting your wish fulfilled.  But again,  I suspect that in truth that is not your point.  I suspect your point is why can't I chose both the choices and the consequences I want? Why do my choices have to have those consequences?  Is that what you are in fact asking?


No. I in fact asked the same question several times now. Its not a trick question where I actually meant something other than what I asked. I suspect that you repeatedly attempt to put the responsibility on the person who chooses not to accept the "free" gift to avoid having to paint, admit, accept or even think about the not so pretty picture that is painted of who is actually responsible and I understand you cant allow yourself to go there. So the honest thing to do would be just not answer the question instead of ducking, dodging, deflecting and pretending like you don't understand the simple, to the point, honest question. It fools no one and I suspect, not even yourself. Another honest option would be to say "yeah its a horrible thing but I choose to overlook it".


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No. I in fact asked the same question several times now. Its not a trick question where I actually meant something other than what I asked. I suspect that you repeatedly attempt to put the responsibility on the person who chooses not to accept the "free" gift to avoid having to paint, admit, accept or even think about the not so pretty picture that is painted of who is actually responsible and I understand you cant allow yourself to go there. So the honest thing to do would be just not answer the question instead of ducking, dodging, deflecting and pretending like you don't understand the simple, to the point, honest question. It fools no one and I suspect, not even yourself.



Your question has been answered several times, you don't like the answer because it's not "God is terrible for doing that!"


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No. I in fact asked the same question several times now.



Yes, you've asked the same question with the same false premise several times now.  If you don't like the answers you're getting, choose a new premise and rephrase.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No. The question was what does it say about the host if he tortures you for forever if you aren't interested in the "free" gift. Strings entire response was about his opinion of the value of the "free" gift and the consequences for not accepting this "free" gift (which undeniably shows it isn't free as does your response). Not one word addressed the question about what does it say about the host. Same with SFD. Apparently the directness of the question is difficult to answer directly. So I never got an opportunity to like or dislike the answer because there was none.



Is the gift really a gift at all, if it is intended to save people from the gift giver? It is the gift giver that has caused it to be anything like a gift. 

It is no gift for me to save the life of someone that only needs saving from me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

Wow. Im seriously beginning to understand how Hitchens and Dawkins arrived at their conclusions. Its interesting because I didn't necessarily agree with them before. 
The question was not answered. You provided the answers that you were willing to give. But they did not address the question asked. And you know that. Anybody that can read knows that. And I wasn't looking for any specific answer. Just an honest answer to the specific question asked that I could think about and consider. Obviously that was a foolish expectation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Is the gift really a gift at all, if it is intended to save people from the gift giver? It is the gift giver that has caused it to be anything like a gift.
> 
> It is no gift for me to save the life of someone that only needs saving from me.


I agree.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> The question was not answered.



You asked the religious equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife".


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You asked the religious equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife".



And Y'all answered "Am I beating my wife or am I giving her what she asked for.  All she had to do was accept the gift of worshiping me and then she wouldn't have to go to the wood shed.  But if that's how she wants it, well, she gets it"


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> And Y'all answered "Am I beating my wife or am I giving her what she asked for."



Our answers are nothing like that.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Our answers are nothing like that.



"You won't kneel before me so to the woodshed you go."

Is that about how it works?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You asked the religious equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife".


Nonsense. That's a foolish joke designed to trap someone so I can say GOTCHA!  I give you more credit and respect than that. Maybe I'm mistaken.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> "You won't kneel before me so to the woodshed you go."
> 
> Is that about how it works?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> No.
> 
> It's not free.  It requires your supplication.
> 
> ...




Not sure of what definition of supplication you are using, but that's neither an accurate statement nor analogy.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Nonsense. That's a foolish joke designed to trap someone so I can say GOTCHA!



... which is exactly what you did.

Your premise is "God is a Big Meanie".  He's not a Big Meanie.

"God is love."

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 




WaltL1 said:


> Nonsense. That's a foolish joke designed to trap someone so I can say GOTCHA!  I give you more credit and respect than that. Maybe I'm mistaken.



You're not mistaken.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> ... which is exactly what you did.
> 
> Your premise is "God is a Big Meanie".  He's not a Big Meanie.
> 
> ...


No I asked an admittedly difficult question the answer to which would help me understand what you believe and why. You convinced yourself that it must be a trick and what my premise must be. Because of your preconceived notions you lost the opportunity to help educate someone on your beliefs. Its fine if you don't really care about what I think but in this day and age of rapidly declining religious acceptance and understanding, you are doing nothing but hurting your own cause. But hey its no skin off my back.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No. I in fact asked the same question several times now. Its not a trick question where I actually meant something other than what I asked. I suspect that you repeatedly attempt to put the responsibility on the person who chooses not to accept the "free" gift to avoid having to paint, admit, accept or even think about the not so pretty picture that is painted of who is actually responsible and I understand you cant allow yourself to go there. So the honest thing to do would be just not answer the question instead of ducking, dodging, deflecting and pretending like you don't understand the simple, to the point, honest question. It fools no one and I suspect, not even yourself. Another honest option would be to say "yeah its a horrible thing but I choose to overlook it".



Well we are starting with two opposite assumptions regarding the consequences of our decisions.  You are placing the consequences of those decisions at Gods feet and I am placing them at ours.  The consequences are real and God is responsible for creating a He11.  I am not denying that at all.  I can make a rational reasoning for such a place not only existing but being necessary, but you have not asked that.  

I have laid out my position supporting my original assertion as to why we are responsible for the consequences of our decisions which refutes the underlying premise of your question. You have not.  All you have done is assert God is responsible for the consequences of your decisions, and honestly I can't take your assertion seriously until you provide some justification for it.  This board has more than its share of participants that just lob out one assertion after another without any pretense of reasoning or truth, to the point that I just ignore them.  I will be glad to discuss any topic with you as long as you provide some reasoning to go with your assertions.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> .
> "God is love."



You missed the conversation about this....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well we are starting with two opposite assumptions regarding the consequences of our decisions.  You are placing the consequences of those decisions at Gods feet and I am placing them at ours.  The consequences are real and God is responsible for creating a He11.  I am not denying that at all.  I can make a rational reasoning for such a place not only existing but being necessary, but you have not asked that.
> 
> I have laid out my position supporting my original assertion as to why we are responsible for the consequences of our decisions which refutes the underlying premise of your question. You have not.  All you have done is assert God is responsible for the consequences of your decisions, and honestly I can't take your assertion seriously until you provide some justification for it.  This board has more than its share of participants that just lob out one assertion after another without any pretense of reasoning or truth, to the point that I just ignore them.  I will be glad to discuss any topic with you as long as you provide some reasoning to go with your assertions.



So go back further. There must be consequences. Why would "God is love" create consequences for not loving him? Doesn't sound lovely.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever?
> And free means nothing expected in return. Doesn't sound like a free gift to me.



OK let's go back to the original question and start over, because it's very broad in its scope?  What exactly are you asking, because the way I read it in it's most basic meaning I would reply " It says God is just." , but I don't think you would find that very fulfilling.  So again could you be more specific as to what you want?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well we are starting with two opposite assumptions regarding the consequences of our decisions.  You are placing the consequences of those decisions at Gods feet and I am placing them at ours.  The consequences are real and God is responsible for creating a He11.  I am not denying that at all.  I can make a rational reasoning for such a place not only existing but being necessary, but you have not asked that.
> 
> I have laid out my position supporting my original assertion as to why we are responsible for the consequences of our decisions which refutes the underlying premise of your question. You have not.  All you have done is assert God is responsible for the consequences of your decisions, and honestly I can't take your assertion seriously until you provide some justification for it.  This board has more than its share of participants that just lob out one assertion after another without any pretense of reasoning or truth, to the point that I just ignore them.  I will be glad to discuss any topic with you as long as you provide some reasoning to go with your assertions.


I asked a question. I asserted nothing. There was no underlying premise for me to support. I made no assumptions originally. There was nothing to justify because I didn't make a statement. Im baffled by your need to complicate the question to the point of nonsense.
There are two things we do agree on. One is the the lobbing out of one assertion after another with no pretense or reasoning of truth. You just did it in spades.
The second thing we agree on is getting to the point of just ignoring them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK let's go back to the original question and start over, because it's very broad in its scope?  What exactly are you asking, because the way I read it in it's most basic meaning I would reply " It says God is just." , but I don't think you would find that very fulfilling.  So again could you be more specific as to what you want?


Im not interested any more. And to my point of you complicating things to the point of nonsense - I wasn't looking for fulfillment. I was looking for information. Your brain is working so hard to diagnose what my underlying intentions must be that you completely miss the simple and honest truth. Kind of like the guy who's lawn mower wont start so he completely rips the engine apart because he's just positive its got to be something complicated only to determine later that it was just out of gas.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> No I asked an admittedly difficult question the answer to which would help me understand what you believe and why. You convinced yourself that it must be a trick and what my premise must be.



Here's your question:



WaltL1 said:


> What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever?



... and here's the translation:



centerpin fan said:


> "God is a Big Meanie".



If you start with a false premise, you have no right to complain about the answers you get.




WaltL1 said:


> Because of your preconceived notions ...



Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not interested any more.



You were interested?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Here's your question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is so difficult about understanding that I asked a question not made a statement? A question means Im asking you what you think. A statement means Im telling you what I think. The tip off is this little thing at the end of the sentence - ?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You were interested?


Yes I was. Pretty stupid of me.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever?
> And free means nothing expected in return. Doesn't sound like a free gift to me.



Let me answer. 
That free gift is a pardon. You have done bad things in your life, and for that reason, you cannot be part of God's kingdom. 
You must be born again. 
If you try to bring dirt to a clean house, no matter how insignificant it may seem, you have dirtied the house. 
You reject a presidential pardon and you will be executed. 
It will not be the presidents fault, however.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What is so difficult about understanding that I asked a question not made a statement? A question means Im asking you what you think. A statement means Im telling you what I think. The tip off is this little thing at the end of the sentence - ?



Yet when we tell you what we think about your question, you say nobody is answering your question.


Here is a direct answer to your question.

It means that God is great and just and every human should thank Him and Love Him.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What is so difficult about understanding that I asked a question not made a statement?



They are not mutually exclusive.  "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a question but it's based on the premise that you _are_ a wife beater.

"What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever" is based on the false premise that God hates you and tortures forever if you reject him.  As I said before, God is love and wants all men to be saved.  He created he11 for Satan and his angels, and sent His Son to save us from their fate.

What does it say about the drowning man who rejects the life jacket thrown to him?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

Ok I get it. Because you believe as you do, you honestly feel you are answering the question.
Because I don't necessarily believe as you do, it honestly appears you are telling me everything except what I asked about.
Lets leave it at that.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Let me answer.
> That free gift is a pardon. You have done bad things in your life, and for that reason, you cannot be part of God's kingdom.
> You must be born again.
> If you try to bring dirt to a clean house, no matter how insignificant it may seem, you have dirtied the house.
> ...



Why must the president keep his house so clean? ONLY because he wants to, because he's president, he can do what he wants. Why did the president create dirt in the first place?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> They are not mutually exclusive.  "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a question but it's based on the premise that you _are_ a wife beater.
> 
> "What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever" is based on the false premise that God hates you and tortures forever if you reject him.  As I said before, God is love and wants all men to be saved.  He created he11 for Satan and his angels, and sent His Son to save us from their fate.
> 
> What does it say about the drowning man who rejects the life jacket thrown to him?



The premise is that he tortures you forever if you reject him and IT WAS STATED.. You threw the hates you part in. The question as stated, with a host and guests, has a very clear answer. That the host is a meanie. You can easily gather that from the question as it is stated.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Why must the president keep his house so clean? ONLY because he wants to, because he's president, he can do what he wants. Why did the president create dirt in the first place?




He is good by definition. Hence the clean house. 
He allows dirt because we chose dirt, and continue to do so.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> What does it say about the drowning man who rejects the life jacket thrown to him?



If anyone wants to call it a straw man then they can. I agree that a drowning man rejecting the life jacket isn't a smart man. For the god argument, you must first accept that we are drowning and that your god provides us that life jacket. So the question about the host's actions actually showing that he is a meanie, calls in to question the whole story... that "God is love."


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> He is good by definition. Hence the clean house.
> He allows dirt because we chose dirt, and continue to do so.



He's god because he says he is doesn't work...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Let me answer.
> That free gift is a pardon. You have done bad things in your life, and for that reason, you cannot be part of God's kingdom.
> You must be born again.
> If you try to bring dirt to a clean house, no matter how insignificant it may seem, you have dirtied the house.
> ...



Either way this God gets to choose a choice for each of us that many do not have any interest in.
He isn't doing anyone any favors by making someone choose.

I am just fine dying and going nowhere, knowing nothing and no harm no foul.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If anyone wants to call it a straw man then they can. I agree that a drowning man rejecting the life jacket isn't a smart man. For the god argument, you must first accept that we are drowning and that your god provides us that life jacket. So the question about the host's actions actually showing that he is a meanie ...



What actions show that?  God is the one throwing us the life jacket.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Either way this God gets to choose a choice for each of us that many do not have any interest in.
> He isn't doing anyone any favors by making someone choose.
> 
> I am just fine dying and going nowhere, knowing nothing and no harm no foul.


To use an analogy, you broke the law, you must pay. 
The choice is offered in a pardon. 
I can only imagine what you would call God if he didn't give you a choice to be redeemed. 
Oh wait, you wouldn't have that ability would you? So by offering you a choice whereby you can thumb your nose at God, you use that choice to decry how bad he was for giving you that ability?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> They are not mutually exclusive.  "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a question but it's based on the premise that you _are_ a wife beater.
> 
> "What does it say about the host that just because you weren't interested in the free gift he tortures you forever" is based on the false premise that God hates you and tortures forever if you reject him.  As I said before, God is love and wants all men to be saved.  He created he11 for Satan and his angels, and sent His Son to save us from their fate.
> 
> What does it say about the drowning man who rejects the life jacket thrown to him?


Despite my better judgment Ill ask a few more questions. If you still believe its some sort of trick please just don't answer. If you are interested in providing information about what you believe to give a better understanding then please do answer.
If in fact you beat your wife its a fair premise and question. Agree?
If in fact he11 is a place of eternal suffering its a fair premise and question. Agree? That's my understanding of he11 so you tell me if my understanding is wrong.
As for your drowning man question - it says he wants the opportunity to try and save himself which is absolutely possible and has undeniably happened. Or MAYBE he'll drown. Of course if you get mad that he didn't want to use your life jacket and you go step on his head and make absolutely sure he drowns that brings up a whole new set of questions about you. At least it would for me. He would be convicted of not being very smart. You would be convicted of murder.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> What actions show that?  God is the one throwing us the life jacket.



He put us in the situation we need saving from! He is forcing us to make that choice. He built the whole process of original sin and forgiveness.


Would you worship me if I tied you up your bed (yikes) and lit your house on fire, then at the last minute I untied you and got you out of the house? Would you think that I loved you because I saved you?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> ... he11 is a place of eternal suffering ...



... intended for Satan and his angels.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Here is a direct answer to your question.
> 
> It means that God is great and just and every human should thank Him and Love Him.


Thanks. I'll consider that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He put us in the situation we need saving from!



He put us in Eden where we had it made in the shade.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2013)

He created the tree. He made the rule not to eat from it. He knew the choices that would be made before he did either of those.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> ... intended for Satan and his angels.


So your answer is yes which makes the premise and question a fair one. Thank you.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


>




Tell me why I'm wrong.  Explain it to me like I'm 10.  

Two questions.  Yes or no answers.

1. God made He11?
2. You go there if you don't bow down and declare him lord?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> He put us in Eden where we had it made in the shade.



Did he know what Adam was gonna do?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> To use an analogy, you broke the law, you must pay.
> The choice is offered in a pardon.
> I can only imagine what you would call God if he didn't give you a choice to be redeemed.
> Oh wait, you wouldn't have that ability would you? So by offering you a choice whereby you can thumb your nose at God, you use that choice to decry how bad he was for giving you that ability?



That sort of stuff only makes sense to those that believe in the tales.
That stuff is so deep in indoctrination excuses that to anyone outside of the faith it is ridiculous.
This is what I get out of it:
First there was only God
For whatever reason he got bored and started to create things.
He created man in "our" likeness (even though there was only God)
God is omniscient and omnipotent. He knows everything before it happens yet he creates a Man, then a Woman KNOWING they will fail his test and He decides the rest of mankind will pay for their mistakes...the very mistakes God knew eons before he created them that they would make.
He knows angels will breed with humans, lets it happen, then drowns literally everything except 8 people and a boat full of animals. NOW THAT IS LOVE!!! Miraculously they repopulate the entire world, including each and every race, on each and every Continent in a few thousand years.
Mankind is still a wild bunch of non conforming lunatics so God thinks(but really he has no need to think because he already knows his answer before he can think of it) 
I will interact many times with humans and in fact I am gonna recruit a few of them to write my book for me and they will tell you all about how much I was around and interacting right amongst them.  Well, really at first I am going to pick just a chosen few and tweak the outcomes in their favor, you know so things go according to my plan....errrr I mean Free Will, yeah, people can do what they want.... Being God I can only do so much on my own you know, so these inspired guys will do me a solid and jot down a few things I need told. The rest of mankind can carry on as they like but I am going to take a small specific spot on that planet I created and have all my good work done there and center it around there. I figure the rest of the world BETTER wise up to it real fast or there will be punishment to follow. 
"What is the best way to save these poor wretched souls?" 
"Should I make a personal appearance and tell these nit-wits to wise up?"...Nope  
"Should I snap my fingers and wise them up?"...Nope
"Should I wiggle my spiritual toes and transfer my suggestions to all of mankind?"...Nope
I'm gonna take a break for 400-500 years. No writing.
EUREKA! I got it! I am gonna put my child in the womb of a Virgin. Yes I know that pregnant unmarried Virgins are highly frowned upon but hey, I'm the King....It's good to be the King....I am going to have this child hunted down as an infant because the Ruler of the land wants him dead. My child will escape and I am fine with the mass killings of other male children his age in the hopes that the Ruler gets the right one, but I already know they are not gonna catch up with him( I planned that for later) I mean hey collateral damage happens...it's not like I knew that was gonna happen....Oh wait, yes I did but I am fine with a little death....I LOVE THESE HUMANS SOOOOO MUCH. (Never mind that later in History it has been proven such things never happened)Anyway back to the PLAN,,, So much will be written about young Jesus but literally Nothing about him when he is say 3yrs old to 30 years old and anything that is written about him during that time will be deemed as forgeries or not authentic. Then I'm gonna have him burst on the scene but get this...I am gonna have the very people that I want to be saved KILL HIM and then act like the choice was all theirs. Here's the kicker...Jesus is gonna die at their hands in order to save their souls. But it really doesn't matter because I am going to make it all so confusing that the people are STILL gonna have to go by my rules or swim in fire. I am gonna make it that if someone has ever heard of Jesus in some minute way and does not call him Savior they are doomed. If someone has never heard of him yet worships some sun baked rock, they get a free pass because they didn't get the memo. I'm just God, I can't be expected to get the word out on my own...I NEED people for that. Anyhoo,,, even though that I know there are some people that don't want anything to do with my convoluted plan they are gonna pay one way or the other. I am gonna make it like I give them a gift that can either accept or refuse (but I am gonna make it so confusing to know if I even exist that I will already weed out the majority of humans I LOVE so much) and really they have no choice but to do the right thing or I will see it that they literally spend an eternity in the most horrible place I can conjure up as a God, ruled by the most evil entity that I could conjure up as a God, and I am going to pretend that I am the most powerful being ever, a champion of  good, the Head Honcho in charge of defeating evil in order to sway some of them humans into doing the right thing out of fear, but in reality I either cannot defeat evil or absolutely do not want to defeat evil because I need someone to run that eternal resort for the wussies that do not worship me......
Now I know this all sounds confusing so like I said earlier I am gonna inspire a few bananas to jot a lot of this down for me. I'll have them clean it up a bit and take about 1500 years to write it, then have it assembled into what fits the agenda best and then have it be even more confusing to the majority who read it because most of it will be nonsensical, inaccurate, fallible, full of historical and geographical errors and just flat out about as un-God-like as something could be. But hey, if they can't figure it out.....light the Hibachi....eternal spit-roast is coming up and your on the menu.
Oh and for the next 2000+ years I will not so much as even whisper to any human, let alone interact like I did back in the day. It's time to sit back and enjoy the confusion.


Now there are a few things in between there that I missed and I may have used a few "illogical" "Straw-Men" in there but, there is no bigger illogical straw-man than the one religious people have built to guard their corn field.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yet when we tell you what we think about your question, you say nobody is answering your question.
> 
> 
> Here is a direct answer to your question.
> ...



...or else go to your room with no dinner?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> So your answer is yes which makes the premise and question a fair one. Thank you.



No, because your original question had nothing to do with Satan and his angels.  You asked me to correct your understanding of he11, so I did.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Tell me why I'm wrong.  Explain it to me like I'm 10.



I can't say it any plainer than I already have in posts 241, 260 and 274.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Did he know what Adam was gonna do?



Absolutely.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> No, because your original question had nothing to do with Satan and his angels.  You asked me to correct your understanding of he11, so I did.


Heres what I asked-
If in fact he11 is a place of eternal suffering its a fair premise and question. Agree? That's my understanding of he11 so you tell me if my understanding is wrong.
So since you didn't correct my understanding other than to add to it, this would be correct - he11 is a place of eternal suffering intended for satan and his angels.
Got it now?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> - he11 is a place of eternal suffering intended for satan and his angels.



If you'd started off with that, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> If you'd started off with that, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me.


If I asked the question obviously I didn't know to start off that way did I? Unbelievable.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> If I asked the question obviously I didn't know to start off that way did I?



You didn't get it right on your second try, either.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You didn't get it right on your second try, either.


Its interesting that Im trying to be respectful and gain knowledge on your beliefs and you are the one playing games with a serious subject. I'll save you a seat next to the fire down below. Ive learned enough so far to know your Big Guy isn't going to appreciate your holier than though attitude when it comes to sharing his word. We both know you could easily share the information if it wasn't for your child like enjoyment of dangling the carrot from the stick. There will be no more questions or responses from me to your nonsense as you are the first person ever to make it on to my iggy list.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Absolutely.



Then he knows if I'll accept the door prize or not as well?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting that Im trying to be respectful and gain knowledge on your beliefs and you are the one playing games with a serious subject. I'll save you a seat next to the fire down below. Ive learned enough so far to know your Big Guy isn't going to appreciate your holier than though attitude when it comes to sharing his word. We both know you could easily share the information if it wasn't for your child like enjoyment of dangling the carrot from the stick. There will be no more questions or responses from me to your nonsense as you are the first person ever to make it on to my iggy list.



Walt,

You are sincere and articulate.  I would love it if you stayed in the discussion.  Sometimes what people won't say says more about what they think than what they will say.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not interested any more.



OK



WaltL1 said:


> And to my point of you complicating things to the point of nonsense - I wasn't looking for fulfillment. I was looking for information. Your brain is working so hard to diagnose what my underlying intentions must be that you completely miss the simple and honest truth.



I apologize.  You are correct.  I don't know you from this forum, and I jumped to a conclusion based off of what is to be generally expected from my experience here.  I was wrong.  I have no excuse.  Again, I am sorry.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Walt,
> 
> You are sincere and articulate.  I would love it if you stayed in the discussion.  Sometimes what people won't say says more about what they think than what they will say.


Thanks and I appreciate that however im bowing out of this one. Ive had my fill of helpful Christians for one day.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That sort of stuff only makes sense to those that believe in the tales.
> That stuff is so deep in indoctrination excuses that to anyone outside of the faith it is ridiculous.
> This is what I get out of it:
> First there was only God
> ...




Bullet I wondered where you have been all day, and now I see it was because you were in the process of publishing your Doctorate Thesis.     I'll read it on my vacation in November when the hunting is slow.  One question, Could you condense it down to one volume?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting that Im trying to be respectful and gain knowledge on your beliefs and you are the one playing games with a serious subject.



I am not playing games.  I have repeatedly stated very plainly what I believe.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Then he knows if I'll accept the door prize or not as well?



Yep.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Either way this God gets to choose a choice for each of us that many do not have any interest in.
> He isn't doing anyone any favors by making someone choose.
> 
> I am just fine dying and going nowhere, knowing nothing and no harm no foul.



O.K.  I still haven't read your Thesis, but I'm gonna challenge this post and ask you to defend it with an explanation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize.  You are correct.  I don't know you from this forum, and I jumped to a conclusion based off of what is to be generally expected from my experience here.  I was wrong.  I have no excuse.  Again, I am sorry.


Thank you and I accept your apology and I offer my own as I do understand that you may be conditioned to be on guard.  The reason you don't know me in this forum is although Ive read it every day for about 5 years, Ive posted more today than in all that time. To be honest I dont believe as you do even though I was raised to but Im also aware that I cannot prove that you are wrong (yet) and I do respect your beliefs. And I would like to add a Semper Fi to you. Regardless of our beliefs I got your back if the doodoo ever hits the fan.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet I wondered where you have been all day, and now I see it was because you were in the process of publishing your Doctorate Thesis.     I'll read it on my vacation in November when the hunting is slow.  One question, Could you condense it down to one volume?



Took me 3 minutes to write but if you need an entire hunting season to read it, condensing it down to one volume (which it is) isn't gonna help you out.

Maybe I'll get my niece to draw some pics in crayon and post em if you still need help.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> O.K.  I still haven't read your Thesis, but I'm gonna challenge this post and ask you to defend it with an explanation.




It is clear you didn't read my post. You are easily impressed if you think that is a Thesis.

Believe or Burn (2 choices)

I'd rather a 3rd option
Die. with no extra nonsense


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Thanks and I appreciate that however im bowing out of this one. Ive had my fill of helpful Christians for one day.



Listen? Let me ask you personally for a chance to set this right.  I will do my best to give you an answer.  If I don't know I will say so up front.  You had a legitimate question and I will try to provide you a legitimate answer.  That's the least I can do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is clear you didn't read my post. You are easily impressed if you think that is a Thesis.
> 
> Believe or Burn (2 choices)
> 
> ...



I only have an IPad.  It takes me an hour to peck out a paragraph on this thing.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Yep.



So here I am at his party, which may or may not suck, depending on the circumstance of my birth and he's sitting there watching me eat the cheese dip (or the maggots) and he leans over to Gabriel and says "That one right there is gonna burn,  I've known it since....well, forever.  He doesn't want the gift of the opportunity to worship me.  He never was gonna take it.   Guess where he gets to go.  Two guesses."

I like this god of yours.  He sounds like a kid burning ants.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> So here I am at his party, which may or may not suck, depending on the circumstance of my birth and he's sitting there watching me eat the cheese dip (or the maggots) and he leans over to Gabriel and says "That one right there is gonna burn,  I've known it since....well, forever.  He doesn't want the gift of the opportunity to worship me.  He never was gonna take it.   Guess where he gets to go.  Two guesses."
> 
> I like this god of yours.



That's not my god.  

Just like in _Catch-22_, people choose the god they don't want to believe in.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not my god.
> 
> Just like in _Catch-22_, people choose the god they don't want to believe in.



Tell me what part of my illustration is unlike your god.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> So here I am at his party, which may or may not suck, depending on the circumstance of my birth and he's sitting there watching me eat the cheese dip (or the maggots) and he leans over to Gabriel and says "That one right there is gonna burn,  I've known it since....well, forever.  He doesn't want the gift of the opportunity to worship me.  He never was gonna take it.   Guess where he gets to go.  Two guesses."
> 
> I like this god of yours.  He sounds like a kid burning ants.



More like, "That one right there wouldn't let me take his punishment for him so he has chosen to face the consequences alone."
You are not innocent. You are guilty.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I only have an IPad.  It takes me an hour to peck out a paragraph on this thing.



You do not need to peck out anything to read.

Hey here is another thing that might impress you. I was able to type "all that" out after work. Yes, that is right, in addition to taking the 3 minutes to type that I put some hours in at my shop(no computer there either).


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Tell me what part of my illustration is unlike your god.




Your illustration leaves this out:




centerpin fan said:


> "God is love."
> 
> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
> 
> "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> More like, "That one right there wouldn't let me take his punishment for him so he has chosen to face the consequences alone."
> You are not innocent. You are guilty.



For the low, low price of worship?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Your illustration leaves this out:



Why would a loving god make someone that was doomed to he11?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

You guys sure know how to dance.

He made He11.  He made me.  He knew from the beginning of time that I wouldn't grovel.  He knew that I would end up in He11.  

And a one, and a two and a side, side rock step........


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Your illustration leaves this out:



Wait, Bible verses written by man?

God didn't give anything he did not have planned to give in the first place.
It is not like God already had a Son and the only choice he had against Evil was to give his Son or have the entire human population destroyed and he chose to sacrifice his Son and he would never be able to see him again in order that we would be saved.

God killed about 20 million (conservative estimate) people according to the Bible already with floods, plagues, wrath, murders and fight fixing. Big whoop about a few nit-wit humans. WE are like Doritos to him....Crunch all ya want, He'll make more.

God,(if there is such a thing, but we'll go with the story) Thought up all by himself the whole I'll give my Son deal. God put him on earth, God let many die while others were after his Son.(ps, all the while putting the word out that his Son was coming as if to "start" something...get the ball rolling) God knew the sole purpose for his Son was to be killed by the very people God wanted saved and he KNEW he was going to see his Son again...Son being no worse for wear after the ordeal and sitting at his right hand side for all of eternity.(well until he comes back down to earth on that white horse lopping human heads off..but I'm sure he will get a fast track pass up to Pearlies after he is done)

No how, no way was that any sort of heart wrenching sacrifice God made. Win=Win when you make the rules.

Now had the story went something like:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son to eternally spend his days in h3ll for our sins and never be able to know his Son again, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

MAYBE that would crack Hallmarks tear jerker list. That is a sacrifice.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Wait, Bible verses written by man?
> 
> God didn't give anything he did not have planned to give in the first place.
> It is not like God already had a Son and the only choice he had against Evil was to give his Son or have the entire human population destroyed and he chose to sacrifice his Son and he would never be able to see him again in order that we would be saved.
> ...




That's what I'm sayin'.  Hang me from a hook upside down and peel my skin off if it will save even just a million people; heck, even if would just save my daughter.  Especially if I know that the next stop is Heaven Chocolate Wonderfall..... FOREVER!


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You guys sure know how to dance.
> 
> He made He11.  He made me.  He knew from the beginning of time that I wouldn't grovel.  He knew that I would end up in He11.
> 
> And a one, and a two and a side, side rock step........



I knew exactly where you were going this, but I didn't _make_ you do it (even though your mind is my puppet, and I could easily have made you do it):



For you, I'll waive the shipping and handling.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> For the low, low price of worship?



I think if the judge in my trial died for me, I could develop a pretty good relationship with him. maybe see what he says about me...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I think if the judge in my trial died for me, I could develop a pretty good relationship with him. maybe see what he says about me...



There were no consequences for him. There was no loss. No sacrifice whatsoever.

Psst hey kid, go down there and do whatcha gotta do, let em slap ya around a little and I'll getcha home in like 3 days. Deal? When ya get back we'll get box tickets(I own the stadium you know) and watch the all time greatest sports players in their prime playing years turn in All-Star performances for eternity...well the ones that believe anyway...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I knew exactly where you were going this, but I didn't _make_ you do it (even though your mind is my puppet, and I could easily have made you do it):
> 
> 
> 
> For you, I'll waive the shipping and handling.



Do another , Do another!

I am thinking of a card.....


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There were no consequences for him. There was no loss. No sacrifice whatsoever.
> 
> Psst hey kid, go down there and do whatcha gotta do, let em slap ya around a little and I'll getcha home in like 3 days. Deal? When ya get back we'll get box tickets(I own the stadium you know) and watch the all time greatest sports players in their prime playing years turn in All-Star performances for eternity...well the ones that believe anyway...



Easy for you to say. 
He STILL paid for it. You are missing the forest for the trees. 
You cry about the debt you owe and how unfair it is. 
We tell you its been paid. 
You cry about how it was paid.


----------



## bigreddwon (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There were no consequences for him. There was no loss. No sacrifice whatsoever.
> 
> Psst hey kid, go down there and do whatcha gotta do, let em slap ya around a little and I'll getcha home in like 3 days. Deal? When ya get back we'll get box tickets(I own the stadium you know) and watch the all time greatest sports players in their prime playing years turn in All-Star performances for eternity...well the ones that believe anyway...



Exactly!!! 

He didn't 'sacrifice' for us, he was slightly inconvienanced for a long weekend. 

About that.... If as y'all claim he 'died' for our sins, why is there a hades? Unless that's really for folks who don't love the big J enough? Love me, or ill harm you physically forever. Legit.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Easy for you to say.
> He STILL paid for it. You are missing the forest for the trees.
> You cry about the debt you owe and how unfair it is.
> We tell you its been paid.
> You cry about how it was paid.



Yes. Yes it is easy for me to say.
He paid for it like Bill Gate's kid paid for his first bike....out of his $5,000 a week allowance for cutting the grass, One blade in the crack in the sidewalk, outside of the pool house, at their vacation villa in Cancun. How ever did he recover from that financial loss???

Who is crying? What Debt?
The debt from two people who didn't exist that through fable and folklore doomed us as an entire species? Sorry not a subscriber to that magazine either.
Remember God killed EVERYBODY after the whole Adam and Eve fiasco except the few on the boat that he hand chose. You mean Noah and the crew screwed up too that dealt all of mankind another black eye unless somehow we could be miraculously saved again?

All I am saying is that the story is not a good story. I don't buy it for a minute that any of it happened.


----------



## bigreddwon (Jul 18, 2013)

They invent sin, then they invent the cure.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes. Yes it is easy for me to say.
> He paid for it like Bill Gate's kid paid for his first bike....out of his $5,000 a week allowance for cutting the grass, One blade in the crack in the sidewalk, outside of the pool house, at their vacation villa in Cancun. How ever did he recover from that financial loss???
> 
> Who is crying? What Debt?
> ...



You're right. Its not a good story. It could have been fictionalized in a much more romantic way. 

But then it wouldn't be the truth


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Do another , Do another!
> 
> I am thinking of a card.....



I know ... because I _made_ you think of a card!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I know ... because I _made_ you think of a card!




MAN you are good!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> You're right. Its not a good story. It could have been fictionalized in a much more romantic way.
> 
> But then it wouldn't be the truth



And the truth is there was no sacrifice. No "must choose" "either/or" ultimatum. It was a rigged game from the start.


----------



## fish hawk (Jul 19, 2013)

Bullethead your stepping it up a notch.....That's good to see!!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> For the low, low price of worship?



False


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You guys sure know how to dance.
> 
> He made He11.  He made me.  He knew from the beginning of time that I wouldn't grovel.  He knew that I would end up in He11.
> 
> And a one, and a two and a side, side rock step........



False


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not my god.
> 
> Just like in _Catch-22_, people choose the god they don't want to believe in.




And the one that they want to believe in. Even the ones who claim to believe in the same one still choose.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Wait, Bible verses written by man?
> 
> God didn't give anything he did not have planned to give in the first place.
> It is not like God already had a Son and the only choice he had against Evil was to give his Son or have the entire human population destroyed and he chose to sacrifice his Son and he would never be able to see him again in order that we would be saved.
> ...



There's so many false assumptions and assertions in this I wouldn't no where to start.  You can do better than this bullet.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There were no consequences for him. There was no loss. No sacrifice whatsoever.
> 
> Psst hey kid, go down there and do whatcha gotta do, let em slap ya around a little and I'll getcha home in like 3 days. Deal? When ya get back we'll get box tickets(I own the stadium you know) and watch the all time greatest sports players in their prime playing years turn in All-Star performances for eternity...well the ones that believe anyway...



False


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Easy for you to say.
> He STILL paid for it. You are missing the forest for the trees.
> You cry about the debt you owe and how unfair it is.
> We tell you its been paid.
> You cry about how it was paid.



We're crying about how it was paid to show you that it's not what you think it is... Not that we really care how the book says it was done.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> They invent sin, then they invent the cure.



BRW do you have anything against Truth.  Every one of your posts are indefensible lies.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

It appears that all you guys have embraced the shotgun concept with no regard to the truth.  Throw out a bunch of fallacies and hope someone is foolish enough to fall for it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> But then it wouldn't be the truth



And you can't, for a second, let yourself think you actually believe it might possibly not be...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There's so many false assumptions and assertions in this I wouldn't no where to start.  You can do better than this bullet.



False



This is no better than straw man. It doesn't help anything...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> BRW do you have anything against Truth.  Every one of your posts are indefensible lies.



False


See, this post is worthless.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It appears that all you guys have embraced the shotgun concept with no regard to the truth.  Throw out a bunch of fallacies and hope someone is foolish enough to fall for it.



I sense some frustration.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> False



Apologetics at its best!


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I sense some frustration.


It definitely can be, especially when we are trying to defend what the bible says and you guys say.....


TripleXBullies said:


> Not that we really care how the book says it was done.


You guys want to argue embellishments and caricatures of what the bible says, makes it easier for you to not believe.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

We are using what is told in the book to show you how silly it is. We're not crying over it, because we don't really care. I've said it before. It's ALL ABOUT perspective. When you're coming at it from the perspective that it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because your parents and Sunday school teachers told you so, then that's exactly what it's going to look like. Let your parents and Sunday school teachers have a break for a moment, let down that filter and you'll see how silly it is. It's definitely not and easy thing to do. They probably also told you not to do that anyway...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You guys want to argue embellishments and caricatures of what the bible says, makes it easier for you to not believe.




I can see that you would see it that way... that it looks like embellishments and caricatures that we argue... WE would argue that it is you that uses the embellishments and caricatures in order to let you believe. You have to... otherwise it looks like a book of garbage.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We are using what is told in the book to show you how silly it is. We're not crying over it, because we don't really care. I've said it before. It's ALL ABOUT perspective. When you're coming at it from the perspective that it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because your parents and Sunday school teachers told you so, then that's exactly what it's going to look like. Let your parents and Sunday school teachers have a break for a moment, let down that filter and you'll see how silly it is. It's definitely not and easy thing to do. They probably also told you not to do that anyway...


Do you think everybody who believes in what is written in the bible only believes based on what their Sunday schools teachers and parents told them?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

I doubt that anyone, without a voice in their ear, would pick that book up, read it and fall on their knees in adoration for a risen lord... It's hard not to have a voice in your ear about it though. Parents and Sunday school teachers shouldn't have been taken literally..


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I think if the judge in my trial died for me, I could develop a pretty good relationship with him. maybe see what he says about me...



What is this judge's determination of my guilt?  That I was born guilty and will remain so until I worship him? 

That judge has no authority.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I doubt that anyone, without a voice in their ear, would pick that book up, read it and fall on their knees in adoration for a risen lord... It's hard not to have a voice in your ear about it though. Parents and Sunday school teachers shouldn't have been taken literally..



Grotesquely incorrect.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Grotesquely incorrect.



FALSE



no, not good enough for me either...


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> FALSE
> 
> 
> 
> no, not good enough for me either...



Let's see some evidence of your assertion then.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There's so many false assumptions and assertions in this I wouldn't no where to start.  You can do better than this bullet.



You have no idea what is true/false or assumed unless you lived about 2000 years ago, in the middle east and talk to God regularly.

That was better!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> False



If only life's answers were just that easy.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It appears that all you guys have embraced the shotgun concept with no regard to the truth.  Throw out a bunch of fallacies and hope someone is foolish enough to fall for it.



We know what the definition of Religion is.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Let's see some evidence of your assertion then.



I didn't say I had any. Like I said, it's hard not to have a voice in your ear. Just drive down the road and you'll see a big billboard with a happy pastor and his pretty wife. God must be real.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We know what the definition of Religion is.



Pretty much.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I didn't say I had any.


So now where to the point of simply making assertions without any evidence?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Grotesquely incorrect.



I have to agree with you on this one.

Too many people NEED religion for comfort.
And that explains why there are so many people worshiping SOMETHING and constantly switching denominations or entire religions until they find something that makes them comfortable.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

I've got your kind of evidence. The words in the book. 

But what you think is that if you let Nuance (good text to speech technology) read that book to someone of another culture, that more would fall on their knees than not?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have to agree with you on this one.
> 
> Too many people NEED religion for comfort.
> And that explains why there are so many people worshiping SOMETHING and constantly switching denominations or entire religions until they find something that makes them comfortable.



SOMETHING, yes. Not this book. THE BOOK is not religion. This book has to be sold.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Let's see some evidence of your assertion then.



The more I read the Bible the less I believed.
There's your evidence.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The more I read the Bible the less I believed.
> There's your evidence.



I'm talking JUST READ THE BIBLE.... Not having a mentor there making the embellishments and caricatures for you... building the religion around the book.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> SOMETHING, yes. Not this book. THE BOOK is not religion. This book has to be sold.



Oh a few will bite just because of the book. Most won't and absolutely cannot understand what is in the book(we all are guilty of that) so they pick and choose the highlights that say what is needed to fill that void and totally tune out the nonsense that they do not understand and/or says what they don't need or is a total train wreck.

People put on the blinders except for the people and things they think are the best for them at the time. They can't see the big picture. It goes for relationships as well as religion and just about everything else in life until one day I/you/we/they have the light bulb come on and say what the heck am I doing??


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Not that we really care how the book says it was done.



You can afford to be a hypocrite when things are calm, but you wouldn't want your trauma surgeon to subscribe to that philosophy nor your pilot.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I sense some frustration.



Naw, if you ain't got enough integrity to be truthful in your statements,  I hardly think I can keep you from believing a lie.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm talking JUST READ THE BIBLE.... Not having a mentor there making the embellishments and caricatures for you... building the religion around the book.



I can see where you are coming from though, and especially when people outside of Christianity read the Bible...they are so ingrained in their current book of worship and indoctrination that simply reading the Bible does not do a thing for them, or else everyone would convert.

 If someone was totally void of influences and lived in the wilderness not knowing about any type of religion they would be less likely to read that once and jump on board with it. Now, if that was the only book they had to read.... a few years of turning those pages might have something sinking in...but that would be true of any religious book, and if they had copies of all the world's religious books someone could/would concoct some new religion out of all the books put together because it is highly doubtful that one stands out as any better than the rest to an innocent mind.
Slap all those religious books in with many other novels and it would all seem the same. The Krakken would seem just as real or just as fake as anything the Bible had to offer.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Oh a few will bite just because of the book.




A few people sure... Some people will buy anything...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Naw, if you ain't got enough integrity to be truthful in your statements,  I hardly think I can keep you from believing a lie.



False.... I tell ya.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Naw, if you ain't got enough integrity to be truthful in your statements,  I hardly think I can keep you from believing a lie.



And now you have opened the door to prove to us all that Lie.....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You can afford to be a hypocrite when things are calm, but you wouldn't want your trauma surgeon to subscribe to that philosophy nor your pilot.



Should I take that literally or figuratively? What verse is that?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You have no idea what is true/false or assumed unless you lived about 2000 years ago, in the middle east and talk to God regularly.
> 
> That was better!



Yes, but now justify why you believe anything that happens outside of your immediate environment given that assertion.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes, but now justify why you believe anything that happens outside of your immediate environment given that assertion.



Wait a minute, YOU are the one going around around giving one word answers here.

FALSE!!
If I remember correctly.

You are the one that needs to explain your assertions.

Refresh me on what assertion you are talking about that I made....and I will try to explain
For now I'll have to say facts and evidence.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If someone was totally void of influences and lived in the wilderness not knowing about any type of religion they would be less likely to read that once and jump on board with it.



I apologize for jumping in the middle of this mess, but, I disagree with that statement, here's the logic:

People throughout history have come to a conclusion that God exists independently of outside influences.  This leads to all sorts of concepts as to who and what God is.  Many different religions, etc.

Now, take some tribal folks, who already have a disposition to believe in "a God," give 'em a book discussing "The God," and you will have a relatively high conversion rate.  It happens often when missionaries are willing to go to remote places.  Google Jim Elliot, and read his story for a decent example of this.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

Missionaries are the voices in their ear. The missionaries embellish what's there. You have to take them out of it for this part of the conversation. No Sunday school teacher can be there saying that it's all real and they need to repent.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Missionaries are the voices in their ear. The missionaries embellish what's there. You have to take them out of it for this part of the conversation. No Sunday school teacher can be there saying that it's all real and they need to repent.



Carpet bomb the same village with the Bible, no missionary involved, and you will still have a decent conversion rate (assuming they are literate, if not, drop a book of illustrations.....which has also worked in the past).  Particularly if you drop the New Testament.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I apologize for jumping in the middle of this mess, but, I disagree with that statement, here's the logic:
> 
> People throughout history have come to a conclusion that God exists independently of outside influences.  This leads to all sorts of concepts as to who and what God is.  Many different religions, etc.
> 
> Now, take some tribal folks, who already have a disposition to believe in "a God," give 'em a book discussing "The God," and you will have a relatively high conversion rate.  It happens often when missionaries are willing to go to remote places.  Google Jim Elliot, and read his story for a decent example of this.



I agree that people throughout history have come to conclusions that "a" God or Gods exist but they are all in the same boat with every other believer as it being in their minds and not ever physically seeing said God(s) or ever having any actual tangible proof about any of these Gods.
Yeah one day they are worshiping a stone carving of a long dead chief that has been passed on for generations until it has reached God status and that continues until some other guy hits the beach and tells them about some other dead guy that can do all the things their god does plus more. It is not a stretch once your "in" in some way.
Some follow and some bash the messengers head in with a rock, offer his still beating heart to their stone and eat the rest of him and carry on worshiping as they have for thousands of years.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Carpet bomb the same village with the Bible, no missionary involved, and you will still have a decent conversion rate (assuming they are literate, if not, drop a book of illustrations.....which has also worked in the past).  Particularly if you drop the New Testament.



Are you suggesting the Koran would not have the same effect?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And now you have opened the door to prove to us all that Lie.....



To prove anything implies beginning with truth to arrive at another recognizable truth.   Given the assertions from many of the Atheist posters they have no regard for either.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Carpet bomb the same village with the Bible, no missionary involved, and you will still have a decent conversion rate (assuming they are literate, if not, drop a book of illustrations.....which has also worked in the past).  Particularly if you drop the New Testament.



illustrations are embellishments. Especially when they contain this guy.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Some follow and some bash the messengers head in with a rock, offer his still beating heart to their stone and eat the rest of him and carry on worshiping as they have for thousands of years.



Yes.  But, the point remains.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We are using what is told in the book to show you how silly it is. We're not crying over it, because we don't really care. I've said it before. It's ALL ABOUT perspective. When you're coming at it from the perspective that it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because your parents and Sunday school teachers told you so, then that's exactly what it's going to look like. Let your parents and Sunday school teachers have a break for a moment, let down that filter and you'll see how silly it is. It's definitely not and easy thing to do. They probably also told you not to do that anyway...



 I absolutely and categorically deny EVERY ASSERTION of yours in this post. I am not, nor have I ever been, anything but a free thinking individual.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Are you suggesting the Koran would not have the same effect?



I dunno.  I don't think they spread "good news" in quite the same fashion as Christians, but, I am at a disadvatage because I know very little about that faith.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> To prove anything implies beginning with truth to arrive at another recognizable truth.   Given the assertions from many of the Atheist posters they have no regard for either.



We have complete regarding for truth... and finding it. You were told something was truth and won't let yourself for second believe that it might possibly not be truth. What does that say about your regard for truth? You don't care if it's actually truth or not. It's truth because you say it is.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2013)

I have not always believed the way I do now. Studied mythology in college. I have always been an explorer of " Why."

So from here on, spare me the "you only believe what you're told because you are too simple to see it like us enlightened people."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Missionaries are the voices in their ear. The missionaries embellish what's there. You have to take them out of it for this part of the conversation. No Sunday school teacher can be there saying that it's all real and they need to repent.



Satan is the voice in your ear and the ear of all Atheist.  You assert God is not real to justify your hedonistic lifestyles and actions.  The root of all atheistic thinking is pride.  Atheistic thinking is the root cause of all of societies problems from drugs, to welfare, to homosexuality, to disease, to AIDS, to hurricanes and earthquakes.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> To prove anything implies beginning with truth to arrive at another recognizable truth.   Given the assertions from many of the Atheist posters they have no regard for either.



SFD, you see the corner you are backed into. You realize the task you have based off of the claims you make and instead of giving it to us you make posts like the one above because you know that you do not have anything worthwhile to give, because if you held that one punch knockout truth you would have used it. 

"I'd tell you but you can't understand it"
Ok buddy. 10-4. We got ya.

Now continue on asking for the things that you cannot provide yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I dunno.  I don't think they spread "good news" in quite the same fashion as Christians, but, I am at a disadvatage because I know very little about that faith.



But they have lots of tribal followers......
At one time or another all the major religions of the world spread the "good news" at the end of a sword or AK47. Bottom line is they use ALL whatever way is most effective for the situation.

Hard to deny it works the same way for any religion influencing another culture/religion.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I have not always believed the way I do now. Studied mythology in college. I have always been an explorer of " Why."
> 
> So from here on, spare me the "you only believe what you're told because you are too simple to see it like us enlightened people."



Then you can see why and how some of us have studied and concluded just the opposite of you.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Satan is the voice in your ear and the ear of all Atheist.  You assert God is not real to justify your hedonistic lifestyles and actions.  The root of all atheistic thinking is pride.  Atheistic thinking is the root cause of all of societies problems from drugs, to welfare, to homosexuality, to disease, to AIDS, to hurricanes and earthquakes.



That is not another assertion is it?
I mean you have proof right?

Oh wait, you would give it to us but we don't have any concept of what the truth is, just YOU have it figured out......


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We have complete regarding for truth... and finding it.



Would you be talking of the truth about atheist condoning beastiality?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I absolutely and categorically deny EVERY ASSERTION of yours in this post. I am not, nor have I ever been, anything but a free thinking individual.



I think, as well as you should, that TripleX was using his statement as as majority....not to mean everybody that has ever worshiped anything has done it that way.
There is ALWAYS exceptions to any rule.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Would you be talking of the truth about atheist condoning beastiality?



LOLOLOL
You certainly are in your own little world aren't you?
Search the net more.
You'd be surprised at what some Christians (and to be fair people of  Every religion..) do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Should I take that literally or figuratively? What verse is that?



Peter Singer (Australias leading Atheist) quote from Heavy Petting

“sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.”

Should we take that literally or figuratively?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, the point remains.



The point remains that no religion is unique in having others convert to it. Most time the older the religion worshiped the easier it is to get a conversion to a more modern religion. Especially in areas that are generally cut off from modern technology.
In most cases someone is already worshiping something. All that is needed is to make a better case for your god being able to do everything the old God did plus more.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is not another assertion is it?
> I mean you have proof right?
> 
> Oh wait, you would give it to us but we don't have any concept of what the truth is, just YOU have it figured out......



Are not Atheist the ones who contend morals and truth are are relative based one ones "feelings".  If I contend it is a true and moral statement who are you to say I'm wrong?
Somehow I don't think you like it when you're fed your own cooking.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Peter Singer (Australias leading Atheist) quote from Heavy Petting
> 
> “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.”
> 
> Should we take that literally or figuratively?




Take it with this;
http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-zealand-sunday-school-teachers.html


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are not Atheist the ones who contend morals and truth are are relative based one ones "feelings".  If I contend it is a true and moral statement who are you to say I'm wrong?
> Somehow I don't think you like it when you're fed your own cooking.



I love it.  It shows me your thinking.
I contend it is true and moral also, just not from your God.

But you throw Atheist around as the definition for anyone who does not think and believe as you do. You lump everyone that does not believe in a God into being the same mindless one tracked person. Your blanket statements are most often why people outside of your religion view others within religion as zealots.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Peter Singer (Australias leading Atheist) quote from Heavy Petting
> 
> “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.”
> 
> Should we take that literally or figuratively?



 You might be the only person to give him the credit he thinks he deserves by buying into his nonsense.
If he is a leading atheist it is certainly a self given title backed up by you making him more known.
I have never heard of the guy before.
He does not represent me.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The point remains that no religion is unique in having others convert to it. Most time the older the religion worshiped the easier it is to get a conversion to a more modern religion. Especially in areas that are generally cut off from modern technology.
> In most cases someone is already worshiping something. All that is needed is to make a better case for your god being able to do everything the old God did plus more.



We were discussing what effect the Bible would have on a villager. We did this because the assertion was made that the Bible would not convince very many who read it without outside influence.

I made a relatively decent case to contradict that statement.

Are we now transitioning to a discussion comparing Christianity to the world's other major religions?  Or, still discussing whether or not the Bible is sufficient to convince the eskimos?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Take it with this;
> http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-zealand-sunday-school-teachers.html



The difference being beastiality is strictly outlawed by God, but condoned by Atheism.  You see when morals are relative everything is allowed based on "feelings".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I love it.  It shows me your thinking.
> I contend it is true and moral also, just not from your God.
> 
> But you throw Atheist around as the definition for anyone who does not think and believe as you do. You lump everyone that does not believe in a God into being the same mindless one tracked person. Your blanket statements are most often why people outside of your religion view others within religion as zealots.



You contend it is true and moral based on your feelings and nothing more.  Other atheist contend Beastiality is OK based on their feelings.  You have no justification to say they are wrong because their feelings are just as justifiable as yours.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The difference being beastiality is strictly outlawed by God, but condoned by Atheism.  You see when morals are relative everything is allowed based on "feelings".



Condoned by Atheism??
One total whack job in Australia does not speak for me. I don't have the Atheist handbook saying that it condones anything.
You want Atheism to be everything you are against so you spout 'facts" as if there is some sort of set of by laws somewhere.
You are just as bad as ol Pete thinking you represent anyone or anything.
People shy away from both of you.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> We were discussing what effect the Bible would have on a villager. We did this because the assertion was made that the Bible would not convince very many who read it without outside influence.
> 
> I made a relatively decent case to contradict that statement.
> 
> Are we now transitioning to a discussion comparing Christianity to the world's other major religions?  Or, still discussing whether or not the Bible is sufficient to convince the eskimos?



You did good.
I am just saying it is not unique.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You did good.
> I am just saying it is not unique.





And now, I'm bailing on this thread.....again


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You contend it is true and moral based on your feelings and nothing more.  Other atheist contend Beastiality is OK based on their feelings.  You have no justification to say they are wrong because their feelings are just as justifiable as yours.



I am getting the feeling you think I am a card carrying Atheist.
I don't know what the official definition is for me. I don't believe in your God. I don't believe in any God of any organized religion. I hope there is something. Just didn't find it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You see when morals are relative everything is allowed based on "feelings".



And you will find that IS the case, happens and has been happening since the beginning of human existence and will continue to happen forever.
If you (not you specifically)wanna shack up with your favorite barnyard buddy go for it. But I'm not inviting you to any of my Picnics.

I am sure there are spots in this world where that is the norm. they either didn't get your God's memo or don't care.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The difference being beastiality is strictly outlawed by God



Clearly, The wages for this type of sin is death, BUT we know for those who repent the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Sooooooooo..........


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Satan is the voice in your ear and the ear of all Atheist.  You assert God is not real to justify your hedonistic lifestyles and actions.  The root of all atheistic thinking is pride.  Atheistic thinking is the root cause of all of societies problems from drugs, to welfare, to homosexuality, to disease, to AIDS, to hurricanes and earthquakes.



I would like a little more of an explanation on this. I do understand Satans power but natural disasters? Do Christians not suffer form drugs, disease, gambling, adultery, etc.?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like a little more of an explanation on this. I do understand Satans power but natural disasters? Do Christians not suffer form drugs, disease, gambling, adultery, etc.?



SFD has clearly gone off the deep end with that one. I can no longer take him seriously.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 19, 2013)

SFD please please don't even try to defend  that one. Just walk away from it and hope that its forgotten about. Seriously.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2013)

Dang.  Y'all have been busy this morning.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I have not always believed the way I do now. Studied mythology in college. I have always been an explorer of " Why."
> 
> So from here on, spare me the "you only believe what you're told because you are too simple to see it like us enlightened people."



It's by no means a question of you being simple.. I know it's implied by many, but I don't think it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Satan is the voice in your ear and the ear of all Atheist.  You assert God is not real to justify your hedonistic lifestyles and actions.  The root of all atheistic thinking is pride.  Atheistic thinking is the root cause of all of societies problems from drugs, to welfare, to homosexuality, to disease, to AIDS, to hurricanes and earthquakes.



This isn't Sunday school... so I say.... FALSE


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You might be the only person to give him the credit he thinks he deserves by buying into his nonsense.
> If he is a leading atheist it is certainly a self given title backed up by you making him more known.
> I have never heard of the guy before.
> He does not represent me.



Bullet, you guys continually paint all Christians and in many instances all believers with one brush.  We very well could and do give the same defense as you just gave.  The knife cuts both ways you know.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Would you be talking of the truth about atheist condoning beastiality?



I love beastiality.. I'm glad you've figured it out.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> SFD has clearly gone off the deep end with that one. I can no longer take him seriously.



I realized that days ago... Desperation has set in.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am getting the feeling you think I am a card carrying Atheist.
> I don't know what the official definition is for me. I don't believe in your God. I don't believe in any God of any organized religion. I hope there is something. Just didn't find it.



No I think you are Agnostic, and my comments are not primarily directed toward you.  I my mind you are pretty reasonable in arguments even if I don't agree with your conclusions.  My last few post are directed at the guys who just make mindlessly false assertions with no intention other than to disparage religion and those who believe.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet, you guys continually paint all Christians and in many instances all believers with one brush.  We very well could and do give the same defense as you just gave.  The knife cuts both ways you know.



Wow... we agree on something. It definitely does. 

Christians are SUPPOSED to be following the flock. That's how it should be at least. The bible is the bible. The truth is the truth. We SHOULD be able to lump all of you together... but I realize, we can't, but it is what we go off of. Yet, has helped lead me to disbelief. EVERYONE has a different opinion in some way regarding the truth.. .at least the details of the truth.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> ....... the guys who just make mindlessly false assertions with no intention other than to disparage religion and those who believe.



Say what???



SemperFiDawg said:


> Would you be talking of the truth about atheist condoning beastiality?





SemperFiDawg said:


> Satan is the voice in your ear and the ear of all Atheist.  You assert God is not real to justify your hedonistic lifestyles and actions.  The root of all atheistic thinking is pride.  Atheistic thinking is the root cause of all of societies problems from drugs, to welfare, to homosexuality, to disease, to AIDS, to hurricanes and earthquakes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> This isn't Sunday school... so I say.... FALSE



No Sunday school is people who believe there is a truth and there are morals.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Wow... we agree on something. It definitely does.
> 
> Christians are SUPPOSED to be following the flock. That's how it should be at least. The bible is the bible. The truth is the truth. We SHOULD be able to lump all of you together... but I realize, we can't, but it is what we go off of. Yet, has helped lead me to disbelief. EVERYONE has a different opinion in some way regarding the truth.. .at least the details of the truth.



Christians follow the shepherd, not the flock. 
Christ did not call all Christians to look and act exactly the same. God creates, not duplicates. I'm sure you're familiar with 1 Corinthians 12; one body, many members all different. 

Sorry the church has not represented Christ well. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Say what???



Hey if you can throw out lie after lie and absurdity after absurdity I can to.  What's the problem?   Are truth and morals only important when others have to abide by them?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2013)

Anybody ever read some Gideon testimonials? Lots of conversions from simply reading the bible.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 19, 2013)

We as Christians have a  core belief in Jesus. We have religious rituals and ceremonies. Other religions have various beliefs in a God and core beliefs.
The problem some Christians have with Atheism is the concept that it isn't organized. They don't have anything in common other than not believing in any God or group of Gods. 
We do and should be more  organized and share more common beliefs. I can't defend the various denominations and sects of Christianity. We do have to much division. We are one with a common goal. Atheist don't have a common goal of witnessing to believers. Some Atheist might have this as an agenda but it's not a core belief.
We as Christians should not look at Atheist as anything but non believers. We can witness and leave it at that. We don't have a monopoly on morals and they don't have one on doing bad things.

First and foremost Jesus said: Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 

He doesn't distinguish between Atheist, Agnostics, or Hindus. The average non believer in Georgia who is a very good citizen scatters just the same as a professed Atheist.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 19, 2013)

Jesus said: Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

What that means is not everyone who believes they are a Christian is truly a Christian. If not even all the self professed Christians are going to Heaven, how do we expect all the Atheists to convert? They have to receive a call from God. We've done our part in witnessing now it's between the individual and God. 
It's time for us to just witness by example in how we treat our fellow men to include any and all sinners.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 19, 2013)

It's either that or God has hardened their hearts depending on what denomination you are!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Wow... we agree on something. It definitely does.
> 
> Christians are SUPPOSED to be following the flock. That's how it should be at least. The bible is the bible. The truth is the truth. We SHOULD be able to lump all of you together... but I realize, we can't, but it is what we go off of. Yet, has helped lead me to disbelief. EVERYONE has a different opinion in some way regarding the truth.. .at least the details of the truth.



Like I said earlier.  Discussion with you is a fools errand on my behalf.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> We were discussing what effect the Bible would have on a villager. We did this because the assertion was made that the Bible would not convince very many who read it without outside influence.
> 
> I made a relatively decent case to contradict that statement.
> 
> Are we now transitioning to a discussion comparing Christianity to the world's other major religions?  Or, still discussing whether or not the Bible is sufficient to convince the eskimos?



You made your case with a missionary. I don't believe it's anywhere near the case with no outside help to believe it other than itself.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Christians follow the shepherd, not the flock.
> Christ did not call all Christians to look and act exactly the same. God creates, not duplicates. I'm sure you're familiar with 1 Corinthians 12; one body, many members all different.
> 
> Sorry the church has not represented Christ well. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water



So the church is what the majority of christians base their faith on? The truth is the truth and EVERYONE believes something different. While Jesus is the way, the truth and the life may be common among a lot, EVERYONE believes what they want to believe, even on other important details. If all of the flock follow the shepherd as they should then you follow the flock.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Anybody ever read some Gideon testimonials? Lots of conversions from simply reading the bible.



There aren't hotels for gideons to place their bibles in places where there isn't an outside voice....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Like I said earlier.  Discussion with you is a fools errand on my behalf.



1 Peter 3:15..     Sinner.....


----------



## bullethead (Jul 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet, you guys continually paint all Christians and in many instances all believers with one brush.  We very well could and do give the same defense as you just gave.  The knife cuts both ways you know.



No actually I don't. I treat each one of you in here differently as I have gotten to know a little about your individual thoughts and style.
No matter how much we all want a group to be the same like minded organization , the truth is we are individuals and differ from each and everyone else.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 19, 2013)

I got to tell you, when a response contains, "jesus said...", or "God says.." it makes me giggle. Thank yall for that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2013)

660griz said:


> I got to tell you, when a response contains, "jesus said...", or "God says.." it makes me giggle. Thank yall for that.



The Christians could use a giggle from time to time as well, so don't be shy about posting.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> There aren't hotels for gideons to place their bibles in places where there isn't an outside voice....



www.gideons.org


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So the church is what the majority of christians base their faith on? The truth is the truth and EVERYONE believes something different. While Jesus is the way, the truth and the life may be common among a lot, EVERYONE believes what they want to believe, even on other important details. If all of the flock follow the shepherd as they should then you follow the flock.



No. We are not called to follow man. 
"John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."


God has a specific calling, gift and purpose for each of our lives. We will ALL be different. That's the beauty of the church.
Also, see post 442 for clarification from your colleague.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 6, 2014)

Perhaps some folks could watch Stephen Hawkins documentary, "Grand Design" it has two parts, The Meaning of Life, and, The Key to the Cosmos. 
It could answer some questions, at least from an atheist view. Then, we could go from there. Don't worry, you don't have to listen to Mr. Hawkins talk for the entire time. 

It is on Netflix streaming currently.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD please please don't even try to defend  that one. Just walk away from it and hope that its forgotten about. Seriously.



LOL... I had forgotten this.....


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

Stephen Hawkins states they have found the meaning of life. It is between your ears.


----------

