# former theist turned atheist....



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 22, 2011)

I've read where some  of the atheists on here were once associated with mainstream churches or denominations before turning away.    In my debating over the years I've found that, by and large, most who turn away were associated with the more ritual-based, ceremonial type churches, like Catholics.    Rarely do I find atheists who were once 'saved'....with a relationship with Jesus....who have turned away, but I'm sure there are some on here that can relate. 

Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....


Who on here can relate?


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 22, 2011)

So catholics are not real christians and cant be saved?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 22, 2011)

my first former catholic-turned atheist?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 22, 2011)

sorry....ive got to run for the rest of the afternoon, but I'll catch back up tomorrow.

Yes, Catholics can be saved....if they have been born again....not just dunked or quoting some prayers.

see y'all tomorrow...


----------



## vowell462 (Dec 22, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I've read where some  of the atheists on here were once associated with mainstream churches or denominations before turning away.    In my debating over the years I've found that, by and large, most who turn away were associated with the more ritual-based, ceremonial type churches, like Catholics.    Rarely do I find atheists who were once 'saved'....with a relationship with Jesus....who have turned away, but I'm sure there are some on here that can relate.
> 
> Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....
> 
> ...



ummm. You can add me to your lower numbered list! I onced believed I was saved ( baptist) but after doing some soul searching, questioning, and research ( not to mention using common logic) I found that I believe I was brainwashed and believe everyone that around me was too. 
Now I wouldnt consider myself atheist, but more agnostic. I can completly say with honesty that us as humans do not "know" the answers. We all have speculation, religion, theories, but nobody knows. And I for one can live and embrace that without it bothering me. Why do I say that? Because I dont live in fear of what happens when I die, because I dont think there is a lake of fire to worry about and if there is, Im not so sure id want anything to do with a "creator" whom lets such pass. 

Honestly, it just doesnt make sense, bottom line.


----------



## tween_the_banks (Dec 22, 2011)

I was "saved" at the impressionable age of 13. 
As I got older, nothing spectacular happened to turn me away.
Nothing "of the church" or church politics turned me away. Just common curiosity which is often times labeled as the devil.
From 4 to around the age of 16 I was a member of a small baptist church.
Since then I've learned one major thing about myself, I'm too indecisive to believe anything.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 22, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I've read where some  of the atheists on here were once associated with mainstream churches or denominations before turning away.    In my debating over the years I've found that, by and large, most who turn away were associated with the more ritual-based, ceremonial type churches, like Catholics.    Rarely do I find atheists who were once 'saved'....with a relationship with Jesus....who have turned away, but I'm sure there are some on here that can relate.
> 
> Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....
> 
> ...



I can


----------



## SneekEE (Dec 22, 2011)

Bandersnatch your post dont compute... how can someone say they are giving there life to Christ for all eternity to serve Him as Lord and then not do what they said they were going to do, then make the claim they done it. That is if a person says they gave there life to Christ for eternity, then whats it dooing back in there hands? I may be wrong but seems like the bible says any man that is in Gods hands can not be removed from it. So either they were lieing or God was?


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Anyone who is an atheist was never really a TRUE christian, eh?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> ummm. You can add me to your lower numbered list! I onced believed I was saved ( baptist) but after doing some soul searching, questioning, and research ( not to mention using common logic) I found that I believe I was brainwashed and believe everyone that around me was too.
> Now I wouldnt consider myself atheist, but more agnostic. I can completly say with honesty that us as humans do not "know" the answers. We all have speculation, religion, theories, but nobody knows. And I for one can live and embrace that without it bothering me. Why do I say that? Because I dont live in fear of what happens when I die, because I dont think there is a lake of fire to worry about and if there is, Im not so sure id want anything to do with a "creator" whom lets such pass.
> 
> Honestly, it just doesnt make sense, bottom line.




I appreciate the sincere answer.    You are (and please take no offense to this...none intended) someone that, IMO, the bible would classify as 'impossible to save', since you at one time did believe Jesus to be God's son, but now do not.    (reference the Hebrews scripture I posted)   

I like your answers, Vowell.   Little sarcasm ever!   lol


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2011)

SneekEE said:


> Bandersnatch your post dont compute... how can someone say they are giving there life to Christ for all eternity to serve Him as Lord and then not do what they said they were going to do, then make the claim they done it. That is if a person says they gave there life to Christ for eternity, then whats it dooing back in there hands? I may be wrong but seems like the bible says any man that is in Gods hands can not be removed from it. So either they were lieing or God was?



I'm referring to apostasy.    When someone choices to no longer believe.   I know there are some Christians (mainly baptist Im sure) who believe that, once you confess Christ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, they can never lose their salvation, even if they come to believe that Jesus blood was "an unholy thing".   I am not one of them.    I believe one can become an apostate.

Hebrews 10:29 - Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2011)

Four said:


> No true Scotsman fallacy.
> 
> Anyone who is an atheist was never really a TRUE christian, eh?




I don't believe that, myself, Four.   I could have easily become and atheist after I was 'saved'.   I was saved early, when I was like 14, but I could have let evolutionary theory or other atheists arguments influence me to the point where I no longer believed that Jesus was more than a man, like Vowell did.   

IMO, a christian can become an atheist.


----------



## vowell462 (Dec 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I appreciate the sincere answer.    You are (and please take no offense to this...none intended) someone that, IMO, the bible would classify as 'impossible to save', since you at one time did believe Jesus to be God's son, but now do not.    (reference the Hebrews scripture I posted)
> 
> I like your answers, Vowell.   Little sarcasm ever!   lol



Sorry for the sarcasm. Nothing cruel intended. If the christian god is real, why do you suppose he made me " impossible to save"? In other words, if he is all willing and all knowing, why would he make a person with doubt? I guess this runs into the whole free will thing. Its just hard for me, thats all.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Sorry for the sarcasm. Nothing cruel intended. If the christian god is real, why do you suppose he made me " impossible to save"? In other words, if he is all willing and all knowing, why would he make a person with doubt? I guess this runs into the whole free will thing. Its just hard for me, thats all.



I didn't detect sarcasm, vowell, just mentioned that I almost never see it in your posts.   

I think you misunderstood me.   No one is impossible to save, but I don't believe that someone can be saved, then become an atheist (counting Jesus as just a normal person and that he died and rotted like normal people) and then become saved again.    That's what the Hebrews scripture is talking about; those who once were saved (having been sanctified by Christ's blood) but no longer believe.    Apostasy is what I was talking about.   (again, some Christian denominations would argue that once you confess Christ, even if you're 5 years old, that you can not lose your salvation, even if you come to believe that Jesus was nothing special and NOT raised from the dead.   I am not of that persuasion)


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> In other words, if he is all willing and all knowing, why would he make a person with doubt?



I believe most Christians (at least the ones I know; and men especially) relate more to 'Doubting Thomas'.   I know I did.   I came to Christ at an early age, but my heart could not hold on to something that my mind constantly contradicted.   Without evidence for Jesus' resurrection -- like Thomas asked for -- I would probably have fell away, like you.   Now, though, I consider myself a dead horse.   lol   When you've met Him, there's no going back.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 23, 2011)

When you convince yourself you've met someone who died 2000 years ago, there's no going back. Actually there is but it sure isn't easy. Hard to discover error when you've closed your mind off to the possibility of it which not coincidentally is exactly what religion encourages people to do.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2011)

Here's a question I'll leave with you guys (as they've just informed me that we get off 2 hrs early today!!  )   

"IF" God exists, do you think He would have to physically appear before you to introduce Himself?   Or, would God have to leave heaven to come to earth? (no Christmas pun intended; not saying He did; just asking a question lol)   Could He possibly talk to you without standing beside you?

Jesus (as William Lane Craig argues in his debates) can IMMEDIATELY be experienced by the sincere seeker.    I, and millions, have met Him as well. 

I invite all of you to seek Him during this Christmas season.

Have a wonderful Christmas, guys.   Looking forward to a great 2012 with y'all.

Bandy


----------



## bullethead (Dec 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here's a question I'll leave with you guys (as they've just informed me that we get off 2 hrs early today!!  )
> 
> "IF" God exists, do you think He would have to physically appear before you to introduce Himself?   Or, would God have to leave heaven to come to earth? (no Christmas pun intended; not saying He did; just asking a question lol)   Could He possibly talk to you without standing beside you?
> 
> ...



If Christians were the only ones to exclusively experience such interaction with their God then I would be more inclined to believe a little more. For every person that has interacted and experienced Jesus there is another person that has or claims to have the same deal with "their" God.

Physically appearing to someone would not be any great feat for a God if that meant gaining believers.


----------



## Four (Dec 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I don't believe that, myself, Four.   I could have easily become and atheist after I was 'saved'.   I was saved early, when I was like 14, but I could have let evolutionary theory or other atheists arguments influence me to the point where I no longer believed that Jesus was more than a man, like Vowell did.
> 
> IMO, a christian can become an atheist.



the difference seems trivial. Your position is if your "saved" you cant turn atheist. But being "saved" is unscientific and subjective. I could think i was saved, just like you think your saved, and turn atheist, but your response would be "well you weren't really saved" and we cant prove it one way or the other.


----------



## Four (Dec 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here's a question I'll leave with you guys (as they've just informed me that we get off 2 hrs early today!!  )
> 
> "IF" God exists, do you think He would have to physically appear before you to introduce Himself?   Or, would God have to leave heaven to come to earth? (no Christmas pun intended; not saying He did; just asking a question lol)   Could He possibly talk to you without standing beside you?
> 
> ...



Yes, you would have to have validation that you're not delusional, multiple witnesses of the same incident as well.

Plenty of people have claimed to see/here many gods, but they haven't. Just like you haven't. Just like the people that murder there children haven't.

It's just you in your head, nobody else.


----------



## bigreddwon (Dec 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I've read where some  of the atheists on here were once associated with mainstream churches or denominations before turning away.    In my debating over the years I've found that, by and large, most who turn away were associated with the more ritual-based, ceremonial type churches, like Catholics.    Rarely do I find atheists who were once 'saved'....with a relationship with Jesus....who have turned away, but I'm sure there are some on here that can relate.
> 
> Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....
> 
> ...





I was born into a family where everyone was Jehovah's Witnesses. My Aunts Uncles, everyone. I grew up totally believing in God, until I was about 8 or 9. Little things I heard the Elders say or read in the bible, caused me to question then doubt the exsistance of a god. Trust me, we read us some bible I tell ya. We did Sundays, Wednesdays and sold Watchtower magazines all weekend. 

At about 10-11 I had serious doubts and by 13 was asked not to come back by my family because they were embarrassed to be associated with 'that kid that wont stop askin questions'. My 'Elders' were not theologists.. They were plumbers and cops and working guys. They had no answers to my questions but I got from them the answers I needed.

  I tasted nothing 'sweet' or nourishing spiritually there at the Kingdom Hall. I missed no relationship with any character in the book I spent so much time reading and having read and re-read over and over for 13 years.  All most a 40 hr work week of RELIGION! hehehe If I'd only gotten paid.

I became enlightened the moment the door hit me where _*evolution*_ split me...


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I've read where some  of the atheists on here were once associated with mainstream churches or denominations before turning away.    In my debating over the years I've found that, by and large, most who turn away were associated with the more ritual-based, ceremonial type churches, like Catholics.    Rarely do I find atheists who were once 'saved'....with a relationship with Jesus....who have turned away, but I'm sure there are some on here that can relate.
> 
> Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....
> 
> ...



I can relate and got the testimony to prove it.
I'm sure most of you know the story of the Good Shepherd who will leave the 99 lambs to go fetch the lost lamb that belongs to Him. That's me...the lost lamb. I could do a long version, but I'll spare y'all and make it really short and sweet. 
Sometimes the shepherd would have to break the lamb's leg to keep it from running away again...and get it to surrender itself to the shepherd. I was saved at 12 and I knew I was saved, but ran far away into dark sin. I never denied Christ, I just hid from Him, for many reasons. Then boom 40 yrs later, He came to get me, out of the clear blue and brought me back to the fold. I didn't even have sense enough to know how lost I was. He always knew where I was though. He didn't even have to break my leg, I had been rendered in life to the point, I was happy to be snatched back.

Two side notes..
Christ says if you are truly saved nothing will snatch you out of the palm of His hand....in the long run.

And at crusifixions,most of the time the guards would have to break the legs of the men on the crosses to get them to surrender to the cross which was designed for torture and then asphyxiation. 
Jesus' legs were not broken as He surrenedered to the cross. And that was one of the proofs that the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus didn't have was a broken leg, along with the holes in His palms/wrists.

I always wondered why God let that happen to me, I was angry for a long time for Him 'letting' me get myself that deep. But I have been able to help a lot of people in the same shape I was in, because I can understand what they are going thru, and I suppose Christ knew He could use me to do that.


----------



## vowell462 (Dec 24, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I didn't detect sarcasm, vowell, just mentioned that I almost never see it in your posts.
> 
> I think you misunderstood me.   No one is impossible to save, but I don't believe that someone can be saved, then become an atheist (counting Jesus as just a normal person and that he died and rotted like normal people) and then become saved again.    That's what the Hebrews scripture is talking about; those who once were saved (having been sanctified by Christ's blood) but no longer believe.    Apostasy is what I was talking about.   (again, some Christian denominations would argue that once you confess Christ, even if you're 5 years old, that you can not lose your salvation, even if you come to believe that Jesus was nothing special and NOT raised from the dead.   I am not of that persuasion)



My bad. My comprehesion level is on low. I blame it on public schooling growing up.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> I was born into a family where everyone was Jehovah's Witnesses. My Aunts Uncles, everyone. I grew up totally believing in God, until I was about 8 or 9. Little things I heard the Elders say or read in the bible, caused me to question then doubt the exsistance of a god. Trust me, we read us some bible I tell ya. We did Sundays, Wednesdays and sold Watchtower magazines all weekend.
> 
> At about 10-11 I had serious doubts and by 13 was asked not to come back by my family because they were embarrassed to be associated with 'that kid that wont stop askin questions'. My 'Elders' were not theologists.. They were plumbers and cops and working guys. They had no answers to my questions but I got from them the answers I needed.
> 
> ...



lol    I don't blame you one bit!    I've heard that when a family/person leaves the JW's they are shunned.    I'm sure you and your family paid a price for leaving, too.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

Four said:


> the difference seems trivial. Your position is if your "saved" you cant turn atheist. But being "saved" is unscientific and subjective. I could think i was saved, just like you think your saved, and turn atheist, but your response would be "well you weren't really saved" and we cant prove it one way or the other.



Nope...that's not my position at all.    I believe that one can be saved as one can get, and still turned away.    There are some who would say "well, you weren't really saved"...but that won't be me.    I believe any Christian can turn away if they are "sober and vigilant'...


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 27, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> My bad. My comprehesion level is on low. I blame it on public schooling growing up.


----------



## Asath (Dec 27, 2011)

“Nope...that's not my position at all.”

What?  Yes it is.  The OP says very clearly – “Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....”   

So in which sense of the word ‘impossible’ did you not mean it?

You have testimony from non-believers now, in this thread, who were once ‘saved,’ largely as children, similar to just about all believers of my experience.  Nobody who is even marginally thoughtful rejects things they know nothing about, so you will likely find among the non-believers a group of folks who know more about the belief system at hand than the ‘believers’ will ever know.  

The believers were handed a set of nonsense stories as children, and never looked back.  The non-believers examined those stories, and put them to the smell test, and they didn’t smell right, nor add up.  So we began looking into them, seeking truth, rather than comfort.  For believers to claim superior ‘enlightenment,’ as the OP suggests, puts them in a position of having to demonstrate that such enlightened superiority is true. They cannot.  

Not only can they not demonstrate any such thing, but the very history of all beliefs is a history of retreat from earlier positions, and is a history filled with the rationalization of the moment in the face of advancing knowledge.  Belief has never advanced, it has retreated, oppressed, demanded, and retrenched time and time again.  Facts are facts, truth is truth, while belief is an ever-shifting shadow made entirely of words and violent passions.   That is easily demonstrated.

In order to speak of things such as a ‘heavenly gift’ one would first need to show just what that gift consists of, exactly, and one would of needs be required to demonstrate that ‘heaven’ exists.  Neither can be done.  In order to ‘partake of the Holy Ghost,’ one would again be put in the odd position of putting this imaginary being into some sort of real context, and show that it is not only extant, but is also both ‘Holy,’ and a ‘Ghost.’  Neither can be done.  In order to have ‘tasted the good word of God,’ one is once again asked to show that there actually is a God, and that this particular imagined God actually authored any words whatsoever.  This also cannot be done.

So it would be inaccurate to say ‘former theist turned atheist’ unless one counts brainwashed children as ‘theists.’  Perhaps there are still some adults who believe in Santa, but mature, rational, and educated minds tend to reject the fully impossible at a certain point, and start asking simpler questions, like, ‘Who wrote this crap, and why are idiots still killing each other over it?’


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 28, 2011)

‘Who wrote this crap, and why are idiots still killing each other over it?’


----------



## applejuice (Dec 28, 2011)

Asath said:


> “Nope...that's not my position at all.”
> 
> What?  Yes it is.  The OP says very clearly – “Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....”
> 
> ...


----------



## vowell462 (Dec 28, 2011)

Asath said:


> “Nope...that's not my position at all.”
> 
> What?  Yes it is.  The OP says very clearly – “Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....”
> 
> ...



Wow! well written.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

Asath said:


> The believers were handed a set of nonsense stories as children, and never looked back.  The non-believers examined those stories, and put them to the smell test, and they didn’t smell right, nor add up.  So we began looking into them, seeking truth, rather than comfort.  For believers to claim superior ‘enlightenment,’ as the OP suggests, puts them in a position of having to demonstrate that such enlightened superiority is true. They cannot.



This suggests that Christians have to be brainwashed as children to believe the stories of the bible to be true, which is rediculous. 

There have been many many people throughout history that have come to Christ as fully grown adults with completely logical and rational minds. Who have read the strories and come to the conclusion that the books of the bible are indeed true.

You can stop with your argument that one has to be incompetent to have faith in the holy bible or God. Their are many people that are far superior intelectualy than you or I or anyone on this forum that put their faith in Jesus Christ everyday.

Just because you can't see or feel God doesn't make Him not real or true. I see Him and feel Him everyday and I can't prove it and I don't have to.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> This suggests that Christians have to be brainwashed as children to believe the stories of the bible to be true, which is rediculous.
> 
> There have been many many people throughout history that have come to Christ as fully grown adults with completely logical and rational minds. Who have read the strories and come to the conclusion that the books of the bible are indeed true.
> 
> ...



How many have come to Christ without ever have hearing "the story"? Nobody knows the story because they had a late night visit from a God or his Son. On the other hand LOTS of people believe what they read.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> How many have come to Christ without ever have hearing "the story"? *Nobody knows the story because they had a late night visit from a God or his Son.* On the other hand LOTS of people believe what they read.



You're wrong about that. I have heard Ravi Zacharias speak about this and tell personal stories of people coming to Christ in Muslim countries(where he has been many times) through dreams.

Maybe I can find a link.

http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/worldreports/595/01-2007?pg=all


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You're wrong about that. I have heard Ravi Zacharias speak about this and tell personal stories of people coming to Christ in Muslim countries(where he has been many times) through dreams.
> 
> Maybe I can find a link.
> 
> http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/worldreports/595/01-2007?pg=all



String I TOTALLY "get" the point your trying to get across. 
But dreams are just that...DREAMS. I have flown, jumped long distances in slow motion, battled the devil, vampires and 'evil-dooers, I know some sort of martial art in various dreams and just last week I'd SWEAR I was back in high school with homework due and could not for the life of me remember the combination to my locker. LUCKILY as I went into class it was actually the parking lot so I drove my '86 Grand National to the Restaurant we have not owned for 15 years now and started to handle the breakfast shift!!! Was it real? Man it sure seemed so at the time! I have also talked to God and Jesus in dreams, Is the rule those dreams involving them are real and the rest are not???

My point is that a large percentage of the followers of Christ in THIS country, especially ones from Christian families have had prior knowledge of "what he was all about" since an early age. If you've found him later I do not think it was the first time you've ever heard of him. My M-I-L is a devout follower of Christ. She is now dying of cancer but Jesus has been her passion for the last 10 years. Before that she hopped between 3 or 4 different churches and denominations and before that not an interest despite sending her 3 children to Catholic school. Before that(before being an adult) she was raised in a Christian family that attended church. She would put most on here to shame with her reciting of scripture . She has found what makes her comfortable. You CANNOT imagine the in depth conversation her and I have had over the years. I'd say her faith is as strong as anyone else I have ever met. It is also a source of where I get a lot of my "material" as far as seeing someone that is intelligent, savvy, and logical about every other aspect of life, all the while oblivious to the three when religion is involved. But....BUT, she was like that each and every time she switched. It was always Jesus, but it was the WAY of whatever denomination she was into at the time. Now when questioned about the others she says" well I have found the RIGHT one now".....

If Jesus can make personal appearances to Muslims and people outside of his Faith and turn their views, it would be no sweat to show to everyone else.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> String I TOTALLY "get" the point your trying to get across.
> But dreams are just that...DREAMS. I have flown, jumped long distances in slow motion, battled the devil, vampires and 'evil-dooers, I know some sort of martial art in various dreams and just last week I'd SWEAR I was back in high school with homework due and could not for the life of me remember the combination to my locker. LUCKILY as I went into class it was actually the parking lot so I drove my '86 Grand National to the Restaurant we have not owned for 15 years now and started to handle the breakfast shift!!! Was it real? Man it sure seemed so at the time! I have also talked to God and Jesus in dreams, Is the rule those dreams involving them are real and the rest are not???


I didn't expect you to believe the people and their dreams were from God, my argument was simply that the dreams happened and people gave their lives to Christ because of them.



> My point is that a large percentage of the followers of Christ in THIS country, especially ones from Christian families have had prior knowledge of "what he was all about" since an early age. If you've found him later I do not think it was the first time you've ever heard of him. My M-I-L is a devout follower of Christ. She is now dying of cancer but Jesus has been her passion for the last 10 years. Before that she hopped between 3 or 4 different churches and denominations and before that not an interest despite sending her 3 children to Catholic school. Before that(before being an adult) she was raised in a Christian family that attended church. She would put most on here to shame with her reciting of scripture . She has found what makes her comfortable. You CANNOT imagine the in depth conversation her and I have had over the years. I'd say her faith is as strong as anyone else I have ever met. It is also a source of where I get a lot of my "material" as far as seeing someone that is intelligent, savvy, and logical about every other aspect of life, all the while oblivious to the three when religion is involved. But....BUT, she was like that each and every time she switched. *It was always Jesus, but it was the WAY of whatever denomination she was into at the time.* Now when questioned about the others she says" well I have found the RIGHT one now".....


Thats the problem, following Jesus and His WAY is the only way, not some man made denominations' way. Don't let your MIL's course make any decisions for your course.



> If Jesus can make personal appearances to Muslims and people outside of his Faith and turn their views, it would be no sweat to show to everyone else.


It's no sweat I promise you, I imagine God knows who the dreams need to go to and why, and He also knows the people who have the information right under their noses and still deny.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

And knows who's been naughty and knows who's been nice.....


----------



## Asath (Dec 30, 2011)

I believe I said,  . . . “and is a history filled with the rationalization of the moment.”

Ready?  “ . . . my argument was simply that the dreams happened and people gave their lives to Christ because of them.”

Um?  On account of the dreams?  Or on account of they believed them?  Or on account of what exactly?  And, if we might ask, if you admit they were dreams, then what is your point?  Our point is rather the same – dreams are hardly a basis for establishing a control-based system, and you’ll be hard-pressed to show that the ‘dreams happened.’  That is sort of a fantasy-based bit of logic, and is completely self-referential.  One cannot refer to the fantasy as the source of it’s own authentication.  The Bible does not confirm itself simply by having been published – else Aesop’s Fables would have the same authority.

“ . . . following Jesus and His WAY is the only way, not some man made denominations' way.”    And this Jesus fella y’all keep going on about?  What do you suppose that HIS way actually was?  The message we keep getting from y’all is that HIS way is actually YOUR way.  But the problem you present is that there are hundreds of disagreements among your own sects concerning just what that WAY might have been.  How can that be?  Your own Son of your own God forgot to make himself clear?  That seems pretty odd.  And your own Son of your own God forgot to become literate, and write a single WORD of HIS own?  Then why did he bother?  Y’all keep squabbling about the WORD, but this fella you go on about never wrote one. Where is the Gospel of Jesus?  Got one?  You can’t even account, even by assumption, for the first thirty years of the life of this fella you unanimously agree was martyred at the age of thirty-three.  You can really, seriously, base your entire life on supposed legends of a supposed Rabbi who conducted a completely undocumented ministry without a single word of his own over a period of three years?  And base this on stories written about him not less than two generations later? Then repeated for over two thousand years?  Honestly?      

I’m unable to summon up that sort of blind credulity, myself.  

“ . . . I imagine God knows who the dreams need to go to and why . . . “  Imagination, and dreams, are the basis of the entire fabric of this, and if it works for someone or another, then that is fine for them.  The moment a single person is compelled, by one who believes in imagination and dreams, to think as they do at sword-point, and the moment a single person is killed by a believer for the sin of not believing as they do, then my tolerance parts company with your fantasies and dreams. 

 Oops.  That already happened, didn’t it? Until then it is harmless, but y’all crossed that line long ago, and became oppressors.  All of you, and all for your own ‘noble’ reasons.  Those of you, in the end, that do not stamp each other out over your passionate ‘beliefs’ will end up being stamped out by the rest of us who are becoming increasingly intolerant of this sort of childish nonsense.


----------



## Asath (Dec 30, 2011)

You see, here’s the problem, in a nutshell –

The Christians are monotheists, and they believe in the God of Abraham – the God of the Old Testament.  They believe that this God came down to Earth and magically impregnated one of our Virgins, who spawned the Son of God, and then had that Son executed for some odd reason.  From that they made a New Testament. Just with a whole bunch of interpretations.

The Jewish faith, which is also monotheistic, believes in the same God of Abraham, and adheres to the very same Old Testament, but they don’t buy this whole Son of God bit, and still await their true Savior, who is yet to be born. So for them, the New Testament is a bunch of hooey, and the Old Testament is where the truth lies.  Just with a whole bunch of interpretations.

The Islamists, who are the last and remaining among the monotheists, ALSO believe in the God of Abraham, and ALSO adhere to the very same Old Testament.  Their take on the matter is sort of a compromise position – They say that their own Prophet went up and actually MET Jesus, and his Father, in heaven, and came back with a different message entirely – God wants them to enforce the Old Testament as LAW. Just with a whole bunch of interpretations.

Is anyone seeing a bit of a common thread here?   Oversimplified, of course, in the interest of the attention spans of the readers, but a fair take on the matter just the same.  Pay attention folks – Every one of you, regardless of your prejudices against each other, devolve to the same source, the same God, and the same dogma.  If that fact alone doesn’t stop you cold, and force you to begin asking yourselves some tough questions, then nothing will.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 31, 2011)

Asath said:


> Every one of you, regardless of your prejudices against each other, devolve to the same source, the same God, and the same dogma.



You could have taken it one step further, and probably should have, and included Mormons.

God of Abraham, all that, then some fella meets an angel who says the indians were jews and gives him some gold tablets......

There are two ways of looking at this.  Your way, which indicates it is all false.  Or, we could think folks are onto something with the God of Abraham and explore the post-Abraham trends on their individual merits.  

I think you know Christianity pretty well.  Compare it to Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, etc.  Then compare each to each other.  If the basis of your search is that there is a God of Abraham, then you may be able to take an additional step of faith. 

Jesus is not that difficult to believe if there is a God of Abraham.


----------



## Asath (Dec 31, 2011)

A rational person would have to think.  

That seems to be the absent factor in all of this.  If the three monotheistic religions all have the very same God as their basis, which they do, and have been killing each other and also killing those within their own groups who ‘interpret’ this God differently, which they clearly have, then all it tends to illuminate is that this God of theirs failed to actually give any of them a singular WORD to follow.  The existence of the factions themselves give the lie to their own contentions.

It cannot be argued, by any of the factions, that a GOD, as they wish to describe it, could possibly have failed to make itself clear to its own Creation.  There are endless reams of excuses and self-serving justifications, and a trail of blood and bodies that line the hallways of thousands of years of pontificating clerics, but the point is rather obvious – any God that is unable to convey a simple, clear message is flawed.  Any being that is flawed cannot be a God, by definition.  One small part of the Creation cannot have possibly ‘gotten’ the message, while the rest were left out of that secret. The contention itself is absurd.

And you can forget about the idea of a ‘Son of God’ for that same reason – A ‘God’s’ relationship to his Creation would be rather non-emotional.  He would be like a gamer who came in with prior knowledge of the game and armed with a complete set of cheat codes.  A God could not lose.  Attributing any human characteristic at all to a God is absurd and self-negating.  There is no God of Abraham, because there cannot be, by any stretch of logic, and as demonstrated by the blood soaked history of the very idea of the God of Abraham.  If this God were real and ‘revealed,’ then what could there possibly be to fight about?  Did your God WANT you to keep on killing each other in HIS name?

That truth tends to leave the idea of elevating a relatively unknown ancient militant Rabbi who never wrote a word of his own to the level of Godhood impotent.  Folks can continue to devote their lives to trying to demonstrate the truth of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth – the man – and might even someday succeed, but that will never demonstrate the further contention of Divinity.  Not for that man, or any other man for whom similar claims are made.  I suppose that is where the ‘Faith’ part comes in.  You simply have to ‘Believe’ in nonsense in order for nonsense to be true, and clearly the world has no shortage of believers.  The problem is that they all believe in different things, and they all believe with murderous passion.  Oops.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

Spot on Asath.

It is why I am fully convinced the God was made in Man's image and not the other way around. Why else would mankind have to make so many excuses and "get out of jail free cards" to explain why there are rules but NONE of the rules ever get followed, none of the promises ever get fulfilled, why something so powerful has done everything in a book yet cannot do anything outside of that book. When you get past the threats and promises, the smoke and mirrors, the flashing lights and commands and pull the curtain back, there is no Wizard....just man acting as if he was the great and powerful OZ for the gain and glory man has always used to better himself for himself.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 1, 2012)

Asath said:


> If the three monotheistic religions all have the very same God as their basis, which they do, and have been killing each other and also killing those within their own groups who ‘interpret’ this God differently, which they clearly have, then all it tends to illuminate is that this God of theirs failed to actually give any of them a singular WORD to follow.



That says more about the followers than the God.  Consider that if a God exists, he didn't have to leave an instruction manual.  That is your criteria.  Neither you nor I write the rules of the universe, we just operate within natural restrictions.  We didn't have to exist.




Asath said:


> It cannot be argued, by any of the factions, that a GOD, as they wish to describe it, could possibly have failed to make itself clear to its own Creation.



And there is where we differ.  Though I do believe evolution is evident within creation, I also see that a creator is a necessary ingredient for evolution to exist.  The ball got rolling somewhere along the way, and, for me at least, that is a very rational way of thinking about it.  




Asath said:


> One small part of the Creation cannot have possibly ‘gotten’ the message, while the rest were left out of that secret. The contention itself is absurd.



I do recognize your logic, but must point out that you are creating the rules here.  This is "the universe according to Asath."  You are restricting the possibilities.



Asath said:


> Did your God WANT you to keep on killing each other in HIS name?



No.  



Asath said:


> That truth tends to leave the idea of elevating a relatively unknown ancient militant Rabbi who never wrote a word of his own to the level of Godhood impotent.



I think you may want to review Jesus.  The idea that you would call him militant indicates you understand very little about him.  He was a radical, but through peace. He turned the religious establishment upside down.  Feed the poor, love you neighbors, do unto others, etc.. Son of God or not, let's at least use appropriate characterizations.

You can argue all day long whether or not he was the son of God, but the man changed the world through a message of grace and love.  Not "murderous passion."



Asath said:


> The problem is that they all believe in different things, and they all believe with murderous passion.  Oops.



Wrong again.  Jesus never ordered any murder.  He never used the government to advance his agenda.  He never forced himself on anybody.  If he was the "son of God," this would give us a clear indication of God's nature which is the opposite of what is displayed by those who would murder in his name, use the government to enforce his agenda, or force a belief on anyone.  If he was a just a "hippie rabbi" (not militant at all), then those who would commit these atrocities in his name still got it wrong.

If we view God through Jesus we see a different entity than if we view God through those zealots you are referencing.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Wrong again.  Jesus never ordered any murder.  He never used the government to advance his agenda.  He never forced himself on anybody.  If he was the "son of God," this would give us a clear indication of God's nature which is the opposite of what is displayed by those who would murder in his name, use the government to enforce his agenda, or force a belief on anyone.  If he was a just a "hippie rabbi" (not militant at all), then those who would commit these atrocities in his name still got it wrong.
> 
> If we view God through Jesus we see a different entity than if we view God through those zealots you are referencing.



Just from MATTHEW but the NT is loaded with them:

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to h3ll. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

"The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in h3ll." 10:28

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and rents the vineyard to others. 21:33-41

"Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Whoever falls on "this stone" (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

Jesus says the Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity will be tormented forever. 25:46


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 1, 2012)

Bullet, context man.  The cut off your hands thing is obviously a metaphor.  I think you know that. I mean, you used drowning pigs as an example of Jesus being a bad fella?!?!  Really, we can do better than that.

The rest of your quotes are pretty much in reference to he11, or, eternal separation.  Again, context.  Many of them are parts of parables, where a similarity is drawn, not a literal one for one comparison.  What has happened is a person with an agenda compiled this list completely disregarding the truth behind their quotes.

You posted this in response to my assertion that Jesus never ordered murder, or used gov't, or force.  None of your examples contradict that assertion in any way.  It is just a use of King James translation to prove a point.  But it's cool, I think you cut and pasted most of this, and that is fine also, but I am not going to respond line for line to each of your examples.   Pick your favorites and we can go from there if you like.

I stand by my assertion that Jesus was not militant at all.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, context man.  The cut off your hands thing is obviously a metaphor.  I think you know that. I mean, you used drowning pigs as an example of Jesus being a bad fella?!?!  Really, we can do better than that.
> 
> The rest of your quotes are pretty much in reference to he11, or, eternal separation.  Again, context.  Many of them are parts of parables, where a similarity is drawn, not a literal one for one comparison.  What has happened is a person with an agenda compiled this list completely disregarding the truth behind their quotes.
> 
> ...



I cut and paste a lot of things because I have a lot of bookmarks(both pro and con) that I have saved over many years of exploring each side of the beliefs. It is much easier to reference them and use them to have it sound exactly as I wanted it said rather than type it all out in length and saying the same thing.

But anyway, yes, Jesus casts the demons out of a man and the demons spook the pigs into running off a cliff and drowning. EHHH, no big deal, except for the guy who owns the pigs! Can't imagine that helped him out in any way!

Metaphors...Parables, Jesus was always full of parables.Mark 4:11


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I stand by my assertion that Jesus was not militant at all.



Mat 10:34      Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 

Mat 10:35   For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Those are cut and pastes from the Bible.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> But anyway, yes, Jesus casts the demons out of a man and the demons spook the pigs into running off a cliff and drowning. EHHH, no big deal, except for the guy who owns the pigs! Can't imagine that helped him out in any way!



Probably not.......but I am not sure Jesus knew the pigs would run off the cliff.

Mark 4:11 is part of an explanation as to why he uses parables, I don't really understand the translation there, but think he is saying "I use parables so folks can understand."


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Mat 10:34      Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
> 
> Mat 10:35   For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
> 
> Those are cut and pastes from the Bible.



We have established that Jesus was a fan of using metaphors. In light of that, I can't find evidence of Jesus literally inciting violence.

The sword, I think, is in reference to eradicating the "old" ways, or the "wrong" ways.  Jesus claims to be the way the truth and the life.  You need to view this in context of "turn the other cheek."  Would a man who eschews violence turn around and say "I want households to kill each other?"  I don't think so.  I think what you are reading here is Jesus indicating old religious ways will clash with the new "grace" model he established.

....but, I am not a bible scholar.  But that is what I see when I read the entire chapter, then consider it with the body of work.

You and I are proving why there are so many religious denominations......everybody sees the same thing, and reads something different into it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Probably not.......but I am not sure Jesus knew the pigs would run off the cliff.
> 
> Mark 4:11 is part of an explanation as to why he uses parables, I don't really understand the translation there, but think he is saying "I use parables so folks can understand."



Could be JB, but DO they understand or are parables meant to be taken in different ways?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> We have established that Jesus was a fan of using metaphors. In light of that, I can't find evidence of Jesus literally inciting violence.
> 
> The sword, I think, is in reference to eradicating the "old" ways, or the "wrong" ways.  Jesus claims to be the way the truth and the life.  You need to view this in context of "turn the other cheek."  Would a man who eschews violence turn around and say "I want households to kill each other?"  I don't think so.  I think what you are reading here is Jesus indicating old religious ways will clash with the new "grace" model he established.
> 
> ...



Tru-Dat!
Annnnnnnd yes I can see how YOU take it and how others understand it and why there is such discrepancies. Just one of my many reasons to think that if a Supreme,Divine,Omniscient, Omnipotent, Being wanted the stories told, they would have been done in a way that was UNIVERSALLY understood and the messages perfectly clear. As it stands now man did a good job of telling some good stories to live your life by(and some not so good) but the way it is written,TO ME, wreaks of totally man made.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

I mean honestly, Jesus wrote NOTHING on his own........NOTHING!


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Could be JB, but DO they understand or are parables meant to be taken in different ways?



I really don't know, man.  I just try and understand the nature of the man telling the parable when determining what the parable is trying to say....if that makes sense.

Now, could some nutcase take the same words and use them to validate violence?  Sure.  I just don't think that was the original intent.  To me, that illustrates the nature of man, not God.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I mean honestly, Jesus wrote NOTHING on his own........NOTHING!



John 8:8.....that's all I got, really, we just don't know what it was.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> John 8:8.....that's all I got, really, we just don't know what it was.



Yes, and then some wrote 30 or 40 years later that Jesus wrote on the ground....

I hear you though.


----------



## Four (Jan 1, 2012)

Hmm this sounds militant? Is it a metaphor? or context?

Luke 22:35-38
King James Version (KJV)
 35And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Could be JB, but DO they understand or are parables meant to be taken in different ways?



This might help.....I can copy and paste also and this explaines it purty well.
Question: "Why did Jesus teach in parables?"

Answer: It has been said that a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. The Lord Jesus frequently used parables as a means of illustrating profound, divine truths. Stories such as these are easily remembered, the characters bold, and the symbolism rich in meaning. Parables were a common form of teaching in Judaism. Before a certain point in His ministry, Jesus had employed many graphic analogies using common things that would be familiar to everyone (salt, bread, sheep, etc.) and their meaning was fairly clear in the context of His teaching. Parables required more explanation, and at one point in His ministry, Jesus began to teach using parables exclusively.

The question is why Jesus would let most people wonder about the meaning of His parables. The first instance of this is in His telling the parable of the seed and the soils. Before He interpreted this parable, He drew His disciples away from the crowd. They said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matthew 13:10-17).

From this point on in Jesus’ ministry, when He spoke in parables, He explained them only to His disciples. But those who had continually rejected His message were left in their spiritual blindness to wonder as to His meaning. He made a clear distinction between those who had been given “ears to hear” and those who persisted in unbelief—ever hearing, but never actually perceiving and “always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). The disciples had been given the gift of spiritual discernment by which things of the spirit were made clear to them. Because they accepted truth from Jesus, they were given more and more truth. The same is true today of believers who have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth (John 16:13). He has opened our eyes to the light of truth and our ears to the sweet words of eternal life.

Our Lord Jesus understood that truth is not sweet music to all ears. Simply put, there are those who have neither interest nor regard in the deep things of God. So why, then, did He speak in parables? To those with a genuine hunger for God, the parable is both an effective and memorable vehicle for the conveyance of divine truths. Our Lord’s parables contain great volumes of truth in very few words—and His parables, rich in imagery, are not easily forgotten. So, then, the parable is a blessing to those with willing ears. But to those with dull hearts and ears that are slow to hear, the parable is also an instrument of both judgment and mercy.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> This might help.....I can copy and paste also and this explaines it purty well.
> Question: "Why did Jesus teach in parables?"
> 
> Answer: It has been said that a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. The Lord Jesus frequently used parables as a means of illustrating profound, divine truths. Stories such as these are easily remembered, the characters bold, and the symbolism rich in meaning. Parables were a common form of teaching in Judaism. Before a certain point in His ministry, Jesus had employed many graphic analogies using common things that would be familiar to everyone (salt, bread, sheep, etc.) and their meaning was fairly clear in the context of His teaching. Parables required more explanation, and at one point in His ministry, Jesus began to teach using parables exclusively.
> ...



Nothing wrong with a copy/paste if it gets your point across or uses examples that you would otherwise not have known about.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

Did Jesus use parables in order for only the disciples to understand so that the leaders and even common citizens did not know that he was speaking out against the authorities?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 1, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> This might help.....I can copy and paste also and this explaines it purty well.
> Question: "Why did Jesus teach in parables?"
> 
> Answer: It has been said that a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. The Lord Jesus frequently used parables as a means of illustrating profound, divine truths.



Parables were around before Jesus, were they also earthly stories with heavenly meanings?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Did Jesus use parables in order for only the disciples to understand so that the leaders and even common citizens did not know that he was speaking out against the authorities?



No. He used parables to make things simpler for every one interested in hearing.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Parables were around before Jesus, were they also earthly stories with heavenly meanings?





bullethead said:


> Did Jesus use parables in order for only the disciples to understand so that the leaders and even common citizens did not know that he was speaking out against the authorities?



Has anyone ever told you  that you ask too many questions?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 2, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Has anyone ever told you  that you ask too many questions?



In fact YES, Pastors, Priests, Rabbi's, Deacons, and Devout Followers of a few religions all have asked that same question. That very question is asked about the time they run out of answers, or the answers they want to give are trumped by logic and they don't want to continue after painting themselves in a corner.
Questions and Knowledge are two of religions worst enemies.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 2, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> No. He used parables to make things simpler for every one interested in hearing.



Then why in scripture do even his own disciples continually ask him what the parables mean? 2000+ years later those parables can are taken to mean different things by different people.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 2, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> No. He used parables to make things simpler for every one interested in hearing.



“To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear” (Luke 8:10).

Sounds like you had to know the secret handshake or they were not meant for you. Which leads me to believe they(parables) were used to talk about the authorities in front of the authorities without the authorities knowing. Most likely to avoid being charged with blasphemy. A form of political satire like Humpty Dumpty and Little Jack Horner.

Kind of like in deer season when guys use radios to alert their buddies deer are heading their way. It is illegal here in Pa, but instead of saying a 10pt buck is heading your way, the radio crackles with "Hey BigDog(nickname) it looks like that guy(buck) is heading your way with 10 Dollar Bills(10 antler points) to return to you(because you missed him in archery season). The wardens hear that but is it two hunters, two truckers, or two guys at the mini-mall grabbing lunch. They know what it is, but hard to prove.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> In fact YES, Pastors, Priests, Rabbi's, Deacons, and Devout Followers of a few religions all have asked that same question. That very question is asked about the time they run out of answers, or the answers they want to give are trumped by logic and they don't want to continue after painting themselves in a corner.
> Questions and Knowledge are two of religions worst enemies.



Dude your brain is gonna burst ......So why do you question whether there is a God or not?Why not say there is no God and be done with it?A God can be anything you want it to be.....What do you want your God to be?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 2, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Dude your brain is gonna burst ......So why do you question whether there is a God or not?Why not say there is no God and be done with it?A God can be anything you want it to be.....What do you want your God to be?



I like to discuss it. I like to bring other avenues of thought into religious discussions. I try every possible angle to get honest answers. I like this forum. NONE of it bothers me or upsets me so why would my brain burst? In fact some free thinking is quite refreshing!

I(and guys like me) are on here either rocking someone's faith or strengthening it. Either way it gets us all thinking and learning. I guess you could just say there is a God and be done with it also??? BUT there is a reason that all of us on here keep coming back.

I am not going to make up a God and pretend he is just like me, likes the same things I do and hates the same things I do, thinks like me, and has created me to worship him so he could bask in the limelight. I am trying to find out IF there is a God (any God) and am interested in all the pro's and con's brought up here. I am not trying to disprove a God. I would love for someone to provide that undeniable proof that a God exists. It is just that so far no one has come remotely close to swaying me and the main reason is that when pressed with honest questions and facts that counter their reasons there is never any slam dunk real answer. It always boils down to FAITH and I am kinda cool with that, except that the Faith required is based off of man made writings and rules and based of what I have found....or NOT found......I can't put much faith into that.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It always boils down to FAITH and I am kinda cool with that, except that the Faith required is based off of man made writings and rules and based of what I have found....or NOT found......I can't put much faith into that.



Well there you go you can cross God of the Bible off your list.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 2, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Well there you go you can cross God of the Bible off your list.



Been.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Been.



Good luck in your quest. I'm gonna go analyze Some football and food now!!!Later.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 2, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Good luck in your quest. I'm gonna go analyze Some football and food now!!!Later.....



Peace Out! Lots of games on today, I've been flicking back and forth between 3 games myself.


----------



## kyle86 (Jan 2, 2012)

I believe in something, just not sure what it is. Maybe it is Jesus, maybe Jesus was/is part of something bigger. I had some strange experiences...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 2, 2012)

kyle86 said:


> I believe in something, just not sure what it is. Maybe it is Jesus, maybe Jesus was/is part of something bigger. I had some strange experiences...




More power to you!  Keep looking!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 2, 2012)

kyle86 said:


> I believe in something, just not sure what it is. Maybe it is Jesus, maybe Jesus was/is part of something bigger. I had some strange experiences...



No doubt people have some experiences both good and bad. It is all a matter of what you choose to associate and credit those experiences with. Keep on truckin!


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No doubt people have some experiences both good and bad. It is all a matter of what you choose to associate and credit those experiences with. Keep on truckin!



I have enjoyed reading the posts in this thread.

I encourage you to follow your heart.

NOT YOUR BRAIN, HEAD OR LOGIC, NOT WHAT YOU LEARNED IN SCHOOL, NOT WHAT I OR ANYONE ELSE TELLS YOU...

BUT FOLLOW YOUR HEART.

Happy New Year to ALL!!!


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I have enjoyed reading the posts in this thread.
> 
> I encourage you to follow your heart.
> 
> ...



I've found many times that God will often offend the brain to win the heart.  

Blessings to all in  this New Year also


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> I've found many times that God will often offend the brain to win the heart.
> 
> Blessings to all in  this New Year also



I'm sure the Jews will agree.      Stumbling block...    confounding the wise....    ever learning, but never able to come to the truth...

Happy New Year to all...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> I've found many times that God will often offend the brain to win the heart.
> 
> Blessings to all in  this New Year also





BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'm sure the Jews will agree.      Stumbling block...    confounding the wise....    ever learning, but never able to come to the truth...
> 
> Happy New Year to all...



It still astounds me that the notions that men came up with to create fear and superstition in order to keep the masses stupid and not asking questions are still being used today to defend anti-intellectualism.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It still astounds me that the notions that men came up with to create fear and superstition in order to keep the masses stupid and not asking questions are still being used today to defend anti-intellectualism.



lol    I ask questions all the time!   

Science reinforces my belief in creation!


----------



## pstrahin (Jan 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Nope...that's not my position at all.”
> 
> What?  Yes it is.  The OP says very clearly – “Hebrews 6:4 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away....”
> 
> ...



See folks, Satan is walking about to see who he can devour.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It still astounds me that the notions that men came up with to create fear and superstition in order to keep the masses stupid and not asking questions are still being used today to defend anti-intellectualism.



But I thought they were just a bunch of ancient desert dwelling goat herders? Why would they want to "keep the masses stupid and not asking questions? Don't you think they were more worried about keeping their goats from getting eaten by ancient coyotes?

You can't have it both ways, thats not logical.... and it's anti-intellectual


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

"brainwashed child"??????????   lol

http://www.christianpost.com/news/fo...e-sense-46146/


One reason for her interest, she explains, is that her "naturalistic worldview was inadequate to explain the nature of reality in a coherent way: it could not explain the origin of the universe, nor could it explain morality."   

Holly Ordway


----------



## gtparts (Jan 3, 2012)

*CI article 8/20/2011*

This is fairly interesting...... nominal "Christian" (with no personal relationship with God) ..... atheist...... and, finally, "back" to being a follower of Christ.

http://www.christianindex.org/7607.article


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> But I thought they were just a bunch of ancient desert dwelling goat herders? Why would they want to "keep the masses stupid and not asking questions? Don't you think they were more worried about keeping their goats from getting eaten by ancient coyotes?
> 
> You can't have it both ways, thats not logical.... and it's anti-intellectual



It started with Jewish Rabbis (to control said goat herders) then the Romans got a hold of it and it has snowballed out of control since.  Til now.  Seems to me that more and more people are starting to realize what a sham it all is and are starting to rely on reason and common sense.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    I ask questions all the time!
> 
> Science reinforces my belief in creation!



What does science say about talking donkeys?



pstrahin said:


> See folks, Satan is walking about to see who he can devour.



Stop being such a 'fraidy cat.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It started with Jewish Rabbis (to control said goat herders) then the Romans got a hold of it and it has snowballed out of control since.  Til now.  Seems to me that more and more people are starting to realize what a sham it all is and are starting to rely on reason and common sense.



except for the OPs super smart example..       common sense got the better of her


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What does science say about talking donkeys?



Is that the best you could come up with, Ambush?   lol


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Is that the best you could come up with, Ambush?   lol




It's more than enough.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's more than enough.



keep telling yourself that!


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It started with Jewish Rabbis (to control said goat herders) then the Romans got a hold of it and it has snowballed out of control since.  Til now.  Seems to me that more and more people are starting to realize what a sham it all is and are starting to rely on reason and common sense.



Is this just a theory that you have because you don't like Christianity, because you didn't use reason or common sense.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> keep telling yourself that!



And you keep believing in them ghosties

BOO!!!!!



stringmusic said:


> Is this just a theory that you have because you don't like Christianity, because you didn't use reason or common sense.



There's more than enough written in history.  No one has to take my word for it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> There's more than enough written in history.  No one has to take my word for it.



Yea, but the people who wrote about the authors of the bible just wanted to make sure that the bible authors didn't have control so they made up a different story.... yea thats it, unless I can come up with something better tomorrow. 

So you are controled by ancient text after all ambush, and here you been makin' fun of Christians for believing in the bible.


Why don't you just give that sad song up? The people that wrote the bible didn't have any reason to want to "control the masses" and have them "not question things"


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yea, but the people who wrote about the authors of the bible just wanted to make sure that the bible authors didn't have control so they made up a different story.... yea thats it, unless I can come up with something better tomorrow.
> 
> So you are controled by ancient text after all ambush, and here you been makin' fun of Christians for believing in the bible.
> 
> ...



Wow. You really swallowed the whole thing, hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Asath (Jan 3, 2012)

I'm not sure I understand.  The contention, now, is that much of the Bible is a set of parables.  Did I hear that part correctly?

A parable is, by definition, a story, a fable, perhaps containing a lesson.  A fable is, by definition, a fiction, a fabrication, a fairy story -- in short, a lie.  

So I'm confused.  How do you believers decide just which of these fables are inconvenient to your particular belief system, and thus are merely parables to learn from, and which are literally true?  I mean, clearly a believer must actually believe in SOME of them, or else they risk having to admit that their religion is underpinned entirely by a set of fairy tales.  And I must think that allowing that there could be ANY fables, parables, or fairy tales in a major HOLY BOOK would tend to put a believer at risk of heresy.    

So how about someone let the rest of us in on just what the secret criteria for credulity is?  To merely say that, "THIS is clearly truth, to me, and THIS is clearly a parable, also to me," seems a rather selective and emotional way to establish the existence of the supernatural Creator of ALL THINGS, and seems like a pretty random and ofhanded way to treat one's Holiest set of writings.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> I'm not sure I understand.  The contention, now, is that much of the Bible is a set of parables.  Did I hear that part correctly?
> 
> A parable is, by definition, a story, a fable, perhaps containing a lesson.  A fable is, by definition, a fiction, a fabrication, a fairy story -- in short, a lie.
> 
> ...



You have to have the magik-holy spirit discerning powers.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> The Christians are monotheists, and they believe in the God of Abraham – the God of the Old Testament.  They believe that this God came down to Earth and magically impregnated one of our Virgins, who spawned the Son of God, and then had that Son executed for some odd reason.



Can a virgin today give birth? Can a virgin be impregnated?  That is not impossible ya know? and it's not magical.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What does science say about talking donkeys?*Wouldn't that seem possible with evolution *
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being such a 'fraidy cat.



No one who has Jesus as a saviour, is afraid of the debbil.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You have to have the magik-holy spirit discerning powers.



You got that wrong, it's supernatural, not magical. There's a difference ya know?  Well maybe ya don't......


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yea, but the people who wrote about the authors of the bible just wanted to make sure that the bible authors didn't have control so they made up a different story.... yea thats it, unless I can come up with something better tomorrow.
> 
> So you are controled by ancient text after all ambush, and here you been makin' fun of Christians for believing in the bible.
> 
> ...



Can I get a witness up in here??


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> No one who has Jesus as a saviour, is afraid of the debbil.



Actually, you are afraid of the Devil but you feel protected by Jesus. But 'Ol Scratch is there, looming in the shadows, waiting for the opportunity to STRIKE!!!!

I'm truly not afraid of the Devil because i don't believe he exists.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You got that wrong, it's supernatural, not magical. There's a difference ya know?  Well maybe ya don't......



I don't know what to say.........


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear” (Luke 8:10).
> 
> Sounds like you had to know the secret handshake or they were not meant for you. Which leads me to believe they(parables) were used to talk about the authorities in front of the authorities without the authorities knowing. Most likely to avoid being charged with blasphemy. A form of political satire like Humpty Dumpty and Little Jack Horner.*Well not exactly, I don't think Humpty or Jack had a secret handshake. It's more like explaining something to someone using examples...ie  parable is [1] a succinct story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive principles, or lessons, or (sometimes) a normative principle. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. It is a type of analogy.[2]
> *
> ...


*Poor deer, and bad sportsmanship, much less lawbreakers...oh well....part of the game eh? quite impressive  *

Peace


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I mean honestly, Jesus wrote NOTHING on his own........NOTHING!



He didn't need to write anything.....He was born to die, and that's it and that's plenty enough for me.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> *Poor deer, and bad sportsmanship, much less lawbreakers...oh well....part of the game eh? quite impressive  *
> 
> Peace



Nope, like parables that even confuse disciples, not impressive.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Nope, like parables that even confuse disciples, not impressive.



Parables are not  deceitful.

How do you even compare the two.

If I told a child something to explain a truth to them using examples, how is that like trying to trick and trip up law enforcement?

Parables were not used to confuse disciples...did it confuse them? Yes but it wasn't deceiful, they just didn't get it.
I'm sure the hunters are doing it on purpose...yay or nay?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> I'm not sure I understand.  The contention, now, is that much of the Bible is a set of parables.  Did I hear that part correctly?



Yes.  In fact, many parables are clearly defined as such. Others are quite obvious (to some). Also, we have language issues.  

Let's say Ambush (using a name familiar to all here) says "There ain't no Jesus."  You might respond by saying "You hit the nail on the head." Then I could respond "he is barking up the wrong tree."

Now, an individual from another culture would be looking for hammers and nails, dogs and trees.  There is a lot of cultural context involved in understanding what the writers of the Bible intended.



Asath said:


> A parable is, by definition, a story, a fable, perhaps containing a lesson.  A fable is, by definition, a fiction, a fabrication, a fairy story -- in short, a lie.



A false story, yes.  Would you call "To Kill a Mockingbird" a lie?  Probably not.  It is fiction with a purpose. 



Asath said:


> So how about someone let the rest of us in on just what the secret criteria for credulity is?  To merely say that, "THIS is clearly truth, to me, and THIS is clearly a parable, also to me," seems a rather selective and emotional way to establish the existence of the supernatural Creator of ALL THINGS, and seems like a pretty random and ofhanded way to treat one's Holiest set of writings.



Sure.  First, you must accept the premise that God exists, until you get that part down, the rest won't work.

Next is understanding.  Some believe it all literally happened, even the parables.  I tend to believe there are a lot of metaphors and cultural aspects within the text.  My best example is Job.  I look at it and see a didactic poem.  Many believers see a true story.  It doesn't matter either way, because there is a message to be learned there.

For me, I think in context of who was writing (culture) and why (who is the audience), mix in a little understanding of the message (God of law, God of grace), then determine if Jesus really wanted me to use a sword against folks (he didn't).

Makes sense to me.

If you have something specific, we can try that too.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Parables are not  deceitful.
> 
> How do you even compare the two.
> 
> ...



Parables ABSOLUTELY are deceitful IF you want them to be. And most certainly so IF you want to speak in public against the church leaders and authorities without being accused of blasphemy.
The parables were not used to confuse the disciples....I agree. The parables were used to confuse the clergy and authorities while talking to the disciples and crowds that gathered WHILE the authorities were there watching Jesus just waiting for him to say something blasphemous. 

The  "hunters"  (i use that term loosely) are just using an alternate way of getting the message across without the authorities knowing.

Same=Same

Now the problem is that many have said the parables were used as an easy way to explain things, yet more than once in scripture the disciples did not know what Jesus was talking about or what the parable meant and they had to ask him what the meaning was. To me, that does not sound like a simple way of conveying a message.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Now the problem is that many have said the parables were used as an easy way to explain things, yet more than once in scripture the disciples did not know what Jesus was talking about or what the parable meant and they had to ask him what the meaning was. To me, that does not sound like a simple way of conveying a message.



So by your comparison in your entire post are you insinuating that Jesus is being deceitful to the disciples to purposely confuse them?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> So by your comparison in your entire post are you insinuating that Jesus is being deceitful to the disciples to purposely confuse them?



No not at all.

I think Jesus spoke in parables to:
1: tell a good story to anyone listening.
2: also convey a message against the authorities disguised as a story....right in under the authorities noses while they were also present when others were listening.
3: When he used these parables Joe Citizen either found a pleasant story within OR saw them as a way to listen to Jesus talking out against the authorities......probably a good tool to gain followers that also thought the same about the authorities.it was a way to further build the movement.
4: Talked in parables around his disciples in case anyone else was listening as lots of people were spying on Jesus to catch him in a blasphemous rant. He later had to explain these parables to his disciples as even they did not have a clue to what he meant....as noted in scripture.

These can all be individual examples or used together in combination.

If Jesus was addressing a crowd of people, in the crowd would be the average citizens, his disciples and members of the clergy and authorities. He had to address them in a way that told his story against the clergy and authorities while not making it seem like he was doing that. If the crowd came away with a good story and nothing else...that was good. If a few in the crowd came away with Jesus true intent....that was good. If the clergy and authorities listened to the stories and THOUGHT Jesus was talking about them, it made them mad, but they could not arrest him for blasphemy for telling a story. Often, it seemed, after he was done addressing the crowds his disciples would later ask him what he meant. Being mostly illiterate(and that goes for the majority of people in those times) except for maybe 2 or 3 disciples, I am sure they were quite confused at times.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2012)

Thanks Mr Bullet for your explanation 

Thank goodness we know what the parables mean today.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Thanks Mr Bullet for your explanation
> 
> Thank goodness we know what the parables mean today.



You are certainly welcome.

I think the parables, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. After searching online through many pro-christian sites, it seems there are a few different opinions on the meanings.


----------



## Asath (Jan 4, 2012)

“Can a virgin today give birth? Can a virgin be impregnated? That is not impossible ya know? and it's not magical.”

No ma’am.  It is not magical.  It is science.  One of a few million sperm cells can actually make it through the hymen of a virgin, naturally, or be carefully implanted surgically.  The hymen of a virgin, it turns out, is not actually a child-proof seal designed to keep the freshness in.  This particularly scientific lack of magic does not in any way demonstrate that a God might actually have sperm cells, or the means to conduct a careful surgical implant.  The contention of Magic is made by y’all -- that a virgin was impregnated by an impossible supernatural being.   We make no such claims, and bear no responsibility for refuting the ridiculous.  Odd that you would rely on the proofs made by science to make a purely religious contention, but I’ll go with it – it demonstrates that we are winning.  Too slowly, it seems, but science is the only means by which you could make the above contention, so allow me to savor the one small victory for truth.

“No one who has Jesus as a saviour, is afraid of the debbil.”  Or, no one who has Jesus as a saviour has any idea what a ‘debbil’ might be.  That would be largely because there is no such thing.  Children have ‘debbils’ under the bed, scaring them into sleeplessness.  Then Dad comes and scares the ‘debbil’ away, so that Baby can rest easily . . .  is that why you folks invented God?  To be your surrogate, cosmic Dad?

“You got that wrong, it's supernatural, not magical. There's a difference ya know?”  Is that the same ‘supernatural’ of the ‘debbil’?  You see, my dictionary defines ‘supernatural’ with such words as, ‘abnormal,’ ‘eerie,’ ‘occult,’ and phrases like, ‘outside the natural order.’  Oddly enough, it defines the word ‘magic’ in much the same terms, using such descriptive words as, ‘deceptive,’ ‘conjuring,’ ‘mystical,’ and phrases such as, ‘mysteriously enchanting.’  

I’m having a hard time, in either definition, finding words like, ‘Factual.’

So, what did anyone ‘Witness,’ that they can put on the table as a genuine, defined, provable fact?  Got one?  Just one?  We’ll wait . . .

Anyone got any cards, or popcorn?  This could take awhile . . .


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Can a virgin today give birth? Can a virgin be impregnated? That is not impossible ya know? and it's not magical.”
> 
> No ma’am.  It is not magical.  It is science.  One of a few million sperm cells can actually make it through the hymen of a virgin, naturally, or be carefully implanted surgically.  The hymen of a virgin, it turns out, is not actually a child-proof seal designed to keep the freshness in.  This particularly scientific lack of magic does not in any way demonstrate that a God might actually have sperm cells, or the means to conduct a careful surgical implant.  The contention of Magic is made by y’all -- that a virgin was impregnated by an impossible supernatural inconceivable being.   We make no such claims, and bear no responsibility for refuting the ridiculous.  Odd that you would rely on the proofs made by science to make a purely religious contention, but I’ll go with it – it demonstrates that we are winning.  Too slowly, it seems, but science is the only means by which you could make the above contention, so allow me to savor the one small victory for truth.
> 
> ...



You missed one.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Can a virgin today give birth? Can a virgin be impregnated? That is not impossible ya know? and it's not magical.”
> 
> No ma’am.  It is not magical.  It is science.  One of a few million sperm cells can actually make it through the hymen of a virgin, naturally, or be carefully implanted surgically.  The hymen of a virgin, it turns out, is not actually a child-proof seal designed to keep the freshness in.  This particularly scientific lack of magic does not in any way demonstrate that a God might actually have sperm cells, or the means to conduct a careful surgical implant.  The contention of Magic is made by y’all -- that a virgin was impregnated by an impossible supernatural being.   We make no such claims, and bear no responsibility for refuting the ridiculous.  Odd that you would rely on the proofs made by science to make a purely religious contention, but I’ll go with it – it demonstrates that we are winning.  Too slowly, it seems, but science is the only means by which you could make the above contention, so allow me to savor the one small victory for truth.
> 
> ...



No popcorn or cards needed...this is short and to the point.
You just implied that a virgin conceiving and giving birth was a magical event....it is not. That's it. Call it what you want to, science I can agree with, but not magical. Perhaps something or someone was ahead of their time 2000someodd years ago, when Mary a virgin, became pregnant....point is, it's possible....eh?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You missed one.



shhhhhhhhhhush.......


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> . . .  is that why you folks invented God?  To be your surrogate, cosmic Dad?



As long as there have been people, there has been a concept of God.  Not sure why the first folks believed in God.  Many incarnations of this belief have been the opposite of the "cosmic Dad."  If he exists (I believe he does), it would be a fact with or without your consent or logic....just something to think on.



Asath said:


> You see, my dictionary defines ‘supernatural’ with such words as, ‘abnormal,’ ‘eerie,’ ‘occult,’ and phrases like, ‘outside the natural order.’  Oddly enough, it defines the word ‘magic’ in much the same terms, using such descriptive words as, ‘deceptive,’ ‘conjuring,’ ‘mystical,’ and phrases such as, ‘mysteriously enchanting.’



Anything being infinite is outside the natural order.  Inanimate material animating is as well.  We both have "supernatural" beliefs, you just like to call mine "inconceivable."


----------



## Asath (Jan 5, 2012)

“You just implied that a virgin conceiving and giving birth was a magical event. . . .”   Uh, no ma’am, I implied nothing of the sort.  You stated aloud that it was not impossible.  As a purely scientific observation of equally scientific fact, I agreed.  What I implied, and actually stated aloud, is that this particular scientific fact is also immune to the assertion that an imaginary being from the heavens could pop by the house, bearing candy and flowers, seduce said virgin, and magically produce the human sperm cells necessary for such impregnation to occur.  A God is by definition non-human.  Non-humans are unable to impregnate humans.  So for such a thing to occur, you would of needs have to rely on ‘magic’ as your explanation for this alleged event, hinging as it does first on the allegation that the imaginary being in question exists in the first place, and second on the ability of such an imaginary being to conjure up an actual sperm cell.

Seems like quite a stretch.  But not an unprecedented one.  This story was stolen out of whole cloth from hundreds of similar ‘God’ myths that far pre-date Christianity, in which the various gods were all the time dropping by and raping our women.  I could provide a list of such myths, complete with the era of their origins, if anyone cares to read them.  

“Not sure why the first folks believed in God.”  I am.

“Anything being infinite is outside the natural order. Inanimate material animating is as well.”   I think that your view of the ‘natural order’ could bear some expanding.  As well, you might revisit the thinking here – ‘infinity’ is an abstract concept, and a mathematical factor in some equations that mainly means ‘for all intents and purposes this number is so huge that it simply doesn’t matter anymore.’  And on the most obvious level, inanimate material is rendered animate the moment you eat something, and your body extracts the elements it requires to create the millions upon millions of brand new cells that your body manufactures every day.  Fact is, if you have lived for a sufficient amount of time your body no longer contains any of the cells that you were born with.  You are your own Creator.  All of the basic elements and nutrients and motive energies that fuel this process also, of necessity, exist in nature.  For the proper concentration of these things to have once combined, recombined, and through a long process of slow and subsequent recombinations become animate, then complex, is hardly more of a mystery than how each of us replicate that process constantly.  We simply do it on a much more complex scale, informed by billions of years of selective combinations.

I know it is hard for our pride to accept the fact that a few billion years ago the ancestors of the human brain were single-celled bacteria swimming around in a sea of toxins.  It is easier to see this as true if you go to a Democratic Convention.  One hundred percent of all evidence, and it is hardly selective or conjectured evidence, is that the origins of animate life were largely lucky circumstance and long, messy trial-and-error combinations that took billions of years to begin coming together into higher and more complex life forms, such as Nancy Pelosi.  There is nothing supernatural or belief-based that is asserted.  On the other hand, the religious view, which has not a single bit of actual evidence except for ancient stories that were lifted whole out of even more ancient stories, is that some invisible, omnipotent Eye-in-the-Sky simply got bored with being omnipotent one day, and for no reason we can discern decided to wink the universe into existence, with us as the crowning centerpiece.  Seems a bit self-centered and more than a little convenient, as ideas go . . .


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Anything being infinite is outside the natural order. Inanimate material animating is as well.”   I think that your view of the ‘natural order’ could bear some expanding.  As well, you might revisit the thinking here – ‘infinity’ is an abstract concept, and a mathematical factor in some equations that mainly means ‘for all intents and purposes this number is so huge that it simply doesn’t matter anymore.’  And on the most obvious level, inanimate material is rendered animate the moment you eat something, and your body extracts the elements it requires to create the millions upon millions of brand new cells that your body manufactures every day.  Fact is, if you have lived for a sufficient amount of time your body no longer contains any of the cells that you were born with.  You are your own Creator.  All of the basic elements and nutrients and motive energies that fuel this process also, of necessity, exist in nature.  For the proper concentration of these things to have once combined, recombined, and through a long process of slow and subsequent recombinations become animate, then complex, is hardly more of a mystery than how each of us replicate that process constantly.  We simply do it on a much more complex scale, informed by billions of years of selective combinations.



Yes, I eat to stay alive.  I think you know what I was implying.  And, adding billions of years adds all sorts of possibilities.  Atlashunter posted a good video on biogenesis.  At the root of that is a belief that it happened that way.   You are proposing that something dead became alive, self sustaining, and reproductive.  I think that is outside the natural order, no matter how "expanded" your perspective is.



Asath said:


> I know it is hard for our pride to accept the fact that a few billion years ago the ancestors of the human brain were single-celled bacteria swimming around in a sea of toxins.



Not much harder than it is for our pride to accept that God got the ball rolling.  




Asath said:


> It is easier to see this as true if you go to a Democratic Convention. .



Now here, you and I can agree.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You are certainly welcome.
> 
> I think the parables, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. After searching online through many pro-christian sites, it seems there are a few different opinions on the meanings.



Well God is multifaceted. My goliaths are things I can't do at home, like move a couch or fix my car, and I will ask God to help me slay what is standing in my way. Other people's giants might be a sickness for one of their children, or they've lost their job and need help in overcoming those things that are holding us hostage. So meanings of parables might mean different things to different people, depending on their problems in life. But we can still be overcomers by slaying whatever giants in our lives, and they aren't the same for everyone.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> “You just implied that a virgin conceiving and giving birth was a magical event. . . .”   Uh, no ma’am, I implied nothing of the sort.  You stated aloud that it was not impossible.  As a purely scientific observation of equally scientific fact, I agreed.  What I implied, and actually stated aloud, is that this particular scientific fact is also immune to the assertion that an imaginary being from the heavens could pop by the house, bearing candy and flowers, seduce said virgin, and magically produce the human sperm cells necessary for such impregnation to occur.  A God is by definition non-human.  Non-humans are unable to impregnate humans.  So for such a thing to occur, you would of needs have to rely on ‘magic’ as your explanation for this alleged event, hinging as it does first on the allegation that the imaginary being in question exists in the first place, and second on the ability of such an imaginary being to conjure up an actual sperm cell.



Do you really think that men could comprehend of artificial insimination back in those days? But we know it can happen, scientifically, correct? So what's your beef with that?
The bible said it happened and now we know it is possible to happen....so what makes you think it didn't? Someone just made it up? but we know scientifically it is possible?

What about in the OT where it says the life is in the blood and now we know that it is correct? My blood and dna just like my fingerprints are owned only by me. How would they know that in the OT? Even if it was only written 100 yrs ago....the claim of dna of each person is true....eh?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> The Christians are monotheists, and they believe in the God of Abraham – the God of the Old Testament.  They believe that this God came down to Earth and magically impregnated one of our Virgins, who spawned the Son of God, and then had that Son executed for some odd reason.  From that they made a New Testament. Just with a whole bunch of interpretations.



Actually you did say magically impregnated.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Do you really think that men could comprehend of artificial insimination back in those days? But we know it can happen, scientifically, correct? So what's your beef with that?
> The bible said it happened and now we know it is possible to happen....so what makes you think it didn't? Someone just made it up? but we know scientifically it is possible?
> 
> What about in the OT where it says the life is in the blood and now we know that it is correct? My blood and dna just like my fingerprints are owned only by me. How would they know that in the OT? Even if it was only written 100 yrs ago....the claim of dna of each person is true....eh?



Or,
There was no artificial insemination 2011 years ago. Mary got pregnant like every other woman did.

The OT says Life is in the blood. WOW what foresight. Cause I'm sure when they pelted people to death with stones and watched the life go away as the blood ran out they couldn't put it all together.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 9, 2012)

Ya'll Nons crack me up.

You are trying so hard to convince folks that you have no chance of changing their minds that God does not exist and the Bible is a big fairy tale that I just really wonder what the heck you are trying to do?

Are you trying to convince yourselves?

No, wait, is it "intelligent discussion"?

I think it is 

Please continue.


----------

