# Case against Creationist



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2017)




----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2017)




----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2017)

Darn facts


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

God is still the Great Centromere Fuser.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

The "fusing" seems to be an assumption. Maybe humans have always had 46 chromosomes and chimps have always had 48, which would mean that humans aren't "missing" anything.


There's also a lot of "if that is true" statements in the video as well.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The "fusing" seems to be an assumption. Maybe humans have always had 46 chromosomes and chimps have always had 48, which would mean that humans aren't "missing" anything.
> 
> 
> There's also a lot of "if that is true" statements in the video as well.



Yea. You're right. A mythical being with no beginning or end created us from dust, and a woman from a rib, so it would have somebody to worship him, and some folks to condemn to h311,  makes much more sense.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

660griz said:


> Yea. You're right. A mythical being with no beginning or end created us from dust so it would have somebody to worship him makes much more sense.



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


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



Sorry I was so wrong. What is your explanation of how man got here?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The "fusing" seems to be an assumption. Maybe humans have always had 46 chromosomes and chimps have always had 48, which would mean that humans aren't "missing" anything.
> 
> 
> There's also a lot of "if that is true" statements in the video as well.



Yes.  That's absolutely true.  What Griz is doing, in a sort of way and what we all do, is try to determine the most plausible answer, one that's consistent with what we believe we know and throw out the one's that don't.  We should rule out supernatural causes because they don't align with anything meaningful.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

660griz said:


>



I can still fit gene theory into a creationist apologetic.  I would say that given the natural rules (the available chemistry set) , things will resemble each other in design.  Spheres work and form so often because of the rules of physics.  Same with fractals which form the spirals of a seashell and the branches of a tree.  Genes in organisms resemble each other because that's the best way to organize the coding for life.  

What doesn't make sense is the notion of an un-created creator.  It's imagined, or theoretical if you want (all theories start with imagination).  Like any theory it can be tested for and in doing so one will find no evidence for it.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

660griz said:


> Sorry I was so wrong. What is your explanation of how man got here?


God made man as written in the book of Genesis.


ambush80 said:


> Yes.  That's absolutely true.  What Griz is doing, in a sort of way and what we all do, is try to determine the most plausible answer, one that's consistent with what we believe we know and throw out the one's that don't.


That may be true, but posting videos of "how to shut up a pesky creationist" is probably not the best way to go about that.



> We should rule out supernatural causes because they don't align with anything meaningful.


For you, the supernatural may not align with anything meaningful, for many, it most certainly does, especially when the natural can't explain itself. 

Everything in existence owes its existence to something prior to it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Everything in existence owes its existence to something prior to it.




 Except for.......


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Except for.......




Turtles all way down until you get to the Mack Daddy Turtle.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> God made man as written in the book of Genesis.
> 
> That may be true, but posting videos of "how to shut up a pesky creationist" is probably not the best way to go about that.
> 
> ...



I've been dying for YEARS to hear how the supernatural aligns with reality.  Give me the best argument.  Show me.  The supernatural can't explain anything because you don't know what it is.  You can't describe anything about it.  It's the Movingest Target of All Times.  Completely useless.  What is it good for but a place marker for something you don't know about?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> What doesn't make sense is the notion of an un-created creator.  It's imagined, or theoretical if you want (all theories start with imagination).  Like any theory it can be tested for and in doing so one will find no evidence for it.


The idea of a creator is a philosophical/theological theory and if a person tries to find empirical evidence through testing with scientific data/means they will most likely come away with the same conclusion you have. 

If a person is testing a philosophical/theological theory, then that person should probably use philosophical/theological testing i.e. Logic and reason


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I've been dying for YEARS to hear how the supernatural aligns with reality.  Give me the best argument.  Show me.  The supernatural can't explain anything because you don't know what it is.  You can't describe anything about it.  It's the Movingest Target of All Times.  Completely useless.  What is it good for but a place marker for something you don't know about?



By reality do you mean the natural?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Except for.......



Except for the only thing that is logically necessary for everything else to exist.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The idea of a creator is a philosophical/theological theory and if a person tries to find empirical evidence through testing with scientific data/means they will most likely come away with the same conclusion you have.
> 
> If a person is testing a philosophical/theological theory, then that person should probably use philosophical/theological testing i.e. Logic and reason



Reason refutes an un-created creator.  If you posit everything has to be created then you can't just throw in "except.....".  You have no idea if anything is infinite.  You take the word of a very strange book.  That's the entirety of your evidence.  There's far less backing it than Multiverse Theory (which I'm unconvinced of).


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> By reality do you mean the natural?



Align it with anything you've ever experienced.  Otherwise, whatever fanciful notion I come up with is just as valid as yours.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Except for the only thing that is logically necessary for everything else to exist.



The thing outside of logic?  The thing that refutes itself?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Except for the only thing that is logically necessary for everything else to exist.



And what is that?

You have already told us that everything in existence owes it's existence to something prior to it.

Using logic to break down your claim of existence:

If your god exists then it came from something before it.
Or
If your god did not come from something prior before it, then it does not exist.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Reason refutes an un-created creator.  If you posit everything has to be created then you can't just throw in "except....."


I should have stated "everything physical owes its existence to something prior to itself"

Reason not logic refutes the uncreated creator based upon that statement.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Otherwise, whatever fanciful notion I come up with is just as valid as yours.


If it stands up to philosophical/theological testing. Meaning it's reasonable and logical.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> And what is that?
> 
> You have already told us that everything in existence owes it's existence to something prior to it.
> 
> ...



As I posted to ambush, I should have stated "everything physical owes its existence to something prior to itself." Which makes an uncreated being a necessity and logical.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> If it stands up to philosophical/theological testing. Meaning it's reasonable and logical.





stringmusic said:


> As I posted to ambush, I should have stated "everything physical owes its existence to something prior to itself." Which makes an uncreated being a necessity and logical.




It could be anything I can dream up from: we are in a computer simulation to the God that made our Universe has a boss to turtles all the way down.  Surely you see that your explanation, your theory is unfounded and as so, any other thing can take its place.

Turtles all the way down gets rid of what you call a necessity.  Again, you have no idea what your talking about when you talk about an eternal thing and neither do I.  Neither does anyone.  It's a theory that's untestable and there's no evidence for.  It could be anything.  

Be honest about where you get your information.  Is it a good source for talking about this kind of stuff or is it as faulty as any other source of its kind?


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 13, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> It could be anything I can dream up from: we are in a computer simulation to the God that made our Universe has a boss to turtles all the way down.  Surely you see that your explanation, your theory is unfounded and as so, any other thing can take its place.
> 
> Turtles all the way down gets rid of what you call a necessity.  Again, you have no idea what your talking about when you talk about an eternal thing and neither do I.  Neither does anyone.  It's a theory that's untestable and there's no evidence for.  It could be anything.
> 
> Be honest about where you get your information.  Is it a good source for talking about this kind of stuff or is it as faulty as any other source of its kind?



Ambush, sometimes I scratch my head at your insistence that that they admit their position is unprovable or that their Book is faulty.  Surely you know by now they can't do that?  To be a Christian means to accept the Bible as the true word of God, talking donkeys and all. There is no other way. The answer to everything is "God did it."  The end. 

Your search for truth needs to happen outside this forum, because when one side believes in magic, there can be no honest debate.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Ambush, sometimes I scratch my head at your insistence that that they admit their position is unprovable or that their Book is faulty.  Surely you know by now they can't do that?  To be a Christian means to accept the Bible as the true word of God, talking donkeys and all. There is no other way. The answer to everything is "God did it."  The end.
> 
> Your search for truth needs to happen outside this forum, because when one side believes in magic, there can be no honest debate.



I'm almost done.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2017)

What's weird is that God created with chromosomes just like he used to allow animals to evolve or mutate.

You'd think God's creation would be completely different from that of the scientists. Unless he just liked to tinker with science.

I can't see where this knowledge proves or disproves anything other than we didn't follow the same evolution of other primates.

If Key deer evolved from the white tail, why do we still have white tail?

Maybe the Ark had something to do with it. You do realize that the AIDs , Zeka, and Ebola viruses were on the Ark. Unless they evolved through some type of God given process of evolution. That old God deity did like to tinker with science. Some even call him the Great Architect of the Universe. Well I guess he liked to build things too. I wonder if he used math and geometry tools like the square and compass?

I think that he occasionally got tired of using his "Zapper" and since we are made in his image, (instead of the other way around) used science and his square and compass. Science and math can be fun, even if you are a Deity.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> What's weird is that God created with chromosomes just like he used to allow animals to evolve or mutate.
> 
> You'd think God's creation would be completely different from that of the scientists. Unless he just liked to tinker with science.
> 
> ...



Key deer are the same species of animal, Odocoileus Virginianus.  The ark is an impossibility; everything about it.  God can do anything.  That's exactly why He's a bad explanation for anything.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Key deer are the same species of animal, Odocoileus Virginianus.  The ark is an impossibility; everything about it.  God can do anything.  That's exactly why He's a bad explanation for anything.



OK, bad analogy. I did read where they once thought they were different species but now they know better. So their example would be a genetic mutation vs evolution.
Let's go with the Peppered moth, Italian Wall Lizards, Darwin’s Finches, and Nylon-eating Bacteria.

When you think about it evolution, natural selection, and mutations are related. Some just take place over a quicker period of time than evolution. 
You could transport a lizard to an island and prove this. Still though, it shows that God likes to tinker with science.

I think he used science for the creation of the whole universe. He just used his Zapper to get it started. Then he let plants evolve to contain medicines useful to humans.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, bad analogy. I did read where they once thought they were different species but now they know better. So their example would be a genetic mutation vs evolution.
> Let's go with the Peppered moth, Italian Wall Lizards, Darwin’s Finches, and Nylon-eating Bacteria.
> 
> When you think about it evolution, natural selection, and mutations are related. Some just take place over a quicker period of time than evolution.
> ...



Evolution is based on natural selection and mutation.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 14, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> God made man as written in the book of Genesis.
> 
> That may be true, but posting videos of "how to shut up a pesky creationist" is probably not the best way to go about that.



So, your straw man comment was posted why? Because of the title of the video upset you? I didn't name the video.
I did post the Genesis account. Your response should have been, Yes. Not, straw man...


----------



## 660griz (Apr 14, 2017)

I know what would prove to me there was a God. 
What if his special creation, Man, was totally different than any other animal. Nothing in common with them whatsoever. We don't need oxygen. We have no DNA. We really don't need to eat cause our energy comes from a higher power. We don't get diseases. We don't have fur. Science really can't explain how we are alive. That, to me, would mean we were special and created.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 14, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> As I posted to ambush, I should have stated "everything physical owes its existence to something prior to itself." Which makes an uncreated being a necessity and logical.



Ambush's reply in post #25 handles your clarification.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2017)

I went to a rock show that had some meteorites from outer space. They contained the same elements we have here on the earth. Whoever created used the same building blocks.
Nothing weird like kryptonite. Just iron, etc.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> I went to a rock show that had some meteorites from outer space. They contained the same elements we have here on the earth. Whoever created used the same building blocks.
> Nothing weird like kryptonite. Just iron, etc.



You should prove a creator down here first.  Otherwise I can make up a creator, too and all kinds of reasons why She does this or that.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> You should prove a creator down here first.  Otherwise I can make up a creator, too and all kinds of reasons why She does this or that.



Actually, that might be a fun game.

"We are not the favorite of She.  The favorite of She is  K'aatung.  We were given to K'aatung to keep Her company and to worship Her.  K'aatung spun the world from the Ashes of Agamulach....." 

Hmmm.  Turns out it's not that fun for me.  I don't like fiction.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 14, 2017)

660griz said:


> I know what would prove to me there was a God.
> What if his special creation, Man, was totally different than any other animal. Nothing in common with them whatsoever. We don't need oxygen. We have no DNA. We really don't need to eat cause our energy comes from a higher power. We don't get diseases. We don't have fur. Science really can't explain how we are alive. That, to me, would mean we were special and created.



Original sin. Booyah.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Original sin. Booyah.



The Apologist is strong in this one.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 14, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Original sin. Booyah.



That made LOL. Thanks for that. 
Seriously though...


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 14, 2017)

660griz said:


> That made LOL. Thanks for that.
> Seriously though...



Seriously though, there are no answers.  This discussion ALWAYS comes to this.  Neither side can prove anything.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 14, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Ambush, sometimes I scratch my head at your insistence that that they admit their position is unprovable or that their Book is faulty.  Surely you know by now they can't do that?  To be a Christian means to accept the Bible as the true word of God, talking donkeys and all. There is no other way. The answer to everything is "God did it."  The end.
> 
> Your search for truth needs to happen outside this forum, because when one side believes in magic, there can be no honest debate.



So if you guys kicked out all the deluded creationists  and searched for truth amongst only yourselves, would you find it then? By find it, I mean in a provable way....or would you just be bantering a lot of theories back and forth?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> So if you guys kicked out all the deluded creationists  and searched for truth amongst only yourselves, would you find it then? By find it, I mean in a provable way....or would you just be bantering a lot of theories back and forth?



I'm often looking for morality:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=896238

Who better to ask about it than people who believe they've got it locked down.  More and more I find that they don't.  They can't agree.  I seem to make more progress examining moral issues from a secular position. That's why I told Drippinrock that I'm almost done.  My investigation is almost complete to my satisfaction.  

You seem like a good man.  What do you make of some of the questions I ask?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> So if you guys kicked out all the deluded creationists  and searched for truth amongst only yourselves, would you find it then? By find it, I mean in a provable way....or would you just be bantering a lot of theories back and forth?



I'm often looking for morality.  Look how I changed through deep secular reasoning and analysis:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=896238

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=877253&highlight=death+penalty+ambush80

I explored the death penalty once:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=877141&highlight=death+penalty+ambush80

Who better to ask about it than people who believe they've got it locked down.  More and more I find that they don't.  They can't agree.  I seem to make more progress examining moral issues from a secular position. That's why I told Drippinrock that I'm almost done.  My investigation is almost complete to my satisfaction.  

You seem like a good man.  What do you make of some of the questions I ask?


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 14, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> So if you guys kicked out all the deluded creationists  and searched for truth amongst only yourselves, would you find it then? By find it, I mean in a provable way....or would you just be bantering a lot of theories back and forth?



Isn't that all we can do?  Banter back and forth?  I don't know what's true in the deep 'where did we come from' sense, but I don't think "you guys" are any closer than anyone else on knowing either. If pressed I will say man created god, but that is my brain putting what I think I know together.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 14, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> So if you guys kicked out all the deluded creationists  and searched for truth amongst only yourselves, would you find it then? By find it, I mean in a provable way....or would you just be bantering a lot of theories back and forth?


That's a very legitimate question.
Especially the part I highlighted.
Now remove the word "creationists" and replace it with "A/As"


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 14, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I'm often looking for morality.  Look how I changed through deep secular reasoning and analysis:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=896238
> 
> ...




I think you ask great questions and I have much respect for you and bullet and drippin rock and some others, because mostly you guys don't belittle my faith. Mostly 

I enjoy the conversation that comes from the questions and I appreciate that you think about the deep questions of life and look for answers to them.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 14, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Isn't that all we can do?  Banter back and forth?  I don't know what's true in the deep 'where did we come from' sense, but I don't think "you guys" are any closer than anyone else on knowing either. If pressed I will say man created god, but that is my brain putting what I think I know together.



I know and I get it. I don't mind bantering, but I'm also convinced I know the answer.  If I'm wrong I guess we'll  never know it because we will just cease to exist.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> I know and I get it. I don't mind bantering, but I'm also convinced I know the answer.  If I'm wrong I guess we'll  never know it because we will just cease to exist.



Why do theists always narrow it down to 2 scenarios?
If you are wrong you could be off by a couple hundred afterlife scenarios that have been concocted by believers of life after death for thousands of years.
I mean if you are a believer of one magical life after death scenario you have to be open for other magical possibilities.
It is possible that there is no Biblical Heaven, no Ceasing to exist, but you will be eternally punished for worshiping the wrong god.

Eternal Life in a happy place or Ceasing to exist are both somewhat comforting and either apease the thoughts of eternal punishment for being a great human being but choosing incorrectly or being born in the wrong country about which god to worship is just as much a reality for anyone that thinks others on the planet have got it all wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Why do theists always narrow it down to 2 scenarios?
> If you are wrong you could be off by a couple hundred afterlife scenarios that have been concocted by believers of life after death for thousands of years.
> I mean if you are a believer of one magical life after death scenario you have to be open for other magical possibilities.
> It is possible that there is no Biblical Heaven, no Ceasing to exist, but you will be eternally punished for worshiping the wrong god.
> ...



Ceasing to exist is the only conclusion to come to using the best information that we have.  There's no evidence of a soul.  There's only evidence of neural activity and none.  _Anything_ else is speculation.  Belief in the soul and an afterlife all comes down to people taking the word of a strange book, of which there are many, or oral traditions.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Why do theists always narrow it down to 2 scenarios?
> If you are wrong you could be off by a couple hundred afterlife scenarios that have been concocted by believers of life after death for thousands of years.
> I mean if you are a believer of one magical life after death scenario you have to be open for other magical possibilities.
> It is possible that there is no Biblical Heaven, no Ceasing to exist, but you will be eternally punished for worshiping the wrong god.
> ...



For me, the answer to that question is that it all comes down to Jesus. 

1. I believe in the authenticity of the Gospel accounts of his life and find them to be as reliable as any other source of stories from history. (More reliable in many ways) 

2. It's hard to deny that something happened around 2,000 years ago that was a catalyst for what is now known as Christianity. I do understand that something could have been an elaborate ruse by a bunch of uneducated Galileans, but I have as hard of a time believing that as you do that it really happened.

Also, while I recognize that there are other resurrection stories, they really don't parallel the Christ story. 

Many things are different, but the main ones being:
1. That he willingly sacrificed himself 
2. That other people gave their lives because of their belief in what they saw him do (die and rise). 

I realize upfront that you will not accept these answers, but you asked, and I answered.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> For me, the answer to that question is that it all comes down to Jesus.
> 
> 1. I believe in the authenticity of the Gospel accounts of his life and find them to be as reliable as any other source of stories from history. (More reliable in many ways)
> 
> ...





> Also, while I recognize that there are other resurrection stories, they really don't parallel the Christ story


I/we hear this a lot.
Ive attempted many times to clear what I believe or don't believe from my brain and understand it/follow the logic of it. But I cant. So help me out -
How does a story (any story) being "different" determine its trueness/falseness or likelihood?

If "this" story is different from "that" story, isn't at the same time, "that" story different from "this" story?
If I tell a story right now that is different from all the other stories will you believe it?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I/we hear this a lot.
> Ive attempted many times to clear what I believe or don't believe from my brain and understand it/follow the logic of it. But I cant. So help me out -
> How does a story (any story) being "different" determine its trueness/falseness or likelihood?
> 
> ...



No I don't necessarily think that it being different makes it true. I only mentioned it being different because if I had simply said I belive because of the resurrection then you would have said that you knew of other resurrection stories. 

I admitted that there are others and then listed the differences in this one. 

I don't believe it because it's different, but I do believe it because of its particular differences.


----------



## Israel (Apr 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I/we hear this a lot.
> Ive attempted many times to clear what I believe or don't believe from my brain and understand it/follow the logic of it. But I cant. So help me out -
> How does a story (any story) being "different" determine its trueness/falseness or likelihood?
> 
> ...



I appreciate what you have said. I don't doubt it comes from a place of effort.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> No I don't necessarily think that it being different makes it true. I only mentioned it being different because if I had simply said I belive because of the resurrection then you would have said that you knew of other resurrection stories.
> 
> I admitted that there are others and then listed the differences in this one.
> 
> I don't believe it because it's different, but I do believe it because of its particular differences.


And now, just as when I sit down and try to think about it completely open mindedly, we come full circle.
You cant prove the particular differences in "their" story to be false. You cant prove the particular differences in "your" story to be true.
Yet the particular differences in the stories is what causes you to believe one story over the other.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> And now, just as when I sit down and try to think about it completely open mindedly, we come full circle.
> You cant prove the particular differences in "their" story to be false. You cant prove the particular differences in "your" story to be true.
> Yet the particular differences in the stories is what causes you to believe one story over the other.



You're right. I can't prove them. But I can trust their validity over the others. But you already know that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> You're right. I can't prove them. But I can trust their validity over the others. But you already know that.


Sure. And that's all well and good.
And maybe I'm just nitpicking here but -
va·lid·i·ty
[vÉ™ËˆlidÉ™dÄ“]
NOUN
the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
So where does this trust in the validity come from for you?
Its not logical.
Its not factually sound. Facts can be proven or they wouldn't be called a fact......
And by the way, I'm not questioning your right to believe whatever you want. I'm questioning, for my own understanding, what you tell yourself as to WHY you believe it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure. And that's all well and good.
> And maybe I'm just nitpicking here but -
> va·lid·i·ty
> [vÉ™ËˆlidÉ™dÄ“]
> ...




I understand. I tell myself that there was a real man in Jerusalem called Jesus of Nazareth. Then I tell myself that he was really killed. Then I tell myself that shortly after his death something happened that caused a bunch of people to believe that he was no longer dead. Then I tell myself that the recording of what happened was written down by several men who claimed to have been there when it happened. Then I tell myself that those recorded writings meet the requirements of being historically valid documents. That's what I tell myself for starters anyway.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> I understand. I tell myself that there was a real man in Jerusalem called Jesus of Nazareth. Then I tell myself that he was really killed. Then I tell myself that shortly after his death something happened that caused a bunch of people to believe that he was no longer dead. . Then I tell myself that those recorded writings meet the requirements of being historically valid documents. That's what I tell myself for starters anyway.





> I tell myself that there was a real man in Jerusalem called Jesus of Nazareth


. 
I can go with that.


> Then I tell myself that he was really killed


I can go with that too.


> Then I tell myself that shortly after his death something happened that caused a bunch of people to believe that he was no longer dead


I can even go with that. (see the "I believe Elvis is alive" example)


> Then I tell myself that the recording of what happened was written down by several men who claimed to have been there when it happened


I'm still with you. Because you used the word "claimed"


> Then I tell myself that those recorded writings meet the requirements of being historically valid documents.


Screeching STOP 
Historically valid does not mean historically proven that they were actually there it just means they claimed to be.


> That's what I tell myself for starters anyway.


For starters we are more than less on the same page.
Its the ending that is quite different for us.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> I can go with that.
> 
> I can go with that too.
> ...



I also believe that Washington crossed the Deleware


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> I also believe that Washington crossed the Deleware


Me too.
Lots of corroborating evidence. INCLUDING FROM THE ENEMY.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2017)

Mark,

How much does the fact that you have "felt" Jesus or "seen" Him work in your life fuel your belief?   What percentage is it compared to the historicity of the story?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Me too.
> Lots of corroborating evidence. INCLUDING FROM THE ENEMY.



Sure but you're still relying on someone else's word. You weren't there and you can't prove it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> Sure but you're still relying on someone else's word. You weren't there and you can't prove it.


Completely agree.
That's what makes the corroborating evidence, and why I capitalized INCLUDING FROM THE ENEMY, not just Washington's journal, so important.

And a reminder - I'm Agnostic.
I don't claim its a fact there is no God/god (any of them). I claim and argue with facts that there is no preponderance of the evidence to believe there is.
I'm open to being proven wrong with facts to the contrary....


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Mark,
> 
> How much does the fact that you have "felt" Jesus or "seen" Him work in your life fuel your belief?   What percentage is it compared to the historicity of the story?



I'm asking this knowing that most believers in any religion have had personal revelation.  It's always interesting to me how much or little they put stock in it.  I also know believers who have never had personal revelation.  They do it for cultural reasons or for utility.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Mark,
> 
> How much does the fact that you have "felt" Jesus or "seen" Him work in your life fuel your belief?   What percentage is it compared to the historicity of the story?



Can I say both are 100%? 

I 100 % believe in the validity of Christ's call on my life spiritually. 

I 100% believe that the story the gospels tell is true.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> Can I say both are 100%?
> 
> I 100 % believe in the validity of Christ's call on my life spiritually.
> 
> I 100% believe that the story the gospels tell is true.



If the historicity turned out to be false would that be enough for you to abandon your belief?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> Sure but you're still relying on someone else's word. You weren't there and you can't prove it.


Military journals say the event happened.
Artifacts found on each side of the river back up the eyewitnesses that recorded the event.
Diaries of American and Hessian soldiers that tell of the event have been passed down through surviving family members and are either still in their possessions or have been donated to museums to be studied by historians.

Where are all the personal diaries or writings from the family members of Jesus? How about the families and relation of the disciples? The Bible traces back 5000 years of Fathers, sons, brothers uncles, cousins, mothers, aunts and almost down to their hamsters social security numbers.
And after Jesus died.... zip... what of Mary?Joseph? Siblings? The families of the disciples? Who are they? Surely the bloodlines must still be around. Any family heirlooms from pals of Jesus? People like to brag. People like to connect themselves with famous people. 
I would think a young guy might brag that his dad or uncle was buddies with the guy that flew into sky after he came back from the dead.
Surely 500 witnesses would find something or some way to link themselves to such an event. For goodness sake people play connect the dots to a celebrity every chance they get, is it too absurd to think that literally during the time that the ONLY son of god was among those thousands of people that  4 guys were the only ones to make note of it?
Have the generations of all the family members of the main characters just vanished along with everyone whoever saw Jesus or witnessed anything miraculous that he did? Where are they? Where is uncle Matt's  sandal? Where is uncle Mark's quill that he used to pen the story of all stories? Where is one descendant of any of them?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 15, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> If the historicity turned out to be false would that be enough for you to abandon your belief?



Yes if a tomb with Jesus's bones were found or if it was proven in some way that there actually was no resurrection, I would have to admit that I had fooled myself and renounce my faith.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2017)

"My half brother is the Son of God"  looks good on a resume. 
"My great (x10) grandfather was Matthew, Mark,Luke or John" will gather a crowd at deer camp.
"This is my great great great Uncle's diary that he had written in describing the moment when he saw Jesus of Nazareth ascend into the sky"

Said no one ever.


----------



## Israel (Apr 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> "My half brother is the Son of God"  looks good on a resume.
> "My great (x10) grandfather was Matthew, Mark,Luke or John" will gather a crowd at deer camp.
> "This is my great great great Uncle's diary that he had written in describing the moment when he saw Jesus of Nazareth ascend into the sky"
> 
> Said no one ever.



Your first two statements show (to me) a positional orientation toward an attitude, and perhaps assumption of that attitude by believers that is to them (believers) not appreciated...or seen. 

That is the propensity of man toward _name dropping._ Though it may not come up so succinctly said   too often, being explicitly stated, nor the likewise and attendant bent toward tribalism, it is as if these conceded as (somewhat powerful and ubiquitous) motives are all and only what you can see for the _faith_. 

A club of sorts, whose members pronounce a name at the door for entrance, and can then enjoy a sort of relaxed camaraderie as they commune relatively unmolested within by what lies excluded, without. This view is not really particularly obscure. And it surely couldn't be to a "god" who is claimed to have all knowledge and understanding. But, it can also be conceded, some may not even be aware of its (their) strong impetus among men. Things do _move_ men. Some could say "base" things.

It could even be adequately argued (I believe) that the most egregious and horrendous insults and abuses suffered by men, from men can often be traced to these motives. It would then appear as more than hypocritical, but indeed treasonous if in attempting to justify such tribalism manifest in a brutality of sorts were claiming to be following (in their exclusivity of club membership) the One who said "love your enemies". 

In short, any proclivity toward an "I belong to the Jesus club...and you do not nyah nyah nyah" becomes (for such a one with this understanding)...painful to say the least. 

I think we might both agree it would be far better to be found "outside" such a club than to relinquish the truth that has shown such a tribalism (despite the recognition of our own bent toward it...to "belong"..."fit in"...be a part of_ something_) to be such a base and weak thing among men in practice. 

No, it's not hard for me to understand a man who would be pressed to say, if knowing such..._and only able to see such as any motive to any of it, at all _"thanks, but no thanks, I'll take my chances...outside".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2017)

Israel said:


> Your first two statements show (to me) a positional orientation toward an attitude, and perhaps assumption of that attitude by believers that is to them (believers) not appreciated...or seen.
> 
> That is the propensity of man toward _name dropping._ Though it may not come up so succinctly said   too often, being explicitly stated, nor the likewise and attendant bent toward tribalism, it is as if these conceded as (somewhat powerful and ubiquitous) motives are all and only what you can see for the _faith_.
> 
> ...


Israel, where are the descendents?
It is easy to be adequate when you argue with yourself.
BUT, 'm not talking about the complex questions that you ask yourself and then answer yourself in order to somehow link mine in with them.
Where are all the descendents/family members of Jesus and the disciples.
And where are the descendents of the people who supposedly witnessed all of the miraculous events?
Surely someone has an artifact that would back things up.


----------



## Israel (Apr 17, 2017)

Looking for relics?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2017)

Israel said:


> Looking for relics?


There are enough relics in here that rise to the surface on their own. I don't have to dig to find them. 

I am looking for evidence that would back up claims.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 17, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Yes.   We should rule out supernatural causes because they don't align with anything meaningful.



This may very well stand as the most ignorant statement ever to be posted on this forum.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This may very well stand as the most ignorant statement ever to be posted on this forum.



Nah.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 17, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This may very well stand as the most ignorant statement ever to be posted on this forum.



Onward Christian Soldier, marching as to war! 

Keep fighting the good fight, brutha.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Onward Christian Soldier, marching as to war!
> 
> Keep fighting the good fight, brutha.




He's got nothing.  He never argues, just declares.  You would think he would add "and here's why...." but he just says "It's not worth responding to."  Typical.

I think he's been particularly agitated by me because the Un-spirit is at work in his heart and he feels it and can't deny it.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> It could be anything I can dream up from: we are in a computer simulation to the God that made our Universe has a boss to turtles all the way down.  Surely you see that your explanation, your theory is unfounded and as so, any other thing can take its place.
> 
> Turtles all the way down gets rid of what you call a necessity.  Again, you have no idea what your talking about when you talk about an eternal thing and neither do I.  Neither does anyone.  It's a theory that's untestable and there's no evidence for.  It could be anything.


Yes, as we've talked about many times, the necessity of something that is eternal could be anything.

It's testable by logic and reason. It's spelled out in the Willard argument and I haven't seen anyone show me where his logic fails. 



> Be honest about where you get your information.  Is it a good source for talking about this kind of stuff or is it as faulty as any other source of its kind?


I did not get this information from the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> It's testable by logic and reason. It's spelled out in the Willard argument and I haven't seen anyone show me where his logic fails.


You have seen it.
You see it again every time you constantly claim that the Willard argument does not fail.
You refuse acknowledge the refutations.


You pop in, make the claim, get countered,  leave for weeks and months, pop back in make the same claim, get shown again where what you are saying is not accurate, leave, pop back in again and make the same claim.
Rinse 
Repeat
You'll ask for us to show you after this.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You have seen it.
> You see it again every time you constantly claim that the Willard argument does not fail.
> You refuse acknowledge the refutations.
> 
> ...



You brought it up in post 12, so untangle your panties.

And saying that the Willard argument fails is not showing me that it fails. Ambush is the only one who's even made an attempt at it.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

660griz said:


> So, your straw man comment was posted why? Because of the title of the video upset you? I didn't name the video.


Your argument in post 6 is a straw man.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2017)

https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/zacharias.html

(a) The Physical World: Willard's first "stage" of theistic evidence is a cosmological argument. However, it is difficult to see how Willard's version of the cosmological argument fares any better than that provided by Geisler. If Big Bang cosmology is true, then physical space and time "began" with the universe. But if time itself had a beginning, then it must have been uncaused since causal relations presuppose the existence of time. Thus, if Big Bang cosmology is true, "the universe didn't come from anything because it didn't come at all." Moreover, the idea of an uncaused universe is not counterintuitive since all of our metaphysical intuitions regarding causality apply only to events that occur in space and time. Yet if Big Bang cosmology is true, then the "beginning" of the universe is not an event in space and time; rather, it is the very origin of space and time itself.

(b) Design: Willard next presents the argument to design. He seems perfectly willing to grant that biological evolution may very well be true. Yet, he points out, even supposing that to be the case, there must have been some order to the universe before evolution could operate. As he puts it, "However it may have originated (if it originated), that order did not evolve."[39] Therefore, he argues, order exists because "some person designed" it.

Yet both atheism and theism have unexplained brute facts. If atheism is true, order may be a brute fact; if theism is true, the mind of God--which is surely an example of order if anything is--may also be an unexplained brute fact. As Graham Oppy writes, the issue is whether "there is any advantage in trading kinds of brute and unexplained givens by moving from naturalism to supernaturalism. And that plainly depends upon whether there are independent reasons for preferring naturalism to supernaturalism."[40]

(c) The Course of Human Events: As I understand it, Willard's third stage of theistic evidence is as follows. If one's background knowledge includes the belief that the universe was created and designed by a person--as stages one and two suggest--then it is probable that that person would retain an ongoing interest in their creation.[41] Thus, the prior probability of divine intervention is high. Therefore, he suggests that sincere seekers of truth should pay "serious attention to the facts claimed for religious histories and religious experiences."[42] According to Willard, "the existence of the Jewish people and of the Christian church, when one goes into the fine texture of the history, personalities, thought, and experience which make them up," is best explained by the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.[43]

However, even assuming that the universe was created and designed by a supernatural being, it does not follow that that such a being is a moral or loving one; therefore we cannot assume that such a being would desire an ongoing interest in its creation, much less an ongoing loving relationship with its creation. Moreover, Willard's third stage is not an argument. Which historical details are best explained by the Christian God? Willard never says, and therefore his argument does not even get off the ground.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/zacharias.html
> 
> (a) The Physical World: Willard's first "stage" of theistic evidence is a cosmological argument. However, it is difficult to see how Willard's version of the cosmological argument fares any better than that provided by Geisler. If Big Bang cosmology is true, then physical space and time "began" with the universe. But if time itself had a beginning, then it must have been uncaused since causal relations presuppose the existence of time. Thus, if Big Bang cosmology is true, "the universe didn't come from anything because it didn't come at all." Moreover, the idea of an uncaused universe is not counterintuitive since all of our metaphysical intuitions regarding causality apply only to events that occur in space and time. Yet if Big Bang cosmology is true, then the "beginning" of the universe is not an event in space and time; rather, it is the very origin of space and time itself.
> 
> ...



That's pretty solid, although I don't see why it's necessary to look any further than the fallacy of "The necessity of an un-caused cause".  I think the point in blue touches on this.  They believe in a being because they like to believe in a being; a being that cares for them an their children in the most a most anthropogenic way.  

"I just can't imagine.... I WON'T imagine that there's not a God that cares for me."

It's the height of hubris.  I think it would be nice if there were a God that cared about me but I'm not going to just assume it's true.  I don't know and neither does Willard or String.  Claiming that they do know is the height of dishonesty.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

I only know of one believer who openly says "I believe Jesus is Lord with all my heart but I know it might not be true".  My Mom.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/zacharias.html
> 
> (a) The Physical World: Willard's first "stage" of theistic evidence is a cosmological argument. However, it is difficult to see how Willard's version of the cosmological argument fares any better than that provided by Geisler. If Big Bang cosmology is true, then physical space and time "began" with the universe. But if time itself had a beginning, then it must have been uncaused since causal relations presuppose the existence of time. Thus, if Big Bang cosmology is true, "the universe didn't come from anything because it didn't come at all." Moreover, the idea of an uncaused universe is not counterintuitive since all of our metaphysical intuitions regarding causality apply only to events that occur in space and time. Yet if Big Bang cosmology is true, then the "beginning" of the universe is not an event in space and time; rather, it is the very origin of space and time


Read how many "but if's" and "if's" there are in this argument.

And I'm gonna have to disagree with the statement "the universe didn't come from anything because it didn't come at all." The universe came from something because it's here, and it's physical.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> That's pretty solid, although I don't see why it's necessary to look any further than the fallacy of "The necessity of an un-caused cause".  I think the point in blue touches on this.  They believe in a being because they like to believe in a being; a being that cares for them an their children in the most a most anthropogenic way.
> 
> "I just can't imagine.... I WON'T imagine that there's not a God that cares for me."
> 
> It's the height of hubris.  I think it would be nice if there were a God that cared about me but I'm not going to just assume it's true.  I don't know and neither does Willard or String.  Claiming that they do know is the height of dishonesty.



Trading those "brute facts" is the most important decision in any human being's life because it attempts to answer life's most important questions, like value,morals,worth,why are we here, what happens when we die etc. and when one finds a coherent answer to all these questions, they will find Jesus standing there.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Read how many "but if's" and "if's" there are in this argument.
> 
> And I'm gonna have to disagree with the statement "the universe didn't come from anything because it didn't come at all." The universe came from something because it's here, and it's physical.



As far as we know energy can't be created nor destroyed.  

As far as we know.  

The truth about where it came from might be found in Genesis.  If only the rest of the book weren't filled with such nonsense, Genesis might have some pull.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Trading those "brute facts" is the most important decision in any human being's life because it attempts to answer life's most important questions, like value,morals,worth,why are we here, what happens when we die etc. and when one finds a coherent answer to all these questions, they will find Jesus standing there.



I've done pretty well to establish morals and my sense of worth through secular reasoning and they line up with reality.  I've done demonstrably far better than many Christians and many deists,  I know, perhaps better than you.  If I wanted to, I might find Ganesh standing there.  Ganesh can answer those questions, too. You chose the God you grew up with, like your chose your clothing or your taste in food.    It's what all your friends and family like.  The rest of those questions I'm content to not know the answers to for now.  The alternative being to guess.  The worse alternative would be to take the word of a ridiculous book.

I disregard both Ganesh and Jesus as Lord because everything about those propositions is fantasy.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Read how many "but if's" and "if's" there are in this argument.
> 
> And I'm gonna have to disagree with the statement "the universe didn't come from anything because it didn't come at all." The universe came from something because it's here, and it's physical.




Where have I ever heard "If Jesus is lord, he could totally walk on water.  All day"


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Read how many "but if's" and "if's" there are in this argument.
> 
> And I'm gonna have to disagree with the statement "the universe didn't come from anything because it didn't come at all." The universe came from something because it's here, and it's physical.



The "ifs" are there to acknowledge Willards claims
The "buts" counter them.

Energy = Eternal


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> As far as we know energy can't be created nor destroyed.
> 
> As far as we know.
> 
> The truth about where it came from might be found in Genesis.  If only the rest of the book weren't filled with such nonsense, Genesis might have some pull.



We don't even know what energy is.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I've done pretty well to establish morals and my sense of worth through secular reasoning and they line up with reality.  I've done demonstrably far better than many Christians and many deists,  I know, perhaps better than you.  If I wanted to, I might find Ganesh standing there.  Ganesh can answer those questions, too. You chose the God you grew up with, like your chose your clothing or your taste in food.    It's what all your friends and family like.  The rest of those questions I'm content to not know the answers to for now.  The alternative being to guess.  The worse alternative would be to take the word of a ridiculous book.
> 
> I disregard both Ganesh and Jesus as Lord because everything about those propositions is fantasy.


Now we are going all over the place, like we usually do. It gets frustrating I must admit.

I didn't say you couldn't establish morals, or make up worth and value or anything else.

And Genish cannot answer those questions and be coherent in the answers, considering Hinduism does not follow the law of non contradiction.

I'll leave it at that, or we will really get going all over the map.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Where have I ever heard "If Jesus is lord, he could totally walk on water.  All day"



Probably from me.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> The "ifs" are there to acknowledge Willards claims



That is incorrect


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> We don't even know what energy is.



But you claim to know where it came from


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Now we are going all over the place, like we usually do. It gets frustrating I must admit.
> 
> I didn't say you couldn't establish morals, or make up worth and value or anything else.
> 
> ...



I agree lets stick with the topic at hand.  You know where energy came from.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> But you claim to know where it came from



I believe God created it. That's the logical position of anyone who believes in Him.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> I believe God created it. That's the logical position of anyone who believes in Him.



There is logic involved in fiction too.
Discussing the make believe logically is possible but it doesn't make it true.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> I believe God created it. That's the logical position of anyone who believes in Him.



That's true.

God is unconfirmed.  That is also true.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 18, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> You chose the God you grew up with, like your chose your clothing or your taste in food.    It's what all your friends and family like.



I know you're aware of this but there are many believers in Christ for whom the above statement is not true.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> I know you're aware of this but there are many believers in Christ for whom the above statement is not true.



For example:


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2017)

I am going to use Strings theory (I see what I did there) and state that Nobody knows of Jesus that was not told about Jesus by someone else prior.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> For example:



Maybe my statement wasn't clear. What I was saying is that there are many people choose Christ who have never heard of him or never grew up in in Christian families.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I am going to use Strings theory (I see what I did there) and state that Nobody knows of Jesus that was not told about Jesus by someone else prior.



I know you will discount this immediately and honestly I have no way to authorize it as legitimate. I only post it here to show that there are people who claim to have come to Christ through dreams having never heard the Gospel before. 

You can also google Jesus Dreams. 

http://morethandreams.org/


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 18, 2017)

I firmly believe that 90% + of American Christians would right now be devout Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims if they had grown up somewhere that these were the dominant religion instead of here, where Christianity is pretty much it.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 18, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> I know you will discount this immediately and honestly I have no way to authorize it as legitimate. I only post it here to show that there are people who claim to have come to Christ through dreams having never heard the Gospel before.
> 
> You can also google Jesus Dreams.
> 
> http://morethandreams.org/



There are a few parallels between Islam and Christianity. Hardly a giant leap. I mean there is a 'Jesus' in Islam.

Find someone in the Piraha tribe that suddenly found Jesus without anyone telling them about it and then you would have something.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 18, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I firmly believe that 90% + of American Christians would right now be devout Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims if they had grown up somewhere that these were the dominant religion instead of here, where Christianity is pretty much it.



Yep....you'll get no argument from me on that one.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 18, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I firmly believe that 90% + of American Christians would right now be devout Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims if they had grown up somewhere that these were the dominant religion instead of here, where Christianity is pretty much it.



Playing Jesus' advocate, that doesn't mean it's not true.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> I know you will discount this immediately and honestly I have no way to authorize it as legitimate. I only post it here to show that there are people who claim to have come to Christ through dreams having never heard the Gospel before.
> 
> You can also google Jesus Dreams.
> 
> http://morethandreams.org/


I do not discount it any more or any less than all the other dreams that take place all over the world where other deities visit those people too.
Aren't they all equally viable and equally unreliable as the next?


----------



## Madman (Apr 18, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> They believe in a being because they like to believe in a being; a being that cares for them an their children in the most a most anthropogenic way.
> 
> "I just can't imagine.... I WON'T imagine that there's not a God that cares for me."



and others who don't believe in a being because they don't like to believe in a being.

“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)” 
â€• Thomas Nagel


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 18, 2017)

Madman said:


> and others who don't believe in a being because they don't like to believe in a being.
> 
> “In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.
> 
> ...



I'm indifferent.  I'd be sad if Christianity were true or any of the Abrahamic religions.  I like the notion of Nirvana.  I like religions that don't require the adherents to disregard the other religions as false.  Since I have no evidence that any of them are true and I have lots of evidence that they're made up I err on the side of skepticism.  Except in the sense that ancient people have distilled some things about human nature and have made some good observations, for the most part they miss due to their lack of knowledge.


----------



## Israel (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> and others who don't believe in a being because they don't like to believe in a being.
> 
> “In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.
> 
> ...



Hey, thanks for that reference. Never heard of the guy till now. But reading your quote by him provoked a quick search. The quote is remarkably trenchant in content.
Then I found this appraisal of his (then) latest work:
Physics is the question of what matter is. Metaphysics is the question of what exists. People of a rational, scientific bent tend to think that the two are coextensive—that everything is physical. Many who think differently are inspired by religion to posit the existence of God and souls; Nagel affirms that he’s an atheist, but he also asserts that there’s an entirely different realm of non-physical stuff that exists—namely, mental stuff. The vast flow of perceptions, ideas, and emotions that arise in each human mind is something that, in his view, actually exists as something other than merely the electrical firings in the brain that gives rise to them—and exists as surely as a brain, a chair, an atom, or a gamma ray.

It's some of that "mental stuff" Ambush and I have been beating about (and some others) trying to flush out what we do see about them. (Perhaps, needless to say, I do indeed_ believe_ consciousness as a _real _thing, thought, ideas and all that may accrue to what it means "to be conscious") Like forest and trees, once seen it can't be unseen...for almost all we see, physically touch from pavement to skyscraper, all have had their origins in thought. Of course this can be dismissed as mere "rearranging" of matter...that no one has yet demonstrated a mind capable of "making matter" from thought we find, nevertheless...ideas are not some ephemeral whispy non entities...they have concrete consequence. (Even if they do not seem to proceed to rearranging matter)

I find your quote of Nagel brutally honest to the point of a sort of godliness imbued or provoked...the man can't help but admit "this is where I am!" Nor does he appear to care to hide in it, it's like a child (and Jesus has much to say about becoming as children) "I just don't want it to be _that way_" But, like the man finally seeing the forest can no longer find any comfort in retracting to a smaller place, pressed as it were to: I cannot resist the knowing...things are simply not as they "seem".

If a thing is asserted, there are always more than adequate repudiators. This itself is a necessary consequence. A few are already willing to concede "ego" is a real thing...although fewer may yet see "ego" is evaluated by ego in that playground of consciousness where to a man (yes, a universal statement/assertion) in each playground any particular man always wins "King of the Hill".

It appears to me Nagel is saying "I don't want to allow for a playground monitor, I simply cannot accept all that that means to myself (ego)." It is perhaps too honest in its simplicity "I merely want to see things my way".

The accusation goes back and forth "you are trying to be right!"..."No, it's not me trying to be right...it's you trying to impose your sense of rightness on me"...and on and on. Of course it appears endless and seemingly non productive...as does all of history when finally seen in this contest..."Our gods are the greater"....from that inkwell in which every pen stroke to record that history is dipped.

So, it goes. And will, and must.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 19, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I'm indifferent.  I'd be sad if Christianity were true or any of the Abrahamic religions.  I like the notion of Nirvana.  I like religions that don't require the adherents to disregard the other religions as false.  Since I have no evidence that any of them are true and I have lots of evidence that they're made up I err on the side of skepticism.  Except in the sense that ancient people have distilled some things about human nature and have made some good observations, for the most part they miss due to their lack of knowledge.



I don't really know if the Bible makes it explicit that no other gods exist. The first commandment is one example that leaves open the possibility of other gods existing. It doesn't say that God is the only god, it just says to have no other gods before him.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't really know if the Bible makes it explicit that no other gods exist. The first commandment is one example that leaves open the possibility of other gods existing. It doesn't say that God is the only god, it just says to have no other gods before him.


And written in a time by people who worshipped and acknowledged many gods.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 19, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I like religions that don't require the adherents to disregard the other religions as false.



How's that work out when they contradict each other


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2017)

welderguy said:


> How's that work out when they contradict each other


1. You believe in the one you believe in.
2. You don't make any unprovable claims about the others.

Wouldn't that be the honest approach?


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

Israel said:


> It appears to me Nagel is saying "I don't want to allow for a playground monitor, I simply cannot accept all that that means to myself (ego)."



From where I have been and what I have seen I believe you hit the nail on the head.  Non-Believers want to live for today with no oversight.  

In one of his books Mark Cahill makes the point very well in a conversation with the brother of Charles Barkley.  Charles' brother had a NDE in which he did not see all the warm inviting "fluffy things" many describe, he saw a lake of fire.  

Mark asked him if he had not returned to this life where would he be right now.  "In He11" was the response.  Mark asked if that was enough for him to change his life and was told "no, I am having too much fun right now".

Non-belief is not an intellectual decision, there is plenty of evidence, (Romans 1:18-23), it is a moral one.
_*
"Knowledge is a deadly friend
If no one sets the rules."  King Crimson-Epitaph*_


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> From where I have been and what I have seen I believe you hit the nail on the head.  Non-Believers want to live for today with no oversight.
> 
> In one of his books Mark Cahill makes the point very well in a conversation with the brother of Charles Barkley.  Charles' brother had a NDE in which he did not see all the warm inviting "fluffy things" many describe, he saw a lake of fire.
> 
> ...


Yeah because its certainly been proven that belief and moral behavior go hand in hand


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> From where I have been and what I have seen I believe you hit the nail on the head.  Non-Believers want to live for today with no oversight.
> 
> In one of his books Mark Cahill makes the point very well in a conversation with the brother of Charles Barkley.  Charles' brother had a NDE in which he did not see all the warm inviting "fluffy things" many describe, he saw a lake of fire.
> 
> ...



The autonomy of ones life is the main reason why non believes choose to stay non believers, in my opinion.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah because its certainly been proven that belief and moral behavior go hand in hand



Still having a hard time grasping the context of discussions I see.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> Still having a hard time grasping the context of discussions I see.


Yeah that's it.
So feel free to prove that not believing in a god that you cant even prove exists is based on morality.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah that's it.
> So feel free to prove that not believing in a god is based on morality.



Done


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I'm indifferent.  I'd be sad if Christianity were true or any of the Abrahamic religions.  I like the notion of Nirvana.  I like religions that don't require the adherents to disregard the other religions as false.



Why would you be sad if Christianity were true?  What about Jesus do you dislike?  If you were to follow his teachings what would be so bad?  

My original "line of reasoning" took me through a place that may need multiple gods, (you know all roads lead to the mountain top) however, once I came to a place where I believed there must be an eternal, self sustaining, omnipotent being, I was unable to work out why there would be two of them, there is probably only one and if only one existed why would I give worship to any of the lesser gods?

I still believe all roads lead to the mountain top.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> Done


Why are you done?
You said non belief is not an intellectual decision its a moral one. Its right up there. 
So back it up.
Back up why its immoral to not believe something exists that cant be proven to exist.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Why are you done?
> You said non belief is not an intellectual decision its a moral one.



here is one:  Mark asked him if he had not returned to this life where would he be right now. "In He11" was the response. Mark asked if that was enough for him to change his life and was told "no, I am having too much fun right now".


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> here is one:  Mark asked him if he had not returned to this life where would he be right now. "In He11" was the response. Mark asked if that was enough for him to change his life and was told "no, I am having too much fun right now".



Oh so your blanket statement that nonbelief was not an intellectual decision its a moral one was really referring to one specific example.
Gotcha.
Yeah I'm slow like that


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> Why would you be sad if Christianity were true?  What about Jesus do you dislike?  If you were to follow his teachings what would be so bad?
> 
> My original "line of reasoning" took me through a place that may need multiple gods, (you know all roads lead to the mountain top) however, once I came to a place where I believed there must be an eternal, self sustaining, omnipotent being, I was unable to work out why there would be two of them, there is probably only one and if only one existed why would I give worship to any of the lesser gods?
> 
> I still believe all mountains lead to the mountain top.



One thing about Christianity that I don't like is the position that the default setting for everyone on Earth is "roast in He11." If you go through your whole life being a wonderful person, and morally pure, but don't perform a certain ritual that you may or may not know about, you burn in He11 forever. Even if you were born and lived on a remote island and never heard of Jesus. 

Seems a loving deity would be the other way around-you aren't punished unless you prove to be an unworthy person who has done more wrong than right.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I'm slow



If you say so.  I think you just a troll.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> One thing about Christianity that I don't like is the position that the default setting for everyone on Earth is "roast in He11."



If you were the eternal, self sufficient, omnipotent, being what would you do with those who chose to live their lives separated from you?  Didn't want to have anything to do with you, were as Scriptures states "were your enenmy"?



NCHillbilly said:


> If you go through your whole life being a wonderful person, and morally pure,



I only know one who did that.  How many do you know?



NCHillbilly said:


> but don't perform a certain ritual that you may or may not know about, you burn in He11 forever.


 I don't know of any ritual that must be performed. What is it?  I may not have done it.



NCHillbilly said:


> Even if you were born and lived on a remote island and never heard of Jesus.



Who says you have to have heard of Jesus to be saved?



NCHillbilly said:


> Seems a loving deity would be the other way around-you aren't punished unless you prove to be an unworthy person who has done more wrong than right.



You want to be saved by works.  How could you ever keep track of your "goods" and "bads"?  Who decides what is good and bad?  The Bible says Jesus is the plum-line by which all are judged, and no one can meet those standards.

If you put your trust in him and except his sacrifice as payment for your sins, "He is just to forgive you of your sins".


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> If you were the eternal, self sufficient, omnipotent, being what would you do with those who chose to live their lives separated from you?  Didn't want to have anything to do with you, were as Scriptures states "were your enenmy"?
> 
> Well, if I were the deity and wanted my subjects to worship and obey me; then the first thing I would do is to make myself known to them in no uncertain terms instead of hiding somewhere.
> 
> ...



.....


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> Well, if I were the deity and wanted my subjects to worship and obey me; then the first thing I would do is to make myself known to them in no uncertain terms instead of hiding somewhere.
> 
> If the Lord came down this afternoon in a blinding flash of light and stood on top of Clingman's Dome and proclaimed his existence to one and all in a thunderous voice; well, then rest assured that I would probably do exactly what he told me to.



Some of us believe he did come in the form of Jesus and not only proclaimed who he was but also showed it, and many still did not believe.  I am not so sure people would today either.  read the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.  When he comes back the second time many still will not believe.



NCHillbilly said:


> How do you expect someone who has never known you to be unseperated from you?



Everyone is without excuse, God has revealed Himself in creation.




NCHillbilly said:


> Personally, no one. I was speaking theoretically. But I can say that I know quite a few heathens who have a lot more natural morals and behave a lot better toward their fellow man than many who profess to be pious Christians.



You'll get no argument from me there.  I also know quite a few heathens who are terrible toward their fellow man.  Unfortunately that is human nature, but you can't hang that on Jesus.




NCHillbilly said:


> Well, according to every preacher I've ever heard (including the one who created and raised me,) in order to not burn in He11, you must get down on your knees, repent your sins, and ask Jesus to come into your heart and save you. That idea seems quite prevalent throughout the New Testament.



Don't know about MUST get on your knees.  You do have to acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner and accept Christ as your savior.  Not sure I would call that a ritual.





NCHillbilly said:


> See above.
> How do you ask someone you've never heard of to save you if you don't know that you're in need of saving?


Old testament people were saved and they never heard the name of Jesus.

You are talking about what men have said to you.  What does God say about all these things?

If you put your trust in him and except his sacrifice as payment for your sins, "He is just to forgive you of your sins".



NCHillbilly said:


> Exactly. You are reinforcing my argument that according to the Bible, you are flawed and evil and bound for He11 by default.



Not flawed, just sinful.

If someone spent a lifetime throwing rocks at you, would you force them to live in your house forever?

I do see a common thread through the posts of many who don't believe, and I must admit I felt the same way for a lot of my life, we have had some incorrect instruction.

Unfortunately many are too lazy to dig deeper and find the truth, it is so much easier to just walk away.  After all I have better things to do then read some old dry book written by a bunch of crotchety old men.

Thanks for the insights.  

God's peace.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> Some of us believe he did come in the form of Jesus and not only proclaimed who he was but also showed it, and many still did not believe.  I am not so sure people would today either.  read the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.  When he comes back the second time many still will not believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Unfortunately many are too lazy to dig deeper and find the truth, it is so much easier to just walk away.


Just a comment -
And some walk away BECAUSE they have dug deeper not because they are lazy or because its easier.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> Some of us believe he did come in the form of Jesus and not only proclaimed who he was but also showed it, and many still did not believe.  I am not so sure people would today either.  read the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.  When he comes back the second time many still will not believe.
> 
> If he could appear physically 2000 years ago, why not now? And even then, he only interacted with a few people in a few square miles of the globe. Again, why hide if you're God? To trick people into not believing in you so you can gleefully roast them in He11 for not obeying and loving something that logically doesn't appear to exist?
> 
> ...



...


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I wouldn't disagree that there is likely a higher power out there somewhere.



That is where I started, with some higher power.

Spent a lot of years right there.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I wouldn't disagree that there is likely a higher power out there somewhere.



If it is out there somewhere what do you recon it looks like, what do you recon it is like?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> That is where I started, with some higher power.
> 
> Spent a lot of years right there.



I started with the standard version being force-fed to me every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday night, revival week, camp meeting, and bible school week for the first decade and a half of my life. 



Madman said:


> If it is out there somewhere what do you recon it looks like, what do you recon it is like?



I have no idea. If it is indeed an omnipotent power, I cannot presume to know or understand it. Or have no idea why it would care whether or not I wanted to. I think it is possible that maybe every religion is describing a piece of it, like the blind men and the elephant. Maybe no one is right or wrong. 



Madman said:


> Everyone is without excuse, God has revealed Himself in creation.



I agree with that statement more than any of the others. I guess that is why that after a half century on earth; the only religions that make any sense at all to me are of the Native American or Celtic types.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

Old testament people were saved and they never heard the name of Jesus.



NCHillbilly said:


> ...
> 
> Yeah, but they had to sacrifice goats and sheep and rub blood on stuff, not eat shellfish and pigs, not wear clothes of mixed fibers, and suchlike other rituals.



Nah.  They were not save by works, they were saved by grace.  I believe Romans 4 makes that pretty clear.

You are talking about what men have said to you. What does God say about all these things?



NCHillbilly said:


> ...Well, you are saying the same things that everyone else does, so I would assume that it is a consensus among the faithful.



So I'll ask again,  What does God say about these things? Not me or anyone else.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 19, 2017)

> So I'll ask again,  What does God say about these things? Not me or anyone else.



Which one? None of them have ever said anything to me personally. If they did, I would listen. 

We could quote (sometimes completely contradictory) things written by some person in a book at some point in the past back and forth all day long; but I doubt if it will convince either of us. I'll ask: How do you know that what is written in the Bible was actually said by God? Seems as though that is what was said by men, also. I wouldn't convince you of my point of view by asking you what a book attributed to Allah or Buddha or Vishnu or Dagon or Anubis or Athena said about something.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> Which one? None of them have ever said anything to me personally. If they did, I would listen.
> 
> We could quote (sometimes completely contradictory) things written by some person in a book at some point in the past back and forth all day long; but I doubt if it will convince either of us. I'll ask: How do you know that what is written in the Bible was actually said by God? Seems as though that is what was said by men, also. I wouldn't convince you of my point of view by asking you what a book attributed to Allah or Buddha or Vishnu or Dagon or Anubis or Athena said about something.



Our story is similar to a point.  Somewhere in my teens I thought "this is nonsense".  In college I learned a lot of different things, and many of them contradicted each other, it was there I learned if I wanted truth I had to go find it.

Don't know much about Vishnu, or Athena.  I know nothing about Dagon. I did spend time with the Greek and Roman gods so I know a little of Anubis.

I did keep going back Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Islam contradicted itself in many places, and Judaism seemed to be incomplete.  Buddhism was more philosophical, and I am not very philosophical, not to mention that for a young engineer it left a lot of holes.   

Anyway, I still dig, so far Christianity fits what I see in the world better than anything else, even Hawkins, Dawkins, Mohammad, and many others.

I enjoy the discussion.

Ex nihilo nihil fit

Later my friend.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 19, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I started with the standard version being force-fed to me every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday night, revival week, camp meeting, and bible school week for the first decade and a half of my life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That one right there.  Thanks for answering the question almost exactly as I would have.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2017)

NCHillbilly..... 
I have no idea. ......... I think it is possible that maybe every religion is describing a piece of it, like the blind men and the elephant. 

But then you would be saying that all the blind men are wrong and you are right.


NCHillbilly....
Maybe no one is right or wrong.

someone is wrong because they are fundamentally all different, no one is right is a possibility.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 19, 2017)

Madman said:


> NCHillbilly.....
> I have no idea. ......... I think it is possible that maybe every religion is describing a piece of it, like the blind men and the elephant.
> 
> But then you would be saying that all the blind men are wrong and you are right.
> ...



No, I am saying that maybe none of us are right. Maybe we are incapable of understanding God. Perhaps God transcends all religions.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 19, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> That one right there.  Thanks for answering the question almost exactly as I would have.


Well, you cook pretty good, too.


----------



## Israel (Apr 20, 2017)

Whether one believes men are limited to, (at best in their seeking to understand and likewise be manifestly understood by that "omnipotent power") the promulgation of a religion, is of no consequence. 

That, there, is as much presumption as found anywhere.

And all presumption is of no consequence. 
And if any presume Jesus has come to start a religion...even "christianity" in particular, that presumption also, is of no consequence.

Nothing flushes out presumption like the cross. Nothing flushes out what is of no consequence as the work of Jesus Christ.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2017)

Israel said:


> Whether one believes men are limited to, (at best in their seeking to understand and likewise be manifestly understood by that "omnipotent power") the promulgation of a religion, is of no consequence.
> 
> That, there, is as much presumption as found anywhere.
> 
> ...


Liquid Plumber and Draino work as good on similar substances.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Apr 28, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> One thing about Christianity that I don't like is the position that the default setting for everyone on Earth is "roast in He11." If you go through your whole life being a wonderful person, and morally pure, but don't perform a certain ritual that you may or may not know about, you burn in He11 forever. Even if you were born and lived on a remote island and never heard of Jesus.
> 
> Seems a loving deity would be the other way around-you aren't punished unless you prove to be an unworthy person who has done more wrong than right.



Hey, I was just cruising through this thread and others like it trying to get a handle on some of the people who are professional arguers. Daylight to dark carrying on six different arguments a day every day it seems and none of their conversations are anything else but an argument. Not naming names nor bashing anybody, just taking my own notes about some people that are not worth arguing with. Anyway, I saw this here post by hillbilly and just had to say,
 "Hear,hear, this is the way it will be in my heaven."
Well, I guess someone might come on here and tell me how it really is going to be in heaven...
Please don't. This sub-forum is for the A.A.A.'s
I would be more interested to know if anyone ever gets converted over from the AAA column to the Christianity column or vice versa.
Carry on... Respect to all...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

1eyefishing said:


> Hey, I was just cruising through this thread and others like it trying to get a handle on some of the people who are professional arguers. Daylight to dark carrying on six different arguments a day every day it seems and none of their conversations are anything else but an argument. Not naming names nor bashing anybody, just taking my own notes about some people that are not worth arguing with. Anyway, I saw this here post by hillbilly and just had to say,
> "Hear,hear, this is the way it will be in my heaven."
> Well, I guess someone might come on here and tell me how it really is going to be in heaven...
> Please don't. This sub-forum is for the A.A.A.'s
> ...



A guy named TripleXXX became a Christian.  He fell in love and married a Christian girl.  I would guess that had something to do with it.


----------



## Israel (Apr 30, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> One thing about Christianity that I don't like is the position that the default setting for everyone on Earth is "roast in He11." If you go through your whole life being a wonderful person, and morally pure, but don't perform a certain ritual that you may or may not know about, you burn in He11 forever. Even if you were born and lived on a remote island and never heard of Jesus.
> 
> Seems a loving deity would be the other way around-you aren't punished unless you prove to be an unworthy person who has done more wrong than right.



Hey Hillbilly...Ya got a minute?


Jesus says some stuff it's very hard to "get around"... especially if you start to read it. I'll say...for me, anyway. If only me. I'll concede that. I'll leave the broad brush painting to Him, one, for whom I believe He is and has every right to, and secondly, I'm sloppy enough when just trying to paint a baseboard. No need to encourage someone like that to go "whole hog"...if anything, a painter like that needs to be told "trim it up".

I've got no obligation to represent Christianity. Don't really know what that means, anyway. When I see all the problems accruing to just seeking to understand one man, and the things he has said, I'd be more than a liar to think I could answer for probably a billion others today, let alone all those who have gone before. I might as well admit, too, that in the matter of obligation I've got no obligation to even try to answer for Jesus, He pretty well states men answer...only for themselves. It's a curious thing about obligation...we tend to try to equally burden everyone if we are under it. 

We don't much like the guy...(do we?...should I just say "I"?)...that sleeps in the back of the lifeboat, when everyone else is rowing furiously to make landfall. And if that "I" does indeed become a "we" ("hey Roger...see that guy in the back sleeping while we're rowing our butts off? whatta you think of that?") stuff usually follows.

But yeah, "I" can't say that always happens. After all, Roger could say "yeah, that's my brother, he's paralysed from the neck down, mind yer business and keep rowing if you think that's what you should be doing...and leave me to what I think I should be doing! Besides, my brother's narcoleptic, too!" Funny? Who knows?

So, if you can allow for that, I can easily allow for the "benevolent Polynesian" (or whatever you may have had in mind in your response). I can't disavow reading this "I haven't come for the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance". It's way too late for me to think I fall into anything but the second group...but maybe that smiling, affable, and harmless "remote Islander" really does exist, I also can't discount that based on what Jesus has said. 

If I have any "job" in response to what Jesus has said (and firstly and lastly now, it's for me to just believe Him in any and all at any moment) I sure can't discount there could be a "righteous" section of the boat. Yeah, it's true, there's all sorts of other stuff that gets said, but I can only know what I have learned sitting in the "sinner" section. Or especially for me, at least the (possibly, _ only one_) seat. I do know there's at least one sinner seat. (yeah, it could well be true Jesus came only for me..."that" sinner) 

Will I be jealous of the righteous (that might well exist? but for whom he did not need to come?) 

There's a question, huh? Cause I know that jealousy, have tasted it. Can't say savoring it has ever led to anything...but more sin. Leaves a man like me in an odd place if I say Jesus takes away sin but I regret I need Him so much. ("do you want the cure...or don't you? why you still "looking round the boat?" could be a pretty direct question to someone like that) 

Seems like any desire to rid myself of that need (_if_ I do indeed _regret_ needing Him...so very very much) could well leave me sicker...than when found. But hey...it's true...that's "just me". Learning how to bear my need (that I can't deny...and would be stupid to regret) without trying to foist it on everyone else. Yeah, that "obligation sharing thing" often rears its head. "If I'm obliged...then buddy, you are, too!" Who knows, right? Seems an odd way to go about sharing what most like to call "a gift", huh?

Maybe that "need" to look around the boat to see what everyone else is doing (who's sleeping, who's slacking?) is a direct result of feeling burdened. We could say perhaps "well, it's just a pretty normal thing to see who is "helping"...and who is either not...or perceived to be in opposition...even...like rowing backwards!"

Practically speaking it probably happens...but that's not really the question...the question is why? That's kinda the biggy, always, or am I wrong? "Why"? do we do what we do, think like we do, observe what we do (and it seems inescapable, observe others in "what they do"?)
Can it be as simple as "I can't seem to get away from being affected?"

And I am simply the effect of all those affections?

But I don't like some of what affects me...I truly don't. How can I "clean slate it?" How can I ever really know who this person is I can't ever get away from...me...? (Is it true...as it seems "to me"...what a friend at work said? He's worked in x-ray for about 30 years. "No ones x-rays are more interesting to a person...than their own?") He also said this (as I have heard it elsewhere in some other iterations) "There are only two reasons anyone ever does anything...the one they tell you is the reason...and the real one" Cynical? Or closer to true? 

Who knows themselves so well as to say "I know exactly why I do and say everything I do"? And who is not, at least in one sense...interested? Or, at the very least, curious?

So, for me, at any rate (if you care to call me a "christian" I don't mind, but I don't know what that means) no one has ever told me the simple truth like Jesus. As plainly as can be said he told me all I didn't think I could ever want to hear...but because I know it's true...I really can't deny it. I am just an effect of all the things affecting me. That's it. I can't make anything of myself out of myself...to be anything but that. I am just a target you hear go "plinggggg" when it is hit. That's all.

At the end of Tombstone Doc Holliday says "Wyatt, you are the only man who has ever given me hope". I think I like true things when spoken. I don't think Doc would have had to say "hey, I also have to admit, I didn't always act in hope or speak in hope, I sometimes acted of fear, and anger, and jealousy, and bitterness...but to you Wyatt, it's important I let you know what you mean to me...despite all the other garbage you have no doubt seen of me".

So I can have little other response myself to the only man who has ever both...told me the truth about myself, and also given me hope at the same time. I'm just an effect...nothing more. But...it's okay. To just be that.

So, in this little pool of AAA postings...what "of your effect"...affects me?
Yeah...it's something Jesus said about sheep and goats. You kinda called it to mind...do you know it?

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy[a] angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.  All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.  And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.  Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;  I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

 “Then they also will answer Him,* saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’  Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’  And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”



Do you notice anything?
The sheep didn't say "Oh yeah, Jesus...we read about your parable of sheep and goats "in the Bible", and so we made "Feed the Hungry Ministry International...LLC" and "Clothe the Naked of the World...LLC" and "Visit the Sick for Jesus!...LLC"...cause after all...we knew we couldn't "get into Heaven" without trying to do what you told us.

No, the "righteous" didn't even know what they were doing...when they were doing it. I don't think they even knew why...they just "did".

I could blame the world...or the devil...or some such for affecting me in such a way as to tell me "you're smart (or at least...should be)...and smart people should know why they do what they do" (and I don't think I am the only man ever "pressed" [felt obligated]...to be smart...or at least smart enough to "know what you're doing"). But, the truth is out about me, who could deny it? I haven't a clue.   

But the same one who told me I'm just an effect, absolutely clueless (how could he get away with that...when I'm ready to fight anyone else about it?) Also said this: "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do".


There's a forgiveness to be found, only found...toward the clueless. 

I have learned...I can't afford to forfeit that.

I don't think smart people get "tricked" by Jesus, they just may find out they only tricked themselves.


It lets me be...without me having to supply my reason for being. Or why I even do...anything. 

Like this.*


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2017)

NC Hillbilly, you have just been the victim of a random blogging.


----------



## NCHillbilly (May 8, 2017)

Israel said:


> Hey Hillbilly...Ya got a minute?
> 
> 
> Jesus says some stuff it's very hard to "get around"... especially if you start to read it. I'll say...for me, anyway. If only me. I'll concede that. I'll leave the broad brush painting to Him, one, for whom I believe He is and has every right to, and secondly, I'm sloppy enough when just trying to paint a baseboard. No need to encourage someone like that to go "whole hog"...if anything, a painter like that needs to be told "trim it up".
> ...


*

Just found this. Wow. I think about half of that went right over my head and the rest of it is still in orbit somewhere. 

If I understand any of what you're getting at, it's somewhat in line with what I was saying earlier - when I was told in no uncertain terms that works and deeds or being a good person doesn't make you righteous or able to enter heaven or avoid roasting in He!!; that only performing the repentance ritual will get you there. 

I don't know if I'm a sheep or a goat. I don't call myself a Christian, but I was raised by a Baptist preacher; so I don't have anything against Christianity unless it's pushed on me. I don't follow it, but I respect it if you do. 

There hasn't anybody ever went hungry much around me, for sure. I would help you row the lifeboat, but I didn't go bail this feller out of jail that called me one time wanting me to; because he was a meth head and a thief and I figured prison was a good enough place for him. *


----------



## Israel (May 9, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> Just found this. Wow. I think about half of that went right over my head and the rest of it is still in orbit somewhere.
> 
> If I understand any of what you're getting at, it's somewhat in line with what I was saying earlier - when I was told in no uncertain terms that works and deeds or being a good person doesn't make you righteous or able to enter heaven or avoid roasting in He!!; that only performing the repentance ritual will get you there.
> 
> ...



Hey, thanks for reading and responding.
As to not knowing of whether one is sheep or goat, I get that.
I've been around a certain set of folks...seems mostly my whole life, who, in one form or another were more glad about being "not one of them" than they were glad to be alive. I can't blame "those folks"...cause I'm pretty sure the attraction to me was more about my wanting to be "not like others" than anything I could blame them for.
So friends were chosen, position and estate, more according to that than anything else. I've always wanted to get rid of the feeling of being an "outsider", by selling myself off to most anyone who would help me feel like an "insider". 
When I was put in special classes I could tell myself "at least I'm not like the dumber kids".
When I had no money at all, I could find a way to tell myself "at least I'm not like the greedy folks".  When I finally came face to face with Jesus, (or at least thought I did) I found a whole other group I could sell myself to. Things _seemed_ _fine_ till something happened.

I can't put my finger on it as to particular time or event...but something happened. The group was safety for something _in me_, but never resolved the desire to be a stand out...in that group. The pull of belonging met the need to be unique, of seeing that thing that could never let go of me...being...me. (cause I think the truth of it was, whenever I felt "comfortable" enough in any group to let the "me" out...sideways glances from the group seemed to follow). There was always a thing about "toeing the line" that met "me"..."no lines for my toes!".

Like I said, I can't really recall the moment. But somehow I came to hear a resolution that is almost unwelcome, but I can't shake because inside I know it's absolutely true.
"Don't worry or fret, you are completely unique...just like everyone else". Being the "them".


----------

