# Converting the dying



## atlashunter

I understand the concern that a loved one might get sent to the hot place if they haven't crossed the right T's and dotted the right I's in this life. If someone really believes that then of course they would want to help. What I can't wrap my mind around is why the believer can't step back from that situation and ask the question "Does my loved one really deserve to be cast in an eternal fire?". Never seems to cross their mind that anyone who might do that to their loved one is unworthy of their love and admiration.


----------



## stringmusic

A more prudent question might be, "why does my loved one not want to go to heaven?"


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> A more prudent question might be, "why does my loved one not want to go to heaven?"



That one is more easily answered.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> I understand the concern that a loved one might get sent to the hot place if they haven't crossed the right T's and dotted the right I's in this life. If someone really believes that then of course they would want to help. What I can't wrap my mind around is why the believer can't step back from that situation and ask the question "Does my loved one really deserve to be cast in an eternal fire?". Never seems to cross their mind that anyone who might do that to their loved one is unworthy of their love and admiration.





> What I can't wrap my mind around is why the believer can't step back from that situation and ask the question "Does my loved one really deserve to be cast in an eternal fire?"


My opinion is you are underestimating the power their belief/indoctrination/fear has over their thinking process.


> "Does my loved one really deserve to be cast in an eternal fire?"


That is questioning God.
That would be putting themselves in the same boat as their loved one.
As much as they love their loved one, not being in that boat with them trumps all.

Its easy for "us" to ask that question.
We don't believe there is a boat to be in.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> My opinion is you are underestimating the power their belief/indoctrination/fear has over their thinking process.
> 
> That is questioning God.
> That would be putting themselves in the same boat as their loved one.
> As much as they love their loved one, not being in that boat with them trumps all.
> 
> Its easy for "us" to ask that question.
> We don't believe there is a boat to be in.



I honestly never even considered that question when I was a believer. At least not until years later when my belief was waning. It wasn't that I was afraid. The morality of the whole claim just never really crossed my mind in that way. It's interesting to consider how I would have responded or rationalized it if someone had asked me. But no way even then could I have said yes if they don't believe then they deserve to be cast into a fire. What an evil thing to say or believe about anyone but especially about someone you love.


----------



## atlashunter

That also raises another question Walt. What is wrong with questioning the righteous?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> I honestly never even considered that question when I was a believer. At least not until years later when my belief was waning. It wasn't that I was afraid. The morality of the whole claim just never really crossed my mind in that way. It's interesting to consider how I would have responded or rationalized it if someone had asked me. But know way even then could I have said yes if they don't believe then they deserve to be cast into a fire. What an evil thing to say or believe about anyone but especially about someone you love.


I'm not questioning you BUT I kind of think you are supporting my opinion -


> I honestly never even considered that question when I was a believer.


Exactly.


> not until years later when my belief was waning


Exactly.


> The morality of the whole claim just never really crossed my mind in that way.


Exactly.


> It's interesting to consider how I would have responded or rationalized it if someone had asked me.


I bet I can guess - depending on when you were asked - believer vs. belief waning.


> What an evil thing to say or believe about anyone but especially about someone you love.


But you did believe it. So did I. About anybody, loved ones included.
It wasn't evil then. It was God's word.
Now it seems evil to both of us.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not questioning you BUT I kind of think you are supporting my opinion -
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> I bet I can guess -depending on when you were asked - believer vs. belief waning.
> 
> But you did believe it. So did I. About anybody, loved ones included.
> It wasn't evil then. It was God's word.
> Now it seems evil to both of us.



Yeah I was just making the point that at least in my case it wasn't that I answered that question dishonestly out of fear. I just never answered it at all because I hadn't really thought through the implications.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Yeah I was just making the point that at least in my case it wasn't that I answered that question dishonestly out of fear. I just never answered it at all because I hadn't really thought through the implications.


For me, I don't think I would have viewed there being ANY "implications". The only implications there would be only applied to the people who didn't believe or questioned it.
Come to think of it though everybody I knew believed also so the question never got asked/thought about.
Until I asked myself. And I couldn't even imagine asking myself that until the time came that I was questioning the whole shebang.


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Unfortunately, questioning God is EXACTLY what we should all be doing!  Seriously, ASK GOD.  Don't expect simple contemporary, politically correct answers.

I agree with atlashunter that grace is not a checklist, nor is it exclusive to a rigid belief system.  But where the definition expressed by focused absolutists and relaxed anything goes free thinkers BOTH get it wrong is the "heaven thing."  Even most clergy today seem to miss the obvious when wandering around in the Gospels.  The road to heaven is NOT paved!

God does not have a checklist - but most of us choose to substitute qualifiers for grace - on both sides of the issue of eternal life.  In fact, we mostly seem to think "heaven" is something "then and there" as a reward for meeting the minimum standards for acceptance.  It is easier (I think) for people to choose "abstaining" from faith when the choices are follow these rules or go to Hello!

In the Gospels, a wandering Jewish preacher with an exotic collection of conservative and "meh'" Jews as followers describes a way to LIVE that is as close to God as it is possible to be.  Not a heaven to be hoped for when you die, THE heaven to be lived every day right here, right now.

No rules, just grace.  No waiting, act now for immediate delivery!  That is what the man was saying, read it for yourself.  Live heaven and you will be heaven and you have the opportunity to be a gateway to heaven for those around you.  Neat stuff - essentially - do all you know in your heart that is right, do it all the time, do it only because it is right, and enjoy it because, well, it fun!  And presto - chango - you are in God's living presence - (the definition of heaven). 

Before a host of believers and crowds of naysayers descend upon my backside in agitated fury, PLEASE do not take my words to mean any exclusion of an eternal life in God's presence, nor am I claiming an "EASY" shortcut to God.  I am saying that, Jesus promised all of us that we didn't have to wait 'till we died to get there!  Heaven is a life lived in God's light - and that is something anyone CAN do right now (this comes from a reputable source!)  In a world of intense distractions it might not be easy! (understatement)

But do NOT ignore the Biblical fact that the only way to the Father is through the Son.  Just be very careful with placing your human rules on how anyone goes through the Son!  If you really love that poor lost and Godless slob atlashunter mentioned, then do your best to live - in that slob's presence - a life perfect in grace and glowing with the joy of God's presence.  Every child ever born of woman will feel the pull of the Son that is always present in a grace filled heart.  Thru the Son, does not mean only through the permission of the Sr Pastor at All Glory and Saints Before Us Church of the Sunday Son - or any other set of human rules.  

I suggest that a Gracefilled person save the ritual, the soothing cadence of familiar liturgy, format of structured worship, for a time when those who already share a common faith can gather an share their joys and pains in worship.  When a faithful follower of Christ has to deal with doubt, hardness of heart, fear and concerns in someone who does not "feel the love" reciting the Lord's Prayer, singing "On A Hill Far Away" and citing a list of rules will NOT affirm faith, melt hearts, give courage or ease concerns.  

Sharing a sandwich with chips and a soda, pleasant conversation, and genuine concern is probably a better first step.  Step two might be letting them shoot your prize smokepole, or it might be helping them through a crisis.  There are not a whole lot of rules when it come to evangelism, or grace - too bad folks seem to want to put rules there.

I am a Christian.  That means I am a sinner, I am an imperfect shadow of what God wants me to be.  That's why I do ask God, argue with God, challenge God.  I have been angry at God.  I have sulked and refused to talk to God.  Some might say that's all wrong.  I say it is not just right, it is well on the way to heaven. That's is because I have knowingly been in God's presence for a long time.  We're family.  I sometimes get a bit touchy hanging around with a family member who is literally PERFECT!  God IS, I am not.  We're working on it!


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> Unfortunately, questioning God is EXACTLY what we should all be doing!  Seriously, ASK GOD.  Don't expect simple contemporary, politically correct answers.
> 
> I agree with atlashunter that grace is not a checklist, nor is it exclusive to a rigid belief system.  But where the definition expressed by focused absolutists and relaxed anything goes free thinkers BOTH get it wrong is the "heaven thing."  Even most clergy today seem to miss the obvious when wandering around in the Gospels.  The road to heaven is NOT paved!
> 
> God does not have a checklist - but most of us choose to substitute qualifiers for grace - on both sides of the issue of eternal life.  In fact, we mostly seem to think "heaven" is something "then and there" as a reward for meeting the minimum standards for acceptance.  It is easier (I think) for people to choose "abstaining" from faith when the choices are follow these rules or go to Hello!
> 
> In the Gospels, a wandering Jewish preacher with an exotic collection of conservative and "meh'" Jews as followers describes a way to LIVE that is as close to God as it is possible to be.  Not a heaven to be hoped for when you die, THE heaven to be lived every day right here, right now.
> 
> No rules, just grace.  No waiting, act now for immediate delivery!  That is what the man was saying, read it for yourself.  Live heaven and you will be heaven and you have the opportunity to be a gateway to heaven for those around you.  Neat stuff - essentially - do all you know in your heart that is right, do it all the time, do it only because it is right, and enjoy it because, well, it fun!  And presto - chango - you are in God's living presence - (the definition of heaven).
> 
> Before a host of believers and crowds of naysayers descend upon my backside in agitated fury, PLEASE do not take my words to mean any exclusion of an eternal life in God's presence, nor am I claiming an "EASY" shortcut to God.  I am saying that, Jesus promised all of us that we didn't have to wait 'till we died to get there!  Heaven is a life lived in God's light - and that is something anyone CAN do right now (this comes from a reputable source!)  In a world of intense distractions it might not be easy! (understatement)
> 
> But do NOT ignore the Biblical fact that the only way to the Father is through the Son.  Just be very careful with placing your human rules on how anyone goes through the Son!  If you really love that poor lost and Godless slob atlashunter mentioned, then do your best to live - in that slob's presence - a life perfect in grace and glowing with the joy of God's presence.  Every child ever born of woman will feel the pull of the Son that is always present in a grace filled heart.  Thru the Son, does not mean only through the permission of the Sr Pastor at All Glory and Saints Before Us Church of the Sunday Son - or any other set of human rules.
> 
> I suggest that a Gracefilled person save the ritual, the soothing cadence of familiar liturgy, format of structured worship, for a time when those who already share a common faith can gather an share their joys and pains in worship.  When a faithful follower of Christ has to deal with doubt, hardness of heart, fear and concerns in someone who does not "feel the love" reciting the Lord's Prayer, singing "On A Hill Far Away" and citing a list of rules will NOT affirm faith, melt hearts, give courage or ease concerns.
> 
> Sharing a sandwich with chips and a soda, pleasant conversation, and genuine concern is probably a better first step.  Step two might be letting them shoot your prize smokepole, or it might be helping them through a crisis.  There are not a whole lot of rules when it come to evangelism, or grace - too bad folks seem to want to put rules there.
> 
> I am a Christian.  That means I am a sinner, I am an imperfect shadow of what God wants me to be.  That's why I do ask God, argue with God, challenge God.  I have been angry at God.  I have sulked and refused to talk to God.  Some might say that's all wrong.  I say it is not just right, it is well on the way to heaven. That's is because I have knowingly been in God's presence for a long time.  We're family.  I sometimes get a bit touchy hanging around with a family member who is literally PERFECT!  God IS, I am not.  We're working on it!





> Unfortunately, questioning God is EXACTLY what we should all be doing!  Seriously, ASK GOD.  Don't expect simple contemporary, politically correct answers.


Is there ANY answer that God could give you to your questions that would cause you to walk away from him?


----------



## atlashunter

Thanks Bob. It's interesting that you get all of that from the book yet others might get something from the book so different that you have to back off the disagreements you know are inevitably coming. It's almost as if that book was a compilation of writings by different people in different times with differing messages and agendas that allows a reader to construct their own conflicting messages all with scriptural backing. But I digress. I do agree with you that we should make the most of this life and live it as well and as fully as we can.

Did you want to touch on the original point of the justice or injustice of throwing people in an eternal fire?


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> For me, I don't think I would have viewed there being ANY "implications". The only implications there would be only applied to the people who didn't believe or questioned it.
> Come to think of it though everybody I knew believed also so the question never got asked/thought about.
> Until I asked myself. And I couldn't even imagine asking myself that until the time came that I was questioning the whole shebang.



I brought this topic up with a believing family member. They don't believe anyone deserves to burn for an eternity. Basically to make a long answer short the devil is to blame. The hot place was originally created for him and not for people but he separates people from god and so has power over them. My response was the claims of god's omnipotence and omniscience. That both the devil and the hot place are supposed to be his creations. Made with full knowledge of the future. It's really hard to have a scapegoat when you know everything and can do anything. They didn't have an answer to that but believe anyway.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

who are we to determine what is just and unjust?

we don't know it all, and for certain we make faulty judgement.

why do we feel that God should conform to our expectation of fairness?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> I brought this topic up with a believing family member. They don't believe anyone deserves to burn for an eternity. Basically to make a long answer short the devil is to blame. The hot place was originally created for him and not for people but he separates people from god and so has power over them. My response was the claims of god's omnipotence and omniscience. That both the devil and the hot place are supposed to be his creations. Made with full knowledge of the future. It's really hard to have a scapegoat when you know everything and can do anything. They didn't have an answer to that but believe anyway.


Right. Any responsibility for something they may disagree with is taken off God.
Its the Devil's fault.
Its the person's/people's fault.
Its the Church's fault.
Its the insert scapegoat of choice here fault.

And in the next sentence say God created all, controls all etc. etc.
Very selective reasoning. And why?
Again in my opinion -


> That is questioning God.
> That would be putting themselves in the same boat as their loved one.
> As much as they love their loved one, not being in that boat with them trumps all.


Kind of why I asked Bob the above question in his response.
There is a big difference in asking God questions and questioning God.


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> who are we to determine what is just and unjust?
> 
> we don't know it all, and for certain we make faulty judgement.
> 
> why do we feel that God should conform to our expectation of fairness?





> who are we to determine what is just and unjust?


Years ago I asked a judge a very similar question.
I didn't like his answer.


> we don't know it all, and for certain we make faulty judgement.


No argument there.


> why do we feel that God should conform to our expectation of fairness?


I'm assuming this question is for the As not the AAs.


----------



## JB0704

I grew up believing that questioning the "almighty God" would punch my ticket to hades quickly.  Then, I started reading for myself, and realized asking questions is alright........why would I read unless I was looking for answers?

As to the rest, and really, the point of the OP:  I never have been able to wrap my head around heaven or he11.  Neither could imact my belief in God.  Think about it.........let's assume God is a mean God, does that make him less God?  What if he is benevolent, would that make him less God?  If God is God, then he remains God regardless of our opinions of him or his methods.

Like I said, I don't think on heaven or he11 much.  My thoughts on heaven are heavily influenced by whut I was taught in Sunday school about it, and as a kid, I couldn't help but thinking "Singing hymns forever? How Boring!"  He11, obviously, was never a great alternative.  So, given that I don't dwell on it too much, I currently just hope that somehow I know my wife n kids n loved ones when I'm there.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> who are we to determine what is just and unjust?
> 
> we don't know it all, and for certain we make faulty judgement.
> 
> why do we feel that God should conform to our expectation of fairness?



Christians open that can of worms when they make the assessment that god is good. You can't have it both ways. I believe this is what Sam Harris called playing tennis without the net.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> I grew up believing that questioning the "almighty God" would punch my ticket to hades quickly.  Then, I started reading for myself, and realized asking questions is alright........why would I read unless I was looking for answers?
> 
> As to the rest, and really, the point of the OP:  I never have been able to wrap my head around heaven or he11.  Neither could imact my belief in God.  Think about it.........let's assume God is a mean God, does that make him less God?  What if he is benevolent, would that make him less God?  If God is God, then he remains God regardless of our opinions of him or his methods.



The question is about the character and morality of this god. Sure, power is power regardless of to what end it is used. That's not the question at hand.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't think about Heaven or He11 that much either. To me it's more of an eternal life vs death concept. Therefore the morality of God concerning eternal burning isn't a concept I believe in.
I guess I could question why some gain eternal life and others don't.

Regarding my fear of loved ones, all of my loved ones are Christians so I never had a fear of any of them burning in He11 even when I believed in that concept.

Maybe my belief that non-believers die when they die makes it easier for me to digest God being moral vs a belief in eternal torment in fire.


----------



## Israel

The believer has had this question answered.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> The believer has had this question answered.



And the answer is?


----------



## GeorgiaBob

"Is there any answer God could give . . . that would cause you to walk away from him?"

I tried running away from God when I was younger, faster and less informed.    Didn't work.  God's answers to my questions are seldom what I want to hear and never less than what I need to have.

At issue is your faith that you have "control" in spite of, or in the absence of, God.  Good luck with that.  I see a world that we can only react to, a world created by a power we will never be capable of understanding, to which we - also created - were given free reign to manage, and free will to choose how we manage.  But that world, and that will, is an ongoing process wherein we live with the consequences of the choices made by prior generations (the real "sins of the fathers") and spend our lives either working in sync with that Creator's hopes for us, in ignorance of the power of right, or in opposition to creation.

It is truly simple.  Do you reject God?  I am not asking whether you reject Baptist church going, or the mystic power of reciting "Our Father," or the catchy name "God," or even whether you reject the Bible.  Do you reject God the Creator, God the concept and power of right and wrong, God the beginning and the end of all existence?  Do you reject God?   I get that people don't like a lot of the rules others have built around "being faithful."  There are a bunch I don't like either.  That's not relevant to the question.

I get that some people are willing to throw out an official structure that has hidden perverts, condoned evil, sought wealth before ministry, and hidden behind those rules.  All of that is something built by people, not God.  The "official" church is a human endeavor and at it's best only poorly reflects a tiny portion of the Creator.  At it's usual (not even it's worst) the church reflects mostly man's fumbling, flailing, faults, with only a hint of something possibly better.  Church is not God, but (sometimes - when it is not blathering the latest PC craze) it is still capable of helping God's people (that really means all of us, even the ones I don't like very much) find a way to be better.

Walt, I don't need your answer, but at some point I believe you will need to answer that question in your own life.

Atlashunter, to your question of heaven and he11, my first flippant response is, "Whose heaven, which he11?"

Both "destinations" are mentioned, but not defined, in the Bible (a collection of books, agreed by scholars, leaders and theologians over many generations, to contain the most relevant human writings capable of guiding people into a closer relationship with the one God of all creation - that Bible).  Over thousands of years, people have chosen to add their own "coloring" to heaven and to he11.  I only know one can be ours, here and now, if we choose - and the other is not something any sane person wants, ever.

I do not believe that anyone can condemn another to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation, or that God chooses to condemn.  I know my assertion contradicts some church teaching, but that's their problem, not mine.  The way I read the Bible teachings;  Heaven is about living well, doing right by all, all the time, in the comfortable presence of the Creator;  He11 is total, intentional, personal separation from creation.  God doesn't send someone to he11.  Some people choose he11, but not God.  The only connection between God and he11 is the free choices God gifts to all of us.  Some people make really, really bad choices - and then refuse to change.  God doesn't force that.  My (not necessarily perfect or complete) understanding of God's will is that God doesn't want that either.  He11 is choosing to be evil and sticking to that choice!

And about that misused Bible.  For a few generations some people have been arguing that the second amendment was intended for the militia and that the "old idea of militia is replaced with the national guard" so ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.  Others insist that the only "arms" the people should be allowed are flintlocks, since that is all that people had "back then."  I have noticed that few on this forum are of that misguided opinion.

The Bible, like the US Constitution, is subject to misinterpretation and reinterpretation by people who weren't there and don't share the original motivations of the writers.  The other similarity between the two is the multiple authors.  Mason did not write our constitution.  Moses did not write our Bible.   Both had a hand in what was written.  I believe that God had a hand, also.  The writers of the constitution prayed and practiced (as best they knew) a faithful effort in their endeavors to frame a "more perfect union."  I think God answered their prayers.

I think God inspired the many various writers, redactors, editors, reviewers and assemblers, who put together the books that came to be known as the Bible.  I do believe that it is, "the inspired Word of God."  I also believe that is is a human creation, and whether we read it in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, French, middle English, or modern English, we are reading human translations of human works, subject to misunderstanding, and misuse.

You commented on the different subjective meanings some take from the Bible and that misuse.  I agree with you.  The Bible has been misused.  So has the Constitution.  It doesn't invalidate the constitution, or make it wrong.  I would argue that the Constitution, even before it was amended, was a very good document and after (most) of the amendments is better.  Likewise I argue that the Bible, though amended many times more than the constitution, is even better than anything else.


----------



## hummerpoo

JB0704 said:


> I grew up believing that questioning the "almighty God" would punch my ticket to hades quickly.  Then, I started reading for myself, and realized asking questions is alright........why would I read unless I was looking for answers?
> 
> As to the rest, and really, the point of the OP:   I never have been able to wrap my head around heaven or he11.  Neither could imact my belief in God.  Think about it.........let's assume God is a mean God, does that make him less God?  What if he is benevolent, would that make him less God?  If God is God, then he remains God regardless of our opinions of him or his methods.
> 
> Like I said, I don't think on heaven or he11 much.  My thoughts on heaven are heavily influenced by whut I was taught in Sunday school about it, and as a kid, I couldn't help but thinking "Singing hymns forever? How Boring!"  He11, obviously, was never a great alternative.  So, given that I don't dwell on it too much, I currently just hope that somehow I know my wife n kids n loved ones when I'm there.


“flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”
The first step toward all that GeorgiaBob said in #10


GeorgiaBob said:


> ... No rules, just grace.  ...






Israel said:


> The believer has had this question answered.


----------



## j_seph

Heaven or Hell0 is a choice like mentioned above, God does not wish that any perish and go to that later. True Christians do not wish that anyone would go their either. I guess I would have to question the one making the choices they do as to why would they not seek after Heaven over the other. I can honestly say that Atlas, Walt and others that even though you do not believe if something were to happen to either of you I would still take time out of my day to offer up a prayer for you. Even along the lines of asking that the Lord make himself known unto y'all before it was too late and give one more chance to y'all. As my Father in heaven I to do not wish that any should die and go to Hell0 but I cannot twist your arm, repent your sins and shortcomings, it is a choice that y'all have to make.


----------



## ambush80

GeorgiaBob,

Is God omniscient and omnipotent? If he is then there is no free will.  _That_ god is sovereign and is in control and knowledgeable of every blade of grass and every stray bullet.  I'm going by the definitions of the words omniscient and omnipotent.


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> Heaven or Hell0 is a choice like mentioned above, God does not wish that any perish and go to that later. True Christians do not wish that anyone would go their either. I guess I would have to question the one making the choices they do as to why would they not seek after Heaven over the other. I can honestly say that Atlas, Walt and others that even though you do not believe if something were to happen to either of you I would still take time out of my day to offer up a prayer for you. Even along the lines of asking that the Lord make himself known unto y'all before it was too late and give one more chance to y'all. As my Father in heaven I to do not wish that any should die and go to Hell0 but I cannot twist your arm, repent your sins and shortcomings, it is a choice that y'all have to make.



j seph,

I ask you the same question I asked GeorgiaBob.


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> "Is there any answer God could give . . . that would cause you to walk away from him?"
> 
> I tried running away from God when I was younger, faster and less informed.    Didn't work.  God's answers to my questions are seldom what I want to hear and never less than what I need to have.
> 
> At issue is your faith that you have "control" in spite of, or in the absence of, God.  Good luck with that.  I see a world that we can only react to, a world created by a power we will never be capable of understanding, to which we - also created - were given free reign to manage, and free will to choose how we manage.  But that world, and that will, is an ongoing process wherein we live with the consequences of the choices made by prior generations (the real "sins of the fathers") and spend our lives either working in sync with that Creator's hopes for us, in ignorance of the power of right, or in opposition to creation.
> 
> It is truly simple.  Do you reject God?  I am not asking whether you reject Baptist church going, or the mystic power of reciting "Our Father," or the catchy name "God," or even whether you reject the Bible.  Do you reject God the Creator, God the concept and power of right and wrong, God the beginning and the end of all existence?  Do you reject God?   I get that people don't like a lot of the rules others have built around "being faithful."  There are a bunch I don't like either.  That's not relevant to the question.
> 
> I get that some people are willing to throw out an official structure that has hidden perverts, condoned evil, sought wealth before ministry, and hidden behind those rules.  All of that is something built by people, not God.  The "official" church is a human endeavor and at it's best only poorly reflects a tiny portion of the Creator.  At it's usual (not even it's worst) the church reflects mostly man's fumbling, flailing, faults, with only a hint of something possibly better.  Church is not God, but (sometimes - when it is not blathering the latest PC craze) it is still capable of helping God's people (that really means all of us, even the ones I don't like very much) find a way to be better.
> 
> Walt, I don't need your answer, but at some point I believe you will need to answer that question in your own life.
> 
> Atlashunter, to your question of heaven and he11, my first flippant response is, "Whose heaven, which he11?"
> 
> Both "destinations" are mentioned, but not defined, in the Bible (a collection of books, agreed by scholars, leaders and theologians over many generations, to contain the most relevant human writings capable of guiding people into a closer relationship with the one God of all creation - that Bible).  Over thousands of years, people have chosen to add their own "coloring" to heaven and to he11.  I only know one can be ours, here and now, if we choose - and the other is not something any sane person wants, ever.
> 
> I do not believe that anyone can condemn another to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation, or that God chooses to condemn.  I know my assertion contradicts some church teaching, but that's their problem, not mine.  The way I read the Bible teachings;  Heaven is about living well, doing right by all, all the time, in the comfortable presence of the Creator;  He11 is total, intentional, personal separation from creation.  God doesn't send someone to he11.  Some people choose he11, but not God.  The only connection between God and he11 is the free choices God gifts to all of us.  Some people make really, really bad choices - and then refuse to change.  God doesn't force that.  My (not necessarily perfect or complete) understanding of God's will is that God doesn't want that either.  He11 is choosing to be evil and sticking to that choice!
> 
> And about that misused Bible.  For a few generations some people have been arguing that the second amendment was intended for the militia and that the "old idea of militia is replaced with the national guard" so ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.  Others insist that the only "arms" the people should be allowed are flintlocks, since that is all that people had "back then."  I have noticed that few on this forum are of that misguided opinion.
> 
> The Bible, like the US Constitution, is subject to misinterpretation and reinterpretation by people who weren't there and don't share the original motivations of the writers.  The other similarity between the two is the multiple authors.  Mason did not write our constitution.  Moses did not write our Bible.   Both had a hand in what was written.  I believe that God had a hand, also.  The writers of the constitution prayed and practiced (as best they knew) a faithful effort in their endeavors to frame a "more perfect union."  I think God answered their prayers.
> 
> I think God inspired the many various writers, redactors, editors, reviewers and assemblers, who put together the books that came to be known as the Bible.  I do believe that it is, "the inspired Word of God."  I also believe that is is a human creation, and whether we read it in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, French, middle English, or modern English, we are reading human translations of human works, subject to misunderstanding, and misuse.
> 
> You commented on the different subjective meanings some take from the Bible and that misuse.  I agree with you.  The Bible has been misused.  So has the Constitution.  It doesn't invalidate the constitution, or make it wrong.  I would argue that the Constitution, even before it was amended, was a very good document and after (most) of the amendments is better.  Likewise I argue that the Bible, though amended many times more than the constitution, is even better than anything else.





> It is truly simple.  Do you reject God?  I am not asking whether you reject Baptist church going, or the mystic power of reciting "Our Father," or the catchy name "God," or even whether you reject the Bible.  Do you reject God the Creator, God the concept and power of right and wrong, God the beginning and the end of all existence?  Do you reject God?   I get that people don't like a lot of the rules others have built around "being faithful."  There are a bunch I don't like either.  That's not relevant to the question.


I do not reject the possibility of a god.
I reject Christianity's claim to "know all about" that god.
So while I imagine you will disagree, there isn't a single thing that you think "you know" about God (the Christian one) that can't be traced right back to Christianity and their idea of what this god is.


> a power we will never be capable of understanding,


Yet in the exact same post, literally in the next sentence,
you described God as the Creator, the concept of right and wrong, the beginning and end of all existence.....
So, just like Christianity does, you are claiming we will never be capable of understanding God and then go on to describe the attributes of God.

Those attributes describe what you understand God to be.
The same God that you/Christianity claim we will never be able to understand.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I do not reject the possibility of a god.
> I reject Christianity's claim to "know all about" that god.
> So while I imagine you will disagree, there isn't a single thing that you think "you know" about God (the Christian one) that can't be traced right back to Christianity and their idea of what this god is.
> 
> Yet in the exact same post, literally in the next sentence,
> you described God as the Creator, the concept of right and wrong, the beginning and end of all existence.....
> So, just like Christianity does, you are claiming we will never be capable of understanding God and then go on to describe the attributes of God.
> 
> Those attributes describe what you understand God to be.
> The same God that you/Christianity claim we will never be able to understand.



I remember asking "So which is it, God is beyond comprehension or God gives people discernment so that they (specifically) can understand Him?"  To which jmharris23 (who I admire for his honesty) said "Yes, and Yes".

It makes me think of the parable that NCHillbilly brought up one time about the blind men, each touching a small part of an elephant, trying to tell everyone what is before them.  Though when it comes to an idea like "God", I think a better parable would be "Blind cavemen each touching a part of a 747".  They might say it's a dragon.  I think the notion of God is better examined by neuroscience, anthropology, and psychology.

Clearly, people have an affinity to the notion of "Beings of Higher Powers".  Is that because they exist or is it something else?  Is it because God imprinted an sense of Himself on us or is "He" a byproduct of our big brain?  I think a clue should be taken from how many things like god(s) people have imagined that have turned out to be false; also from things that some people are still willing to believe that have been shown to be false.  I conclude that God is an error in reading the coding that has been perpetuated.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> And the answer is?



The answer is in the one who in will and purpose suffered being cut off from all of Good for your sake...and mine.

In this we are both equal, both men, so surrounded by a goodness we cannot begin to perceive as ever subject to an absence.

The fish that _can see_ water must live by something other than finding a prey. It can only _be_ by a something that brings its necessities _to it_. Other fish that can "see through" water will be directed by their necessities. But they will never know they live only, and by, water.


----------



## j_seph

ambush80 said:


> GeorgiaBob,
> 
> Is God omniscient and omnipotent? If he is then there is no free will.  _That_ god is sovereign and is in control and knowledgeable of every blade of grass and every stray bullet.  I'm going by the definitions of the words omniscient and omnipotent.





ambush80 said:


> j seph,
> 
> I ask you the same question I asked GeorgiaBob.


Typing in a hurry, probably won't make sense but to simplify ahead of time "My God is not a control freak"
omniscient
possessed of universal or complete knowledge

omnipotent
1.almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2.having very great or unlimited authority or power.

In each definition I do not see where it leads to not having freewill. To me that is looking at God with a carnal mind sort of like thinking "Well if I was God I would stop this or that, I would make this one do this or that" God has a plan, it is our choice if we follow that plan. I have had times where I was supposed to say or do something at church, I failed to move and do it. Someone else did it and got the blessing. See a loving God would have no need to control you like a puppet. We all have choices to make, if God was a control freak what would be the point of us even being here. 

Proverbs 16:9 - A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Revelation  3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my  voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,  and he with me.


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> Typing in a hurry, probably won't make sense but to simplify ahead of time "My God is not a control freak"
> omniscient
> possessed of universal or complete knowledge
> 
> omnipotent
> 1.almighty or infinite in power, as God.
> 2.having very great or unlimited authority or power.
> 
> In each definition I do not see where it leads to not having freewill. To me that is looking at God with a carnal mind sort of like thinking "Well if I was God I would stop this or that, I would make this one do this or that" God has a plan, it is our choice if we follow that plan. I have had times where I was supposed to say or do something at church, I failed to move and do it. Someone else did it and got the blessing. See a loving God would have no need to control you like a puppet. We all have choices to make, if God was a control freak what would be the point of us even being here.
> 
> Proverbs 16:9 - A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
> 
> Revelation  3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my  voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,  and he with me.



I can see already that you haven't ironed out your beliefs in this statement "God has a plan, it is our choice if we follow that plan."

To the part in blue: Does He know who will open the door and who will not?  If He does, then where is the choice?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I can see already that you haven't ironed out your beliefs in this statement "God has a plan, it is our choice if we follow that plan."
> 
> To the part in blue: Does He know who will open the door and who will not?  If He does, then where is the choice?


Its kind of interesting -


> Revelation 3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.


While admittedly I don't posses Christian super discernment powers.....


> if any man hear my voice


IF ?


> and open the door


Man has to open the door?

Doesn't seem to square with our Christian friends who tell us (think Welder type of belief) "God chooses you, you don't choose him" etc. etc.

Of course you just have turn a few pages and you will find scripture you can interpret to explain why previous scripture doesn't actually mean what it says.......


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Ambush, a few years ago (OK, several years) I watched my 2 year old granddaughter sitting at my kitchen table with both M&Ms and carrot sticks in front of her.  I knew which choice she would make, because I knew her well.  Did knowing that she would choose the carrots first (then try to stash the M&Ms for later) eliminate or invalidate her ability to choose?

Walt, I do not know all there is to know about - well - about anything.  I certainly do not claim to know all about God.  But that is not the same a saying I know nothing, or that what little I do know is wrong or deceitful.   

Try your argument on US federal taxes.  I do not know the entire tax code, honestly I do not know very much of the tax code, and what I do know of the code is so limited that I cannot cite, or quote, a single section or even paragraph.  Does that mean I cannot know the the tax code is too complicated and convoluted?  Does my limited knowledge mean I cannot understand the general purpose of taxation?  Does my ignorance mean I have no ability to learn more about taxes?


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> Ambush, a few years ago (OK, several years) I watched my 2 year old granddaughter sitting at my kitchen table with both M&Ms and carrot sticks in front of her.  I knew which choice she would make, because I knew her well.  Did knowing that she would choose the carrots first (then try to stash the M&Ms for later) eliminate or invalidate her ability to choose?
> 
> Walt, I do not know all there is to know about - well - about anything.  I certainly do not claim to know all about God.  But that is not the same a saying I know nothing, or that what little I do know is wrong or deceitful.
> 
> Try your argument on US federal taxes.  I do not know the entire tax code, honestly I do not know very much of the tax code, and what I do know of the code is so limited that I cannot cite, or quote, a single section or even paragraph.  Does that mean I cannot know the the tax code is too complicated and convoluted?  Does my limited knowledge mean I cannot understand the general purpose of taxation?  Does my ignorance mean I have no ability to learn more about taxes?


So which is it Bob?


> a power we will never be capable of understanding,


OR
Like taxes you can understand what you need to (good thing huh?) but what you can't understand is because we are not capable of understanding?


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Walt, I can understand how to calculate an earth to orbit insertion with thrust/weight, decreasing mass assumptions, gravity v force, acceleration, and decreasing atmospheric resistance, but know I will never understand why my wife likes to watch "Survivor."

I can learn more about taxes, but I am not - nor could I ever be - capable of understanding ALL about US federal taxes.  I seriously doubt there is any single human being in existence who understands the whole tax code!

With taxes - and with God - I understand what I need to understand.  What I am not capable of understanding, I am perfectly comfortable leaving in God's capable hands.

You can avoid my actual point by trying to create a conflict that does not exist, but you cannot hide from truth.


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> Walt, I can understand how to calculate an earth to orbit insertion with thrust/weight, decreasing mass assumptions, gravity v force, acceleration, and decreasing atmospheric resistance, but know I will never understand why my wife likes to watch "Survivor."
> 
> I can learn more about taxes, but I am not - nor could I ever be - capable of understanding ALL about US federal taxes.  I seriously doubt there is any single human being in existence who understands the whole tax code!
> 
> With taxes - and with God - I understand what I need to understand.  What I am not capable of understanding, I am perfectly comfortable leaving in God's capable hands.
> 
> You can avoid my actual point by trying to create a conflict that does not exist, but you cannot hide from truth.


Bob I understand your point completely. Its not that complicated.
The problem lies here -


> a power we will never be capable of understanding,





> and with God - I understand what I need to understand.


Those two statements are polar opposites Bob.
One of them needs to go.


> You can avoid my actual point by trying to create a conflict that does not exist, but you cannot hide from truth.


I'm not the one who created the conflict between those two statements.
I'm not the one who said them.
And that's the truth.


----------



## GeorgiaBob

OK Walk, you win.  Please insert the word, "fully" in between "of" and "understanding" in the first citation.  Does that help?


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> OK Walk, you win.  Please insert the word, "fully" in between "of" and "understanding" in the first citation.  Does that help?


Its not a contest Bob.
Those 2 opposing beliefs/statements/ideas are not unique to you. You got them from Christianity. We hear the same in various forms all the time. 
So I guess if it helps or not is up to you.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I do not reject the possibility of a god.
> I reject Christianity's claim to "know all about" that god.
> So while I imagine you will disagree, there isn't a single thing that you think "you know" about God (the Christian one) that can't be traced right back to Christianity and their idea of what this god is.
> 
> Yet in the exact same post, literally in the next sentence,
> you described God as the Creator, the concept of right and wrong, the beginning and end of all existence.....
> So, just like Christianity does, you are claiming we will never be capable of understanding God and then go on to describe the attributes of God.
> 
> Those attributes describe what you understand God to be.
> The same God that you/Christianity claim we will never be able to understand.



I rest my case. 

Another believer that refuses to put any responsibility on the one who is claimed to have created all. He with full advance knowledge of the ultimate outcomes creates the game, the players, all the pieces, and the rules and yet somehow it wasn't his choice. Then goes on to claim ignorance followed by claims of knowledge. Total doublespeak _and_ avoidance of the original question which is this.

Does the loved one you are trying to save from burning really deserve to burn in the first place?


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> The answer is in the one who in will and purpose suffered being cut off from all of Good for your sake...and mine.
> 
> In this we are both equal, both men, so surrounded by a goodness we cannot begin to perceive as ever subject to an absence.
> 
> The fish that _can see_ water must live by something other than finding a prey. It can only _be_ by a something that brings its necessities _to it_. Other fish that can "see through" water will be directed by their necessities. But they will never know they live only, and by, water.



Cute and predictable but not an answer to the question that was actually asked. See post 40 for the question. You would make a great politician.


----------



## atlashunter

GeorgiaBob said:


> Ambush, a few years ago (OK, several years) I watched my 2 year old granddaughter sitting at my kitchen table with both M&Ms and carrot sticks in front of her.  I knew which choice she would make, because I knew her well.  Did knowing that she would choose the carrots first (then try to stash the M&Ms for later) eliminate or invalidate her ability to choose?



If you created in her the nature that would determine the choice she makes, place her in a situation wherein you know she will choose death, create the mechanism for death, create the final destination for the punishment of her choice which you know she will make, create the one who will tempt her, etc do you not then bear any responsibility? Let's make the analogy more apt. You create a gun, load it, place it in front of your child knowing she will pick it up and shoot herself with it, tell her not to touch it, then step back and watch without intervening while she does just that, then you are responsible for the death of that child. You cannot say it was not your choice that she die.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> If you created in her the nature that would determine the choice she makes, place her in a situation wherein you know she will choose death, create the mechanism for death, create the final destination for the punishment of her choice which you know she will make, create the one who will tempt her, etc do you not then bear any responsibility? Let's make the analogy more apt. You create a gun, load it, place it in front of your child knowing she will pick it up and shoot herself with it, tell her not to touch it, then step back and watch without intervening while she does just that, then you are responsible for the death of that child. You cannot say it was not your choice that she die.



This analogy still allows that the kid has a choice.  I think the more important point to make is that if there exists a being with full and complete knowledge of everything that there is no choice.  Only the believers who believe in predestination are logically consistent.


----------



## Israel

The "not my will, but thine be done" found spoken by Jesus, for it is in Jesus _to be_ that One, has become perhaps, dull in the hearing.

I read some occasionally of a thing called "virtue signalling". Do you know of it? 

It's not that it is new, or even a contemporary consideration. But it has sort of come to the fore in many arguments/discussions being used more as a pejorative to cast the accused in a form of hypocrisy. But, like I said, it's not new at all. One could even make a solid case that almost all our communication contains some form of it in one way or another. Surely Jesus spoke about it...sounding a trumpet when giving alms, wearing a dour face when fasting, etc. (Posting pics of ourselves taking the ice bucket challenge)
In short (would it really be hard to find it rampant?) in practice it can often be the nugget found under all the words and expression we often share..."I'm a better person". 

It can come in myriad forms of that, "I'm smarter", "more aware", "more _______ (fill in the blank)...and of course, the religious have their own particular ways, but in all, no one is exempt. From political, intellectual, or so called "spiritual" discussions, it's not hard to find an intent to display a something...what?...superior.

I've said that believers may become aware of a "name dropping" tendency, even in themselves, and of themselves in use of "god". After all who can trump that notion? The all of everything that is, the final "word" of all words? It's a tall thing to think...and then say "God is my Father". 

And by constant and repetitive indoctrination in our own "self" reinforcements I think we can all easily agree so much has been done using that word as a sort of self evident justification. But that is just man trying to sit at the big table in the "high" seat.
Really...who of us claims either total immunity from such, or having never been motivated thereby? Who of us doesn't, in the very least, know of a desire to "have the final word"? And so "god" is often used to that task. 

And god comes in many guises...fit to whatever form, again...call it truth, "being right", or of such intellect that the line drawn in mere sand of our own self evaluation becomes a chasm, an abyss, no man dare tread near? Let alone try to exceed by leaping over. It's almost like it's a game we have all agreed to.

I tell you I spend my days handing out food at the foodbank (which I do not) and you then say my only reason for saying it is the defect of character that shows the need to let others know...how good I am. And yes, it's easily applied, both ways.
"Oh, you mean you don't go to the foodbank...to help?"


Jesus was pretty plain about "just do what you do" to the ultimate point of a man being in such a state that his left hand does not know what the right has done. In other words...the man himself is to be free of even knowing...or thinking in such a way that he might surmise "I have done a good thing". At least that's what I see about it.

Regardless of where a man falls relative to declarations about Jesus Christ, that's an outrageously huge instruction, isn't it? Who of us does not know, even in the dimmest sense, of our own tendencies to "buttress" ourselves? To reassure our own selves?
To tell ourselves "I am right for being what I am in light of all I have seen and know?" All "I" have been through in experience and thought? Really, who else _could we be_?


But at the same time...who is not aware of the "I could have (or at very least...should have) been better?" Have any of us never been pressed to say "I'm sorry"? 

Is that not de facto inclusive of "there was a way available that was better...but I did not take it?"
But we may, even then know of ourselves, in ourselves...that "at that time" I was as blind to it as I ever could be...because...I am me. I can't make myself see what "the me" is blind to. So I continue in stumbling, always telling myself I am walking, and "learning as I go"...or so I think. (Feel free to jump in at any time and say "just be more aware!") Ha ha ha! (Virtue signal much?) One might just as well be telling a rock..."be more aware".

But...what if there is one...who cannot only say it...but perform it, not only "for another"...but in another? And it is not only "be made aware" of all the venal ways you seek to assure yourself, but arrive at the place where you see it is not only "not needful"...but counterproductive and a strike against your being? Really? How can a man live not caring whether he is (at least) to himself...right? And yet, I believe Jesus is saying that's the only place life (and not its simulacrum) is found. Not the shadow of life we all experience...but the true life. Yes, I believe this is what Jesus teaches...your being is assured, and that by One whose love for you is so all encompassing you will only find it a waste of an opportunity to know that...when you seek to assure, and constantly reassure "your own self".


There's a full lifetime of wisdom to be mined from "Be still and know that I am God"


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> I rest my case.
> 
> Another believer that refuses to put any responsibility on the one who is claimed to have created all. He with full advance knowledge of the ultimate outcomes creates the game, the players, all the pieces, and the rules and yet somehow it wasn't his choice. Then goes on to claim ignorance followed by claims of knowledge. Total doublespeak _and_ avoidance of the original question which is this.
> 
> Does the loved one you are trying to save from burning really deserve to burn in the first place?



Does he deserve to be free? You will only show this by example, there is no other way. Someone will have to go the place he is bound to see it done. Mere and empty words uttered at a safe distance don't cut it there.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

atlashunter said:


> I understand the concern that a loved one might get sent to the hot place if they haven't crossed the right T's and dotted the right I's in this life. If someone really believes that then of course they would want to help. What I can't wrap my mind around is why the believer can't step back from that situation and ask the question "Does my loved one really deserve to be cast in an eternal fire?". Never seems to cross their mind that anyone who might do that to their loved one is unworthy of their love and admiration.



You lost me right out of the gate. I guess I'm too dumb to understand the context of your question. 

Perhaps examples would help me better understand.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Does he deserve to be free? You will only show this by example, there is no other way. Someone will have to go the place he is bound to see it done. Mere and empty words uttered at a safe distance don't cut it there.



Irrelevant to the question. What may or may not be required to free a man has no relevance to the question of whether his enslavement was just in the first place. The fact that you've avoided the question rather than simply answering it is an answer in itself.


----------



## red neck richie

Who wouldn't want their loved one to go to heaven? But I don't decide that. I can only do my best to share my experiences and why I believe it to be true. I don't try to say I fully understand or know totally how God works. I just share my experiences and how I have observed him to work. That doesn't mean it is the same for everyone. As believers we want to see the people we love in the Kingdom. Atlas I think you are doing a great disservice to your loved ones. If your are wrong and you convinced them that there is no God and there actually is how could you deal with that? Have you ever thought about your impact on others? I try and share what I know in the hopes it opens their minds and leads them to the lord. But for argument sake lets say I'm wrong no harm done. Lets say you are wrong. Are you prepared for that?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Who wouldn't want their loved one to go to heaven? But I don't decide that. I can only do my best to share my experiences and why I believe it to be true. I don't try to say I fully understand or know totally how God works. I just share my experiences and how I have observed him to work. That doesn't mean it is the same for everyone. As believers we want to see the people we love in the Kingdom. Atlas I think you are doing a great disservice to your loved ones. If your are wrong and you convinced them that there is no God and there actually is how could you deal with that? Have you ever thought about your impact on others? I try and share what I know in the hopes it opens their minds and leads them to the lord. But for argument sake lets say I'm wrong no harm done. Lets say you are wrong. Are you prepared for that?


Richie, why after being shown previously that there could be more than two options about god/no god, do you continue to go on as if it was never discussed?
What if Atlas/"we" are wrong AND what if you are also wrong?
What if there is a scenario, situation or other god type entity that neither of us prepared for?
Both of us may be judged for other criteria and possibly worshipping the wrong god may be held against you???

You constantly forget about or just ignore the thousands of other possibilities. 
What have you done to prepare for a situation that is possibility C,D,E,F.........ETC?

No harm done if we are both wrong?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Richie, why after being shown previously that there could be more than two options about god/no god, do you continue to go on as if it was never discussed?
> What if Atlas/"we" are wrong AND what if you are also wrong?
> What if there is a scenario, situation or other god type entity that neither of us prepared for?
> Both of us may be judged for other criteria and possibly worshipping the wrong god may be held against you???
> 
> You constantly forget about or just ignore the thousands of other possibilities.
> What have you done to prepare for a situation that is possibility C,D,E,F.........ETC?
> 
> No harm done if we are both wrong?



I have thought about that possibility. I can live with it.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> I have thought about that possibility. I can live with it.



I think you missed his point. You aren't any more prepared than anyone else, atheists included. While we are engaging in the hypothetical what if there is a god and an afterlife with reward and punishment but it's not based on what you think it is? What if the reward goes to those who stick with reason even in the face of the prospect that death is final? What if the punishment goes to those who cowardly abandoned their reason in favor of self serving wishful thinking? Then you would be leading loved ones down a path of destruction. I think neither your nor my hypothetical is reality but there is zero evidence whatsoever that one is more probable than the other. You don't live in fear of my hypothetical. Why should I live in fear of yours?


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> I think you missed his point. You aren't any more prepared than anyone else, atheists included. While we are engaging in the hypothetical what if there is a god and an afterlife with reward and punishment but it's not based on what you think it is? What if the reward goes to those who stick with reason even in the face of the prospect that death is final? What if the punishment goes to those who cowardly abandoned their reason in favor of self serving wishful thinking? Then you would be leading loved ones down a path of destruction. I think neither your nor my hypothetical is reality but there is zero evidence whatsoever that one is more probable than the other. You don't live in fear of my hypothetical. Why should I live in fear of yours?



Looks like I hit a nerve. What if? What if it is exactly as the bible says? Nobody said anything about fear. I posed a question if you were wrong? I answered the question if I was wrong. I could live with it.


----------



## atlashunter

Richie I will ask you the same question. You have a loved one that isn't saved. Can you really look them square in the eyes and tell them they deserve to be cast into a fire and burn for eternity?

The conversation goes like this.

"Look (dad/mom/etc). Time is running short and I have to tell you this because I love you. There is a god out there. And you've sinned against him. We all have. He has created a lake of fire for sinners to be cast into after death. And he is a just god so the truth of the matter is that as a sinner that is what you deserve. You deserve to burn and be tormented. For all of eternity you deserve it. That would be a just reward for the life you've lived. But there is hope yet. There is a way for you to escape this justice. You see two thousand years ago a man was brutally murdered. His murder was committed to pay for the punishment you have earned. His blood is a gift so that you don't have to pay the price of eternal torture for the life you've lived. All you have to do is accept this gift and you'll be spared."


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Looks like I hit a nerve. What if? What if it is exactly as the bible says? Nobody said anything about fear. I posed a question if you were wrong? I answered the question if I was wrong. I could live with it.



Given what we know about the Bible I would say it is improbable in the extreme that it is right. But in the event I was wrong and was the reason a loved one was tortured for an eternity no I wouldn't say "I could live with it". It would be horrible. I think anyone that says they could live with that is sick.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Richie I will ask you the same question. You have a loved one that isn't saved. Can you really look them square in the eyes and tell them they deserve to be cast into a fire and burn for eternity?
> 
> The conversation goes like this.
> 
> "Look (dad/mom/etc). Time is running short and I have to tell you this because I love you. There is a god out there. And you've sinned against him. We all have. He has created a lake of fire for sinners to be cast into after death. And he is a just god so the truth of the matter is that as a sinner that is what you deserve. You deserve to burn and be tormented. For all of eternity you deserve it. That would be a just reward for the life you've lived. But there is hope yet. There is a way for you to escape this justice. You see two thousand years ago a man was brutally murdered. His murder was committed to pay for the punishment you have earned. His blood is a gift so that you don't have to pay the price of eternal torture for the life you've lived. All you have to do is accept this gift and you'll be spared."



I cant cast anybody into fire. But I would have no problem telling them what I believe. In fact my Grand father was on his deathbed with liver cancer and was a non believer. My dad brought him to Christ before his death. You can believe what you want. I'm not trying to convert you just sharing an experience. It seems to me as though you have some resentment on your upbringing.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> I cant cast anybody into fire. But I would have no problem telling them what I believe. In fact my Grand father was on his deathbed with liver cancer and was a non believer. My dad brought him to Christ before his death. You can believe what you want. I'm not trying to convert you just sharing an experience. It seems to me as though you have some resentment on your upbringing.



Nobody said anything about you personally casting someone in a fire. You believing in and claiming to love a being that would on the other hand... You really think an unsaved love one deserves that? You would tell them that?


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Nobody said anything about you personally casting someone in a fire. You believing in and claiming to love a being that would on the other hand... You really think an unsaved love one deserves that? You would tell them that?



No. I am not in charge though. You AA's also seem to have issue as to what you believe to be fair.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

red neck richie said:


> No. I am not in charge though. You AA's also seem to have issue as to what you believe to be fair.



which takes us back to post 14


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> No. I am not in charge though. You AA's also seem to have issue as to what you believe to be fair.



So you are trying to spare them from an unjust punishment. That I can understand. I said that in the OP. What I don't understand is calling someone that would unjustly do something so horrendous to someone you love perfect and just and claiming to love them.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Who wouldn't want their loved one to go to heaven? But I don't decide that. I can only do my best to share my experiences and why I believe it to be true. I don't try to say I fully understand or know totally how God works. I just share my experiences and how I have observed him to work. That doesn't mean it is the same for everyone. As believers we want to see the people we love in the Kingdom. Atlas I think you are doing a great disservice to your loved ones. If your are wrong and you convinced them that there is no God and there actually is how could you deal with that? Have you ever thought about your impact on others? I try and share what I know in the hopes it opens their minds and leads them to the lord. But for argument sake lets say I'm wrong no harm done. Lets say you are wrong. Are you prepared for that?





> Who wouldn't want their loved one to go to heaven?


Just a comment -
Although I don't believe my loved ones do.
So I sit in kind of a weird position.
It would actually make me very happy for them if the Christian God does exist and they got their ticket to Heaven.
Of course, that means I am literally toast 

So on one hand, I honestly hope I am the one who is wrong because nothing could make me happier than knowing they are/will be "up there".
On the other hand, I honestly hope they are the ones who are wrong because I don't own any asbestos underwear.
If I have to pick, I hope they are right.
But man is that going to suck for me


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I have thought about that possibility. I can live with it.



Then you can relate to why others do not choose Christianity just to cover one more base.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Just a comment -
> Although I don't believe my loved ones do.
> So I sit in kind of a weird position.
> It would actually make me very happy for them if the Christian God does exist and they got their ticket to Heaven.
> Of course, that means I am literally toast
> 
> So on one hand, I honestly hope I am the one who is wrong because nothing could make me happier than knowing they are/will be "up there".
> On the other hand, I honestly hope they are the ones who are wrong because I don't own any asbestos underwear.
> If I have to pick, I hope they are right.
> But man is that going to suck for me



Walt.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Richie I will ask you the same question. You have a loved one that isn't saved. Can you really look them square in the eyes and tell them they deserve to be cast into a fire and burn for eternity?
> 
> The conversation goes like this.
> 
> "Look (dad/mom/etc). Time is running short and I have to tell you this because I love you. There is a god out there. And you've sinned against him. We all have. He has created a lake of fire for sinners to be cast into after death. And he is a just god so the truth of the matter is that as a sinner that is what you deserve. You deserve to burn and be tormented. For all of eternity you deserve it. That would be a just reward for the life you've lived. But there is hope yet. There is a way for you to escape this justice. You see two thousand years ago a man was brutally murdered. His murder was committed to pay for the punishment you have earned. His blood is a gift so that you don't have to pay the price of eternal torture for the life you've lived. All you have to do is accept this gift and you'll be spared."



Preach it brother atlas! What time are your services Sunday?


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Irrelevant to the question. What may or may not be required to free a man has no relevance to the question of whether his enslavement was just in the first place. The fact that you've avoided the question rather than simply answering it is an answer in itself.



Inherent in the question seems the proposition that "some" particular loved ones are nearer death than others. That this is both a known and a given.
(I also think in the scheme of it "loved" ones form a very different recognition of whom that is for each)

What if I told you I have found "loved ones" on here, in this forum? Of course you are free to narrow down, or open up your definition in the question.

Of course I can find hundreds of objections, and some probably easily at hand. I remember being kind of snide toward you at least at one point, you could easily say "I ain't feelin' the love". And you'd be right, I've been caught there, speaking of a love in which I say I believe, but in practice, falling short. Being a smart a@@.

But here's the thing, I am like that with all my _loved ones_ in one way or another. I have at times failed them. God knows I've got as many strikes against me as I believe a man can have, and some have been very "big swings" to boot. 

That I continue to see mercy is not to be for my presumption upon it, to conclude somehow "this means I am doing alright". Anymore than anything I might "see" means I am doing alright. Mercy is good, presuming upon it, not.

So yes, regardless of place or relative family positions I will preach to the dying in hopes that someday I may speak and show in no hypocrisy as the one who yet speaks to me. Not to "keep them" from going somewhere unutterably dark and hopeless, not even that I might not go there, but to be found at whatever moment His appearing comes, I will not be found to have shamed the one who truly loves me.
So, in admitting to at least seeing I have wronged you, I ask your forgiveness, for being snide.

Jesus is not that.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Inherent in the question seems the proposition that "some" particular loved ones are nearer death than others. That this is both a known and a given.
> (I also think in the scheme of it "loved" ones form a very different recognition of whom that is for each)
> 
> What if I told you I have found "loved ones" on here, in this forum? Of course you are free to narrow down, or open up your definition in the question.
> 
> Of course I can find hundreds of objections, and some probably easily at hand. I remember being kind of snide toward you at least at one point, you could easily say "I ain't feelin' the love". And you'd be right, I've been caught there, speaking of a love in which I say I believe, but in practice, falling short. Being a smart a@@.
> 
> But here's the thing, I am like that with all my _loved ones_ in one way or another. I have at times failed them. God knows I've got as many strikes against me as I believe a man can have, and some have been very "big swings" to boot.
> 
> That I continue to see mercy is not to be for my presumption upon it, to conclude somehow "this means I am doing alright". Anymore than anything I might "see" means I am doing alright. Mercy is good, presuming upon it, not.
> 
> So yes, regardless of place or relative family positions I will preach to the dying in hopes that someday I may speak and show in no hypocrisy as the one who yet speaks to me. Not to "keep them" from going somewhere unutterably dark and hopeless, not even that I might not go there, but to be found at whatever moment His appearing comes, I will not be found to have shamed the one who truly loves me.
> So, in admitting to at least seeing I have wronged you, I ask your forgiveness, for being snide.
> 
> Jesus is not that.


The Jesus that you think you know is not a lot of THAT, he was invented.
It may be wise to use Joshua as the person you refer to.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Walt.


One word ????
Ok who are you and what have you done with Israel?

What?


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> Preach it brother atlas! What time are your services Sunday?


I know the color palett may be off but this is what popped in my head when I read this  -


----------



## atlashunter

You call it mercy Israel. If some one is holding my mother or father at the precipice of that lake about to toss them in as a threat to receive certain behavior or worse, beliefs, that is not mercy. That is me not shooting you in the face because I demanded your wallet and you gave it to me.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Preach it brother atlas! What time are your services Sunday?



Must be in the blood.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> The Jesus that you think you know is not a lot of THAT, he was invented.
> It may be wise to use Joshua as the person you refer to.



If, in discussion with you, you prefer Joshua, Yehoshua, Yeshua, Yahshua, then I will seek to remember.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> No. I am not in charge though. You AA's also seem to have issue as to what you believe to be fair.


No.
You guys claim that God is loving, merciful, good yadah yadah yadah.....
Those words have meanings. 
We can give you lots of examples of God's behavior, that comes from Christianity (not us), that would NOT qualify
to meet those meanings.

What WE (A/As) think is fair or not doesn't have squat to do with it.

If I said "Richie works hard to support his family, goes without things that he may want to support them, is completely faithful to his wife etc. and ........ drowns children on the weekend who do things that he doesn't like......
How would YOU describe Richie?


----------



## NCHillbilly

NE GA Pappy said:


> who are we to determine what is just and unjust?
> 
> we don't know it all, and for certain we make faulty judgement.
> 
> why do we feel that God should conform to our expectation of fairness?



If we are Christians, we believe that we were created in God's image, therefore, we should have similar moral views.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> No.
> You guys claim that God is loving, merciful, good yadah yadah yadah.....
> Those words have meanings.
> We can give you lots of examples of God's behavior, that comes from Christianity (not us), that would NOT qualify
> to meet those meanings.
> 
> What WE (A/As) think is fair or not doesn't have squat to do with it.
> 
> If I said "Richie works hard to support his family, goes without things that he may want to support them, is completely faithful to his wife etc. and ........ drowns children on the weekend who do things that he doesn't like......
> How would YOU describe Richie?



And the reply that "Richie is all powerful so he can do what he wants" doesn't address the morality of his actions. Just because someone has the power to do something that doesn't mean their actions are necessarily just.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Just a comment -
> Although I don't believe my loved ones do.
> So I sit in kind of a weird position.
> It would actually make me very happy for them if the Christian God does exist and they got their ticket to Heaven.
> Of course, that means I am literally toast
> 
> So on one hand, I honestly hope I am the one who is wrong because nothing could make me happier than knowing they are/will be "up there".
> On the other hand, I honestly hope they are the ones who are wrong because I don't own any asbestos underwear.
> If I have to pick, I hope they are right.
> But man is that going to suck for me



I wouldn't wish a lake of fire on my loved ones nor would I wish heaven on them. Imagine an eternity of prostrating one self and stroking the ego of an insatiable god. What a bore. What torture! Christians start getting jittery if the sermon runs a bit long and starts cutting into fried chicken time. But they think they could spend an eternity in worship. They know not what they wish for.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> If we are Christians, we believe that we were created in God's image, therefore, we should have similar moral views.



Turns out we kinda do.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I wouldn't wish a lake of fire on my loved ones nor would I wish heaven on them. Imagine an eternity of prostrating one self and stroking the ego of an insatiable god. What a bore. What torture! Christians start getting jittery if the sermon runs a bit long and starts cutting into fried chicken time. But they think they could spend an eternity in worship. They know not what they wish for.



What do you think would happen if one day we could "throw switches" in our brains that put us in a state of perpetual bliss?  I imagine we would just lie there with tears of joy running down our cheeks until we starved to death.  Now imagine that state forever without the respite of death.


----------



## NCHillbilly

ambush80 said:


> Turns out we kinda do.



Yes. If God of the Old Testament exists, we would be called sadistic and evil and imprisoned or executed for acting like him nowadays.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> Yes. If God of the Old Testament exists, we would be called sadistic and evil and imprisoned or executed for acting like him nowadays.



Or righteous and devout.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> If, in discussion with you, you prefer Joshua, Yehoshua, Yeshua, Yahshua, then I will seek to remember.



I dont prefer that at all.
I am trying to inform you that you are more likely than not worshipping someones version of a savior rather than the words and actions of an actual person.

If I had a preference, it would be for people to inform themselves about the history of their religion before assuming anything is factual and accurate.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Turns out we kinda do.


Fortunately we seem to have a bit more self control.
Or maybe mercy would be a better word.
I know in my lifetime, Ive come very, very close several times to subjecting someone to the type of torment that would make he11 look like a day at Six Flags.

But yes, turns out God seems to be subject to the same type of emotions that we are. And vice versa.
What a coincidence...........


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> Never seems to cross their mind that anyone who might do that to their loved one is unworthy of their love and admiration.



And why might that be the case?  Undoubtedly it’s because believers don’t interpret life, sin, death and consequences as you do.  

To a believer sin is real and has consequences.  Justice will be served by an omniscient God.  

An Athiest has no such expectation of justice.  All the injustices perpetrated by the evil of the world are left unanswered.  

For the Christian and most theist it’s ultimately about individual accountability.  Atheist scoff at the notion, but offer no alternative.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> I wouldn't wish a lake of fire on my loved ones nor would I wish heaven on them. Imagine an eternity of prostrating one self and stroking the ego of an insatiable god. What a bore. What torture! Christians start getting jittery if the sermon runs a bit long and starts cutting into fried chicken time. But they think they could spend an eternity in worship. They know not what they wish for.


Maybe during the sermons in heaven, instead of passing the basket, they pass the bucket ....... of fried chicken.  



> Imagine an eternity of prostrating one self and stroking the ego of an insatiable god. What a bore. What torture!


If someone is ok with it now, they will probably be ok with it then.
Although I have to wonder if once all the prizes were gotten, would it lose its attraction? 
For some probably yes, others probably no.
Maybe heaven is really just another "test".


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> And why might that be the case?  Undoubtedly it’s because believers don’t interpret life, sin, death and consequences as you do.
> 
> To a believer sin is real and has consequences.  Justice will be served by an omniscient God.
> 
> An Athiest has no such expectation of justice.  All the injustices perpetrated by the evil of the world are left unanswered.
> 
> For the Christian and most theist it’s ultimately about individual accountability.  Atheist scoff at the notion, but offer no alternative.





> An Athiest has no such expectation of justice.  All the injustices perpetrated by the evil of the world are left unanswered.


Nah, that's where karma comes in 


> For the Christian and most theist it’s ultimately about individual accountability.  Atheist scoff at the notion, but offer no alternative.


Individual accountability?
Is that who Christians feel accountable to? Themselves? Other "individuals"? 
While on the flip side, Atheists who conform to the rules and morals of society do so because they individually feel its the right thing to do. No promise of heaven, no reward of seeing loved ones, no promise of sitting at the right hand of anybody, no promise of perpetual flowers and sunshine.

It would appear you may have it backwards.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> And why might that be the case?  Undoubtedly it’s because believers don’t interpret life, sin, death and consequences as you do.
> 
> To a believer sin is real and has consequences.  Justice will be served by an omniscient God.
> 
> An Athiest has no such expectation of justice.  All the injustices perpetrated by the evil of the world are left unanswered.
> 
> For the Christian and most theist it’s ultimately about individual accountability.  Atheist scoff at the notion, but offer no alternative.



So far the consensus I'm getting from believers is that sinner don't deserve to burn forever. Yours is the minority view and thank goodness for that. Ever seen someone set on fire and burned to death? I have and it's horrendous. How sad that you think every person living including those closest to you deserve not only to be set on fire but to not even be allowed the respite of death.

Yes let's talk about accountability. All the evils of the world are finite. Eternity is infinite. Under what concept of justice does a finite misdeed warrant infinite punishment? And what if the accountability of the one ultimately responsible for everything? If evil is a punishable offense then who has greater accountability than the author of evil?


----------



## GeorgiaBob

And what if "heaven" is a well padded seat in a perfect stand at dawn on a 40 degree, clear day, as the light reveals an eighteen point, 260 pound, buck standing and pawing the ground about 170 yards upwind and nine beautiful, mature, ready, does calmly nibbling grass and acorns about 20 feet to your right, a day with not a mosquito, knat, tick or flee within 100 miles and your favorite hunting dog quietly waiting downwind, unbothered by the smell of the steaming hot coffee you are sipping as you wait for that buck to close?  Will you still refuse to believe?

And what if day two is even better?  What about an eternity of unique "perfect" days?

What if he11 is knowing other guys are enjoying exactly those kind of days while you toil away in an office cubicle, working to complete meaningless reports on a flickering mid-ninety Windows95 computer, under buzzing fluorescent lights, with the faint sound of elevator bland rap music droning in the background, knowing that you will be doing the very same thing every day, all day, for eternity? 


I am cleaning my .50cal halfstock smokepole, just in case.  I know some folks say you can't take it with you, but what if heaven can also be here and now?


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> And what if "heaven" is a well padded seat in a perfect stand at dawn on a 40 degree, clear day, as the light reveals an eighteen point, 260 pound, buck standing and pawing the ground about 170 yards upwind and nine beautiful, mature, ready, does calmly nibbling grass and acorns about 20 feet to your right, a day with not a mosquito, knat, tick or flee within 100 miles and your favorite hunting dog quietly waiting downwind, unbothered by the smell of the steaming hot coffee you are sipping as you wait for that buck to close?  Will you still refuse to believe?
> 
> And what if day two is even better?  What about an eternity of unique "perfect" days?
> 
> What if he11 is knowing other guys are enjoying exactly those kind of days while you toil away in an office cubicle, working to complete meaningless reports on a flickering mid-ninety Windows95 computer, under buzzing fluorescent lights, with the faint sound of elevator bland rap music droning in the background, knowing that you will be doing the very same thing every day, all day, for eternity?
> 
> 
> I am cleaning my .50cal halfstock smokepole, just in case.  I know some folks say you can't take it with you, but what if heaven can also be here and now?


So we should or should not believe in God's existence based on how attractive the deal we are offered is?
Very disappointing Bob.
I for one wouldn't mind if you rethought that post because I'm not convinced that's actually your position.
But maybe it is.


----------



## atlashunter

GeorgiaBob said:


> And what if "heaven" is a well padded seat in a perfect stand at dawn on a 40 degree, clear day, as the light reveals an eighteen point, 260 pound, buck standing and pawing the ground about 170 yards upwind and nine beautiful, mature, ready, does calmly nibbling grass and acorns about 20 feet to your right, a day with not a mosquito, knat, tick or flee within 100 miles and your favorite hunting dog quietly waiting downwind, unbothered by the smell of the steaming hot coffee you are sipping as you wait for that buck to close?  Will you still refuse to believe?
> 
> And what if day two is even better?  What about an eternity of unique "perfect" days?
> 
> What if he11 is knowing other guys are enjoying exactly those kind of days while you toil away in an office cubicle, working to complete meaningless reports on a flickering mid-ninety Windows95 computer, under buzzing fluorescent lights, with the faint sound of elevator bland rap music droning in the background, knowing that you will be doing the very same thing every day, all day, for eternity?
> 
> 
> I am cleaning my .50cal halfstock smokepole, just in case.  I know some folks say you can't take it with you, but what if heaven can also be here and now?



Sounds great! For a time... Anything will grow tiresome on a long enough time scale. If I were to engage in wishful thinking I would wish to live longer but I would not wish to live forever. That is the mark of a person who IMO hasn't really thought it through and doesn't know when to say "enough". We really shouldn't be asking for anything more in the first place. We're the top species and have a pretty long lifespan on average relative to other species and we are the only species on this planet with the capacity to look out at the cosmos and appreciate our tiny place in it. I've had a great time and won the cosmic lottery against incomprehensible odds to be here in the first place. That's enough for me. I intend to go to my death with a content and grateful heart asking nothing more than what I have already received.


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Walt, you need to take yourself - and others - a little less seriously!

I gave you a pretty clear statement of my faith and you chose to dismiss it entirely based on Your determination that two statements I wrote were irreconcilable conflicts.  Then you proceeded to apply your opinion of that supposed contradiction to all of Christianity and proclaimed your final determination that faith is not credible to you. 

I get it, I have no beef with you.  I'll pray for you, but I won't nag you about something you have made very clear you oppose.

That doesn't mean I have to quit smiling or enjoying my life.  Your opinion does not restrict my faith, or my style.  CHILL OUT!

People here were discussing heaven and he11.  I offered lighthearted possible visions of each.  Neither is an original!  The only thing anywhere near serious about my entire post is the last question;  What if heaven can also be here and now?


----------



## ambush80

GeorgiaBob said:


> And what if "heaven" is a well padded seat in a perfect stand at dawn on a 40 degree, clear day, as the light reveals an eighteen point, 260 pound, buck standing and pawing the ground about 170 yards upwind and nine beautiful, mature, ready, does calmly nibbling grass and acorns about 20 feet to your right, a day with not a mosquito, knat, tick or flee within 100 miles and your favorite hunting dog quietly waiting downwind, unbothered by the smell of the steaming hot coffee you are sipping as you wait for that buck to close?  Will you still refuse to believe?
> 
> And what if day two is even better?  What about an eternity of unique "perfect" days?
> 
> What if he11 is knowing other guys are enjoying exactly those kind of days while you toil away in an office cubicle, working to complete meaningless reports on a flickering mid-ninety Windows95 computer, under buzzing fluorescent lights, with the faint sound of elevator bland rap music droning in the background, knowing that you will be doing the very same thing every day, all day, for eternity?
> 
> 
> I am cleaning my .50cal halfstock smokepole, just in case.  I know some folks say you can't take it with you, but what if heaven can also be here and now?





WaltL1 said:


> So we should or should not believe in God's existence based on how attractive the deal we are offered is?
> Very disappointing Bob.
> I for one wouldn't mind if you rethought that post because I'm not convinced that's actually your position.
> But maybe it is.



Bob,

You seem pretty thoughtful and intelligent.  I, like Walt, have my doubts that that's all you want out of Heaven.  My friend's dad died and his preacher son said "I know Dad's up there catching Heaven bass".  How big is that bass and how many times does he catch it forever?  It's always better the next day?  After eternity, how big is that bass? 

What if this is as good as it gets, here and now in that cubicle with the crappy rap music.  Maybe it would be better to make the best of it, no?
_
"There is a Zen Buddhist parable that tells of a man dangling on the side of a cliff from a vine. He was chased by tigers onto the cliffside, and they wait for him to climb back up. He looks down and sees another group of hungry tigers circling down on the shore beneath him. Then, he notices a mouse a few above him gnawing at the vine. He then looks right in front of him and notices a cluster of strawberries growing out of the rock face. Tigers above, tigers below, the certainty of death. He decides that he will eat the strawberries, and they prove to be the most magical, most delicious strawberries he has ever tasted. A true joyous experience not to be rushed by where he can— and cannot— go"_


----------



## WaltL1

GeorgiaBob said:


> Walt, you need to take yourself - and others - a little less seriously!
> 
> I gave you a pretty clear statement of my faith and you chose to dismiss it entirely based on Your determination that two statements I wrote were irreconcilable conflicts.  Then you proceeded to apply your opinion of that supposed contradiction to all of Christianity and proclaimed your final determination that faith is not credible to you.
> 
> I get it, I have no beef with you.  I'll pray for you, but I won't nag you about something you have made very clear you oppose.
> 
> That doesn't mean I have to quit smiling or enjoying my life.  Your opinion does not restrict my faith, or my style.  CHILL OUT!
> 
> People here were discussing heaven and he11.  I offered lighthearted possible visions of each.  Neither is an original!  The only thing anywhere near serious about my entire post is the last question;  What is heaven can also be here and now?


My "style" of communicating comes off as far more serious/confrontational than I actually intend. Believe it or not I am aware of that and am actually improving on it! However yes I tend to put all the philosophical stuff in one basket and focus on the meat and potatoes of the subject.


> I gave you a pretty clear statement of my faith and you chose to dismiss it entirely.


I haven't dismissed it. That's why your post seemed odd to me. Hence my "I'm not convinced" comment. It would appear I also took you more seriously than you intended. I think we aren't familiar enough with each other yet to "read between the lines".


> Then you proceeded to apply your opinion of that supposed contradiction to all of Christianity and proclaimed your final determination that faith is not credible to you.


I didn't apply my opinion. Your two statements, in fact, contradicted each other. We could have been talking about pork chops instead of God and they would have still contradicted each other.


> that faith is not credible to you.


Not sure what you mean by this.
No, I don't believe faith and facts are the same thing. Because, well they aren't. That's not my determination.
Check out the definition of faith. It typically includes "belief not based on facts/proof".


> I get it, I have no beef with you


Nor I with you.
We debate here. The fact that you are a Christian doesn't even make the list of reasons I would have a beef with you.


> That doesn't mean I have to quit smiling or enjoying my life.  Your opinion does not restrict my faith, or my style.


I would hope not!


> CHILL OUT!


Back at ya


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> Yes let's talk about accountability. All the evils of the world are finite. Eternity is infinite. Under what concept of justice does a finite misdeed warrant infinite punishment?


Under perfect justice. A wrong against an infinite judge would warrant an infinite punishment.


atlashunter said:


> And what if the accountability of the one ultimately responsible for everything?


There is nothing greater that can hold that one accountable.


atlashunter said:


> If evil is a punishable offense then who has greater accountability than the author of evil?


There is nothing greater that can hold that one accountable. There is nothing wrong for that one to be the author of evil.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Under perfect justice. A wrong against an infinite judge would warrant an infinite punishment.
> 
> There is nothing greater that can hold that one accountable.
> 
> There is nothing greater that can hold that one accountable. There is nothing wrong for that one to be the author of evil.


It is however, your choice whether to worship an author of evil or not. For some that wouldn't even be a speed bump. For others that would be a big ol' brick wall.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> Under perfect justice. A wrong against an infinite judge would warrant an infinite punishment.
> 
> There is nothing greater that can hold that one accountable.
> 
> There is nothing greater that can hold that one accountable. There is nothing wrong for that one to be the author of evil.



Your first statement is nonsense. Nobody would support a system of justice that disconnected proportionality of punishment with the crime.

A moral being does what is right even when they won't be held accountable.

Your last statement demonstrates just how morally bankrupt Christianity is. By your logic as long as you can get away with it there is nothing wrong with doing whatever you want no matter who gets harmed in the process.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> It is however, your choice whether to worship an author of evil or not. For some that wouldn't even be a speed bump. For others that would be a big ol' brick wall.



Guess it's not such an abomination after all. Sounds like an evil dude that just uses it as an excuse to be sadistic. Not someone I would ever voluntarily associate with.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Nah, that's where karma comes in
> 
> Individual accountability?
> Is that who Christians feel accountable to? Themselves? Other "individuals"?
> While on the flip side, Atheists who conform to the rules and morals of society do so because they individually feel its the right thing to do. No promise of heaven, no reward of seeing loved ones, no promise of sitting at the right hand of anybody, no promise of perpetual flowers and sunshine.
> 
> It would appear you may have it backwards.



Reminds me of the joke where the kid says "Mom use to pay my brother to be good but I was good for nothing.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Your first statement is nonsense. Nobody would support a system of justice that disconnected proportionality of punishment with the crime.
> 
> A moral being does what is right even when they won't be held accountable.
> 
> Your last statement demonstrates just how morally bankrupt Christianity is. By your logic as long as you can get away with it there is nothing wrong with doing whatever you want no matter who gets harmed in the process.


Yep. In some of our past "A/As have no morals" discussions I would point out the fact that in Christianity, what was done gets replaced by who did it.
For example the flood story.
Purposely drowning women/children/fetus's etc. because they didn't do what you wanted them to do.
A horrific act by anybody' standards. Literally near genocide.
Well unless God, and of course only God, did it. Then its ok. After all he made them.
What gets replaced by who.

This "what gets replaced by who" thing was a huge issue for me when I believed.
My brain was telling me "Hey this isn't right no matter who does it".
Christianity was telling me "Nah, its just fine".


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Reminds me of the joke where the kid says "Mom use to pay my brother to be good but I was good for nothing.


----------



## Israel

God judges rightly. To say other would only speak of a lesser god. 

Some, it appears, have an issue with reconciling the God who appears speaking through Jesus Christ  (Yehoshua HaMashiach)of a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth, where the worm dies not. Some even laugh at it. And likewise laugh at Him casually as though He does not know them. They think wrongly, no one knows them as themselves. No one could know them in deeper measure, than themselves. And surely "no other man" could see them inclusive of this man Jesus, Joshua, Yehoshua, Yahshua. 

They think it safe to say "I believe He is just a fabrication of lies and liars, a myth and fairytale formed of a cabal of mere men to their own purposes of domination"

But, God has purposed through Jesus Christ that all men will know the truth. Some sooner than later, some later than they will be able to bear. Of those who have tossed their being to the wind, thinking it is their own to do with as they wish, in silly words, of mocking, in false accusations and despite, Jesus/Yehoshua remains in His glory still, not reneging upon one word He has spoken. All men, whether they call themselves "christian" or by whatever name they hope to escape judgment will find an unbreakable and unyielding thing found in:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Idle words do not frustrate God's purpose, nor can they stand to oppose. But their idleness will be shown clear, their worthlessness made plain in this alone; Jesus Christ/Yehoshua HaMashiach is not Himself idle or idol, but alive as no other man is, and giving life yet, through His word. In Him, _is life._

Many are broken in seeking to break His word. To show themselves superior both to Him, and His word. So be it. They do not know their own source of word is not able to stand in _that day._ That their source of mockery and casual dismissal is so ordained to be shown what is, of the lies and the liar from the beginning.

We cannot preach against that day as it is ordained for _all men_ without exemption, ourselves surely included. But we can and are encouraged to speak the truth rightly and plainly, none can stand in that day apart from an interceding advocate on their behalf before the throne of God. Refuse the court appointed advocate and you will find there is _no other_ to speak for you, and there you will find you can never answer for yourself. There is a terror that can shut a man up to his own words now unutterable but echoing inside in an endless loop of condemnation. 

Seek the One who will speak for you. Open to His word, or be shut up with your own in eternity.

God is terrible and a terror to all but His own. Only One man lives before Him. Seek the Son that you may be found _in Him._

What we sow we shall surely reap. Our words come back to us.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather _fear him_ which is able to destroy both soul and body in he11.


Some think they can, and _can will themselves_ to "stand by their word", others are learning there is no standing except in Him.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> Your first statement is nonsense. Nobody would support a system of justice that disconnected proportionality of punishment with the crime.
> 
> A moral being does what is right even when they won't be held accountable.
> 
> Your last statement demonstrates just how morally bankrupt Christianity is. By your logic as long as you can get away with it there is nothing wrong with doing whatever you want no matter who gets harmed in the process.


Some may be entertained by strawmen, but I am bored already.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> God judges rightly. To say other would only speak of a lesser god.
> 
> Some, it appears, have an issue with reconciling the God who appears speaking through Jesus Christ  (Yehoshua HaMashiach)of a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth, where the worm dies not. Some even laugh at it. And likewise laugh at Him casually as though He does not know them. They think wrongly, no one knows them as themselves. No one could know them in deeper measure, than themselves. And surely "no other man" could see them inclusive of this man Jesus, Joshua, Yehoshua, Yahshua.
> 
> They think it safe to say "I believe He is just a fabrication of lies and liars, a myth and fairytale formed of a cabal of mere men to their own purposes of domination"
> 
> But, God has purposed through Jesus Christ that all men will know the truth. Some sooner than later, some later than they will be able to bear. Of those who have tossed their being to the wind, thinking it is their own to do with as they wish, in silly words, of mocking, in false accusations and despite, Jesus/Yehoshua remains in His glory still, not reneging upon one word He has spoken. All men, whether they call themselves "christian" or by whatever name they hope to escape judgment will find an unbreakable and unyielding thing found in:
> 
> But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
> 
> Idle words do not frustrate God's purpose, nor can they stand to oppose. But their idleness will be shown clear, their worthlessness made plain in this alone; Jesus Christ/Yehoshua HaMashiach is not Himself idle or idol, but alive as no other man is, and giving life yet, through His word. In Him, _is life._
> 
> Many are broken in seeking to break His word. To show themselves superior both to Him, and His word. So be it. They do not know their own source of word is not able to stand in _that day._ That their source of mockery and casual dismissal is so ordained to be shown what is, of the lies and the liar from the beginning.
> 
> We cannot preach against that day as it is ordained for _all men_ without exemption, ourselves surely included. But we can and are encouraged to speak the truth rightly and plainly, none can stand in that day apart from an interceding advocate on their behalf before the throne of God. Refuse the court appointed advocate and you will find there is _no other_ to speak for you, and there you will find you can never answer for yourself. There is a terror that can shut a man up to his own words now unutterable but echoing inside in an endless loop of condemnation.
> 
> Seek the One who will speak for you. Open to His word, or be shut up with your own in eternity.
> 
> God is terrible and a terror to all but His own. Only One man lives before Him. Seek the Son that you may be found _in Him._
> 
> What we sow we shall surely reap. Our words come back to us.
> 
> And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather _fear him_ which is able to destroy both soul and body in he11.
> 
> 
> Some think they can, and _can will themselves_ to "stand by their word", others are learning there is no standing except in Him.


You just....


> God judges rightly. To say other would only speak of a lesser god.


reinforced my point -


> I would point out the fact that in Christianity, what was done gets replaced by who did it.





> God is terrible and a terror to all but His own.


If God created us all, wouldn't that make us ALL his own?
Or are some of us the ones that he dropped off at the orphanage because we have behavioral issues?
"here you take 'em, I'm Omni-everything but I just cant deal with them. But believe me they will pay in the end".

Great parent.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> You just....
> 
> reinforced my point -
> 
> 
> If God created us all, wouldn't that make us ALL his own?
> Or are some of us the ones that he dropped off at the orphanage because we have behavioral issues?
> "here you take 'em, I'm Omni-everything but I just cant deal with them. But believe me they will pay in the end".
> 
> Great parent.





Are you admitting God has made you, and you are not your own?



> If God created us all, wouldn't that make us ALL his own?



His sheep know His voice, does He comfort you?

Sheep and lost sheep are all of one to Him. He collects as He goes, knowing what is His.

I am simply in the process of being "found".


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Are you admitting God has made you, and you are not your own?
> 
> 
> 
> His sheep know His voice, does He comfort you?
> 
> Sheep and lost sheep are all of one to Him. He collects as He goes, knowing what is His.
> 
> I am simply in the process of being "found".





> Are you admitting God has made you, and you are not your own?


No.
Once its proven that the Christian God exists and then proven that the Christian story about this Christian God is IN FACT true.... then I will readily and wholeheartedly admit it.
Until then, my parents made me.
The question was -


> If God created us all, wouldn't that make us ALL his own?


Remember I'm a simple guy. Either Yes or No would be great.


----------



## groundhawg

atlashunter said:


> That one is more easily answered.



Then please answer it.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

WaltL1 said:


> No.
> Once its proven that the Christian God exists and then proven that the Christian story about this Christian God is IN FACT true.... then I will readily and wholeheartedly admit it.



might be to late then.


----------



## WaltL1

NE GA Pappy said:


> might be to late then.


That might be true.
There are a number of gods who's followers credit them with having made us.
If you don't believe any of them and one of them is right, we are both sitting in the "might be too late" boat.


----------



## atlashunter

groundhawg said:


> Then please answer it.



They don't think it exists, they don't share in the opinion it's a desirable place, or they have a different take on how to get there.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> No.
> Once its proven that the Christian God exists and then proven that the Christian story about this Christian God is IN FACT true.... then I will readily and wholeheartedly admit it.
> Until then, my parents made me.
> The question was -
> 
> Remember I'm a simple guy. Either Yes or No would be great.



The first assumption/proposition is faulty to me, if others care to defend it, or endorse it in some way, that is up to them. There is to me, no "christian" god.

Whether one approaches it on the face of it, as in, God _is _ christian, as there are "christian people", well, I am inclined to think most would see that in almost the same manner I do.
But even if one takes it to another level such as "the God of the Christians", I am no more inclined to receive.


God over all. The God above all gods. The supreme of all. The One by whose word all and every bit of what is seen and unseen is held and sustained. And here it matters not (at least to me at this point of exchange) whether one prefers to say "by His will" or "choice" or "exercise of His power and authority" such is kept to His order. He is not more the "christian God"or even "God of the christians" than He could be less than God in any manner. _The_ God who _is_ God.

He, above all...is _the_ other, at least as far as our words...(which are mere metaphor for concepts) could contain, he is the meaning of all, not by reflection or description, such as of what we vainly try and capture in our own words. Ineffable of all that is most...ineffable. (Which is no less a vanity of my speech)

Beheld in merest part, as the Beholder of all.
The sustainer in Whom is all substance of sustaining.
In Whom all the greatest part we may see and know, (even what we may call the universe) is held as merest part.

And yet, He is all that fills Jesus Christ. He is _the_ self sacrificing God. And His children recognize Him in the One whom He has sent. And it pleases Him to be seen of His children.


----------



## Israel

I hope you do not mind Walt if I add this. In considering what I had written in the above I realize there may, and possibly must, appear at least a few paradoxes.

The first and most obvious would be (at least as I see it) "how can what is other (to each other) ever establish a place of communing/relating/understanding?" And if I am called by you to sustain the words I have written to you (and rightly so) I find it would be more than fair to be forced to consider this question:
"If God is totally other how can anyone (and Israel surely included) say anything to anyone about Him? Shouldn't he (Israel) _at the very least then_ be shut up to his understanding knowing he cannot (as admittedly finite) _and_ recognize he cannot, possibly have anything to say about the infinite and eternal, again, in the very least, to be consistent to what he says he believes of the thing he has called God?"


And you'd not be wrong to say that.

But you'd also not be wrong to ask "why then, do you speak?"

But in all of it, and for all of it, we would have to use _word_.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I hope you do not mind Walt if I add this. In considering what I had written in the above I realize there may, and possibly must, appear at least a few paradoxes.
> 
> The first and most obvious would be (at least as I see it) "how can what is other (to each other) ever establish a place of communing/relating/understanding?" And if I am called by you to sustain the words I have written to you (and rightly so) I find it would be more than fair to be forced to consider this question:
> "If God is totally other how can anyone (and Israel surely included) say anything to anyone about Him? Shouldn't he (Israel) _at the very least then_ be shut up to his understanding knowing he cannot (as admittedly finite) _and_ recognize he cannot, possibly have anything to say about the infinite and eternal, again, in the very least, to be consistent to what he says he believes of the thing he has called God?"
> 
> 
> And you'd not be wrong to say that.
> 
> But you'd also not be wrong to ask "why then, do you speak?"
> 
> But in all of it, and for all of it, we would have to use _word_.





> Remember I'm a simple guy. Either Yes or No would be great.


I think I would have been disappointed if you had actually responded with a simple yes or no.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I think I would have been disappointed if you had actually responded with a simple yes or no.



If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...


While I don't believe Israel is intentionally B S 'ing anybody that definitely made me chuckle


----------



## j_seph

ambush80 said:


> GeorgiaBob,
> 
> Is God omniscient and omnipotent? If he is then there is no free will.  _That_ god is sovereign and is in control and knowledgeable of every blade of grass and every stray bullet.  I'm going by the definitions of the words omniscient and omnipotent.


Here is another little read I got this morning about free will

"Free Will

Genesis 2:15-17

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat  of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Did  you know, that at the beginning of time, God gave us a very important  gift? The gift He gave us wasn’t life, or work, or authority, or  companionship – although those are very important things that did He  give to us. But God gave us something very powerful that most of us  don’t even realize: He gave each of us the ability to choose. He gave us  the gift of free will.

We may think that we know what free will  is, and yes, it is a choice. God could have created us as drones in the  garden, robots to do His bidding – (which would have been far easier),  but He didn’t. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our  likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over  the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and  over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God  created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male  and female created he them. Genesis 1:26 & 27

However, we as  believers do much of the world a disservice when we expect people to  abide by the same rules and belief systems that we do. I’m sure you’ve  heard the phrase, “To love is to let go.” If a choice is forced upon  someone, then it really isn’t their choice. But God is a good, loving  God, drawing each of us to repentance by His goodness. ”Don’t you see  how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this  mean nothing to you? 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and  forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God  leadeth thee to repentance? Romans 2:4

We shouldn’t be people who  expect the world to live by our standards. Instead, we should be the  ones to love and serve the world, creating an example that your best  life is lived with God, surrounded by a community of people who love  others and want to serve them too. And, most of all, who have really  understood what it means to accept Jesus’ free unmerited gift of  precious eternal life and live in His abundant love, grace, and joy,  through our own choice.

Do you know how powerful this precious  gift of free will is? Pray today that you would use your free will to  bless and benefit others, so that more and more people could come into  relationship with a loving God who cares about them so deeply."


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...



I know what you obviously do not.

I am a complete fabrication. I needn't invent any.


----------



## atlashunter

Just one little problem with that j seph. Heaven is mostly populated with people that had no choice in the matter.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Just one little problem with that j seph. Heaven is mostly populated with people that had no choice in the matter.



And also no regret about it.


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> Here is another little read I got this morning about free will
> 
> "Free Will
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17
> 
> 15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
> 
> 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
> 
> 17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat  of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
> 
> Did  you know, that at the beginning of time, God gave us a very important  gift? The gift He gave us wasn’t life, or work, or authority, or  companionship – although those are very important things that did He  give to us. But God gave us something very powerful that most of us  don’t even realize: He gave each of us the ability to choose. He gave us  the gift of free will.
> 
> We may think that we know what free will  is, and yes, it is a choice. God could have created us as drones in the  garden, robots to do His bidding – (which would have been far easier),  but He didn’t. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our  likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over  the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and  over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God  created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male  and female created he them. Genesis 1:26 & 27
> 
> However, we as  believers do much of the world a disservice when we expect people to  abide by the same rules and belief systems that we do. I’m sure you’ve  heard the phrase, “To love is to let go.” If a choice is forced upon  someone, then it really isn’t their choice. But God is a good, loving  God, drawing each of us to repentance by His goodness. ”Don’t you see  how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this  mean nothing to you? 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and  forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God  leadeth thee to repentance? Romans 2:4
> 
> We shouldn’t be people who  expect the world to live by our standards. Instead, we should be the  ones to love and serve the world, creating an example that your best  life is lived with God, surrounded by a community of people who love  others and want to serve them too. And, most of all, who have really  understood what it means to accept Jesus’ free unmerited gift of  precious eternal life and live in His abundant love, grace, and joy,  through our own choice.
> 
> Do you know how powerful this precious  gift of free will is? Pray today that you would use your free will to  bless and benefit others, so that more and more people could come into  relationship with a loving God who cares about them so deeply."




Did God know whether or not they were gonna eat it?  Does God know if I'm gonna go to Heaven or not?  How long did He know these things?  The answers are Yes. Yes, and Forever.  Where is my freewill to do other than what God has seen?

Can you sin in Heaven?  Can you have impure thoughts in Heaven?  No?  Heaven is filled with the drones and robots you mention.

I would prefer you not believe in such things but if you do, at least fully understand what you believe.


----------



## j_seph

ambush80 said:


> Did God know whether or not they were gonna eat it?  Does God know if I'm gonna go to Heaven or not?  How long did He know these things?  The answers are Yes. Yes, and Forever.  Where is my freewill to do other than what God has seen?
> 
> Can you sin in Heaven?  Can you have impure thoughts in Heaven?  No?  Heaven is filled with the drones and robots you mention.
> 
> I would prefer you not believe in such things but if you do, at least fully understand what you believe.


If he knew they would eat it then why tell them not to?


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> If he knew they would eat it then why tell them not to?



Good question


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> If he knew they would eat it then why tell them not to?



Right!
Sounds like the limitations of man and not the work of a god.


----------



## Spotlite

j_seph said:


> If he knew they would eat it then why tell them not to?



He knew that Peter would deny him also. I know that my son is going to “forget” to take the trash off half of the time; me knowing that he will forget most times, I still tell him everyday to get it.

Knowing what someone will do and controlling them to do it are separate.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> He knew that Peter would deny him also. I know that my son is going to “forget” to take the trash off half of the time; me knowing that he will forget most times, I still tell him everyday to get it.
> 
> Knowing what someone will do and controlling them to do it are separate.



If you knew your son was going to take one of your guns and shoot himself in the head would you take any measures to prevent it or would you just stand back and watch? What would a loving father do?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> He knew that Peter would deny him also. I know that my son is going to “forget” to take the trash off half of the time; me knowing that he will forget most times, I still tell him everyday to get it.
> 
> Knowing what someone will do and controlling them to do it are separate.


Are you saying that your Son forgetting to take out the trash and all of Mankind being held accountable for a guy eating a piece of fruit (not to mention the millions upon millions of deaths due to religious beliefs) is the same?

I think difference in the repercussions of each may be a little greater than you are able to fathom.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> If you knew your son was going to take one of your guns and shoot himself in the head would you take any measures to prevent it or would you just stand back and watch? What would a loving father do?


Absolutely. From a Christian standpoint, everyone is not a child of God.  2nd Corinthians 6, John 10, Galatians 3, etc.


bullethead said:


> Are you saying that your Son forgetting to take out the trash and all of Mankind being held accountable for a guy eating a piece of fruit (not to mention the millions upon millions of deaths due to religious beliefs) is the same?
> 
> I think difference in the repercussions of each may be a little greater than you are able to fathom.



No, at least not intentionally. I know that it’s comparing apples to oranges, my only point was that we are not robots and controlled. We can make choices.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Absolutely. From a Christian standpoint, everyone is not a child of God.  2nd Corinthians 6, John 10, Galatians 3, etc.



Would it have to be your child to intervene? What exactly were Adam and Eve to god, from a christian standpoint? Nothing worth protecting from his own creation apparently.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Absolutely. From a Christian standpoint, everyone is not a child of God.  2nd Corinthians 6, John 10, Galatians 3, etc.
> 
> 
> No, at least not intentionally. I know that it’s comparing apples to oranges, my only point was that we are not robots and controlled. We can make choices.



Im going to pretend that your god exists and that the bible story is accurate and that the god is omniscient and omnipotent just for sake of this discussion.

A god that is omniscient and omnipotent  WOULD know what is going to happen before it ever happens. It would know what Adam was going to do a hundred trillion years before he created Adam. It KNOWS how the events of Adams choice is going to play out  all through human existence thereafter. Your god already knows that he is going to be disappointed in his creation and he knows that he is going to drown them EONS before he ever drowns them. God KNOWS how people will act and he KNOWS and has already planned to impregnate a virgin with himself and have himself killed to save mankind from sin. He knows who is going to believe the stories and who is not. He knows who will worship him and who wont. He knows how many people will die due to sheer disagreement over his name. This was all decided and he is FINE with it.
He knows that i was going to type this before Adam was created.
He knows of every atrocity that was and will be committed in his name and he is fine with it.
He knows that he is Jesus and Jesus is he but he is FINE with Christians thinking the Jews got it wrong because the Christians somehow think that Jesus is god2.0. 
If jesus is god and god is jesus believing in one is the same as believing in the other.....unless of course some writer wanted to change things and start his own religion *coughPAULcough*

If there is a god of any sort, I am quite confident that it has a warped sense of humor and revels in the idiocy of the ant farm that it created. It has GOT to be for its own amusement because the thought process of each individual of each denomination of each religion is worth EONS of entertainment.

Apples to Apples regarding preventative potential harm....You have more care and compassion for a total stranger that you've never met than your god has for his "children" that he "loves".


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> Im going to pretend that your god exists and that the bible story is accurate and that the god is omniscient and omnipotent just for sake of this discussion.
> 
> A god that is omniscient and omnipotent  WOULD know what is going to happen before it ever happens. It would know what Adam was going to do a hundred trillion years before he created Adam. It KNOWS how the events of Adams choice is going to play out  all through human existence thereafter. Your god already knows that he is going to be disappointed in his creation and he knows that he is going to drown them EONS before he ever drowns them. God KNOWS how people will act and he KNOWS and has already planned to impregnate a virgin with himself and have himself killed to save mankind from sin. He knows who is going to believe the stories and who is not. He knows who will worship him and who wont. He knows how many people will die due to sheer disagreement over his name. This was all decided and he is FINE with it.
> He knows that i was going to type this before Adam was created.
> He knows of every atrocity that was and will be committed in his name and he is fine with it.
> He knows that he is Jesus and Jesus is he but he is FINE with Christians thinking the Jews got it wrong because the Christians somehow think that Jesus is god2.0.
> If jesus is god and god is jesus believing in one is the same as believing in the other.....unless of course some writer wanted to change things and start his own religion *coughPAULcough*
> 
> If there is a god of any sort, I am quite confident that it has a warped sense of humor and revels in the idiocy of the ant farm that it created. It has GOT to be for its own amusement because the thought process of each individual of each denomination of each religion is worth EONS of entertainment.
> 
> Apples to Apples regarding preventative potential harm....You have more care and compassion for a total stranger that you've never met than your god has for his "children" that he "loves".



Well, it sounds so ridiculous when you put it that way.....


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Im going to pretend that your god exists and that the bible story is accurate and that the god is omniscient and omnipotent just for sake of this discussion.
> 
> A god that is omniscient and omnipotent  WOULD know what is going to happen before it ever happens. It would know what Adam was going to do a hundred trillion years before he created Adam. It KNOWS how the events of Adams choice is going to play out  all through human existence thereafter. Your god already knows that he is going to be disappointed in his creation and he knows that he is going to drown them EONS before he ever drowns them. God KNOWS how people will act and he KNOWS and has already planned to impregnate a virgin with himself and have himself killed to save mankind from sin. He knows who is going to believe the stories and who is not. He knows who will worship him and who wont. He knows how many people will die due to sheer disagreement over his name. This was all decided and he is FINE with it.
> He knows that i was going to type this before Adam was created.
> He knows of every atrocity that was and will be committed in his name and he is fine with it.
> He knows that he is Jesus and Jesus is he but he is FINE with Christians thinking the Jews got it wrong because the Christians somehow think that Jesus is god2.0.
> If jesus is god and god is jesus believing in one is the same as believing in the other.....unless of course some writer wanted to change things and start his own religion *coughPAULcough*
> 
> If there is a god of any sort, I am quite confident that it has a warped sense of humor and revels in the idiocy of the ant farm that it created. It has GOT to be for its own amusement because the thought process of each individual of each denomination of each religion is worth EONS of entertainment.
> 
> Apples to Apples regarding preventative potential harm....You have more care and compassion for a total stranger that you've never met than your god has for his "children" that he "loves".


I honestly believe the average Christian does not realize/understand or does not allow themselves to realize/understand the far reaching impact of what it would mean to be omniscient and omnipotent.
It goes a heck of a lot deeper than turning water into wine or just "knowing" what is going to happen ahead of time.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Would it have to be your child to intervene? What exactly were Adam and Eve to god, from a christian standpoint? Nothing worth protecting from his own creation apparently.





bullethead said:


> Im going to pretend that your god exists and that the bible story is accurate and that the god is omniscient and omnipotent just for sake of this discussion.
> 
> A god that is omniscient and omnipotent  WOULD know what is going to happen before it ever happens. It would know what Adam was going to do a hundred trillion years before he created Adam. It KNOWS how the events of Adams choice is going to play out  all through human existence thereafter. Your god already knows that he is going to be disappointed in his creation and he knows that he is going to drown them EONS before he ever drowns them. God KNOWS how people will act and he KNOWS and has already planned to impregnate a virgin with himself and have himself killed to save mankind from sin. He knows who is going to believe the stories and who is not. He knows who will worship him and who wont. He knows how many people will die due to sheer disagreement over his name. This was all decided and he is FINE with it.
> He knows that i was going to type this before Adam was created.
> He knows of every atrocity that was and will be committed in his name and he is fine with it.
> He knows that he is Jesus and Jesus is he but he is FINE with Christians thinking the Jews got it wrong because the Christians somehow think that Jesus is god2.0.
> If jesus is god and god is jesus believing in one is the same as believing in the other.....unless of course some writer wanted to change things and start his own religion *coughPAULcough*
> 
> If there is a god of any sort, I am quite confident that it has a warped sense of humor and revels in the idiocy of the ant farm that it created. It has GOT to be for its own amusement because the thought process of each individual of each denomination of each religion is worth EONS of entertainment.
> 
> Apples to Apples regarding preventative potential harm....You have more care and compassion for a total stranger that you've never met than your god has for his "children" that he "loves".



It’s always been about who so ever will. Would you prefer your child to choose to love you and do right or force them to?

Get away from religion for a second, our speeding laws are there for a reason, people have goofed up and will again. Do you find it humorous knowing that people will speed anyway? Do you prefer that they govern all cars at a max speed of 55 mph and force you into obeying the speed limit, or give you the choice to do right? Do you feel set up for failure when you buy a car that has 140 on the speed odometer? Did you set your kid up for failure when you gave him the keys to your car knowing that it can run 140 and he has a lead foot? Or did you let him prove himself?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I go to my closet to choose between a red and blue shirt. From the beginning of time or even before, God knew that I would choose the red shirt.
So much for freewill. Not much of a difference from predestination. I can't change the choice God knew that I would make. How could I possibly pray for God to intervene and let me choose the blue shirt? His foreknowledge would have seen that I was going to pray to choose the blue shirt and his decision would have already been made. God knows our prayers before we pray. 

If I'm driving down the road and I'm suppose to be in a terrible accident and God intervenes by killing my ignition coils, he would have already known he was going to do this.
I don't see God changing his plans to meet our choices. He didn't change from plan A to plan B when Adam sinned. He already had his plan in place in the Word. The Word came and did what God's plan was. The Jews did what they did to the Word according to God's plan. 

In that respect, let's say God gives man freewill but knows ahead of time who will come to Him. How could anyone else possibly come to him other than whom God already knows who will?
Looking at it in this way makes it seem less important to lead one to God as God already knows.
It's really not any different than God leading one to Jesus. Other than this way doesn't depend on man. I think that freewill may be just an allusion or perception. 
We think we are in control. We blame things on God, Satan, ourselves, karma, happenstance, nature, destiny, or fate.
Maybe it's a little of all of that. Maybe it's all from God.
If it's all from God, then there is no freewill.


----------



## Artfuldodger

We may indeed have freewill but with an omniscient and omnipotent God, it doesn't account for much. 
I tend to think predestination is a better plan.

But in the back of my mind I wonder why my CV axle popped out of the differential? Why did my Dad have a car wreck? Why did an earthquake kill a missionary in Haiti? Why do some believe in Oneness and others the Trinity? Why did my wife want to buy a Christmas tree with a root ball?

I wonder all of this but then read where God hardens hearts and later softens them to make his plan happen. If God did all that he does to make things happen according to his plans, how can I possibly do anything to change his plans?


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> We may indeed have freewill but with an omniscient and omnipotent God, it doesn't account for much.
> I tend to think predestination is a better plan.
> 
> But in the back of my mind I wonder why my CV axle popped out of the differential? Why did my Dad have a car wreck? Why did an earthquake kill a missionary in Haiti? Why do some believe in Oneness and others the Trinity? Why did my wife want to buy a Christmas tree with a root ball?
> 
> I wonder all of this but then read where God hardens hearts and later softens them to make his plan happen. If God did all that he does to make things happen according to his plans, how can I possibly do anything to change his plans?


You’re not going to change his plans. His plans will be accomplished with or without you. It’s your choice to be in his will or not. So are you saying that knowing what a person will do means that it was predestined for that person to do that? Knowing that means that person doesn’t have a choice? I realize that this is not the best analogy but I know that my son will forget to take the trash out, does my knowing that mean that he had no choice in the matter?


----------



## j_seph

Artfuldodger said:


> We may indeed have freewill but with an omniscient and omnipotent God, it doesn't account for much.
> I tend to think predestination is a better plan.
> 
> But in the back of my mind I wonder why my CV axle popped out of the differential? Why did my Dad have a car wreck? Why did an earthquake kill a missionary in Haiti? Why do some believe in Oneness and others the Trinity? Why did my wife want to buy a Christmas tree with a root ball?
> 
> I wonder all of this but then read where God hardens hearts and later softens them to make his plan happen. If God did all that he does to make things happen according to his plans, how can I possibly do anything to change his plans?



If you personally pray, what is your prayer? If there is no freewill then why ask prayer for yourself or anyone?


----------



## Spotlite

j_seph said:


> If you personally pray, what is your prayer? If there is no freewill then why ask prayer for yourself or anyone?



Good question!!!! Prayer is pointless if free will didn’t exist.


----------



## Artfuldodger

j_seph said:


> If you personally pray, what is your prayer? If there is no freewill then why ask prayer for yourself or anyone?



I used to pray for God to change his will and intervene for me. Now I just pray for God's will to be done. 
But then I must figure God's will will be done regardless of my prayer. I do think that God knows what our prayers are even before we pray.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> You’re not going to change his plans. His plans will be accomplished with or without you. It’s your choice to be in his will or not. So are you saying that knowing what a person will do means that it was predestined for that person to do that? Knowing that means that person doesn’t have a choice? I realize that this is not the best analogy but I know that my son will forget to take the trash out, does my knowing that mean that he had no choice in the matter?



You are assuming or guessing that your son will not take the trash out but not on any given day. That's a little different than God having foreknowledge. He doesn't have to assume that I'll choose the red shirt. He knows that beyond any shadow of doubt that I will choose the red shirt.
Now lets return to scripture. We could start with God hardening Pharoah's heart or move ahead to when the Jews hearts were hardened to insure his Son would die on the cross. Do you really see God leaving anything up to individuals choosing? Do you see the salvation of man dependent on other men? Do you see God changing his plan to meet our choices?

Suppose Adam chose not to sin or Jesus chose not to die on the Cross. What if the Jews chose to not have their hearts hardened? Perhaps the nations against Israel could defeat them with or without God based on coincidence or fate.

Can Jesus return whenever he feels like it?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spotlite said:


> So are you saying that knowing what a person will do means that it was predestined for that person to do that?



What I'm saying is that if God knows what that person will do before they do it, it might as well be predestined. How could one possibly change what God has already seen? 
God isn't restricted by time. He has already seen my choices. If I were to change that choice then he's already seen that too. If I were to pray for a change in my destiny then he has already seen that too and either granted me that change of destiny or not. 
So in a way my choices were already known by God. I can't change what God has already seen. Why? Because he has already seen that change as well. 
Is this somehow freewill? Is this better than predestination? Maybe in perception only.

Did God predestined Biblical events to make his plan come about? Most definitely. Did he switch from predestination to freewill after choosing the Remnant of Israel? Maybe. Does he use both systems? Perhaps.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

God sent the prophet to Ahab to tell him the kingdom would be taken from his family. Ahab prayed and God changed the timeline so that the kingdom was not removed from the family during Ahab's life, but that of his son.

Prayer can change things, but ultimately everything will fall into line with God's plans.  He is not bound by time like we are.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> It’s always been about who so ever will. Would you prefer your child to choose to love you and do right or force them to?
> 
> Get away from religion for a second, our speeding laws are there for a reason, people have goofed up and will again. Do you find it humorous knowing that people will speed anyway? Do you prefer that they govern all cars at a max speed of 55 mph and force you into obeying the speed limit, or give you the choice to do right? Do you feel set up for failure when you buy a car that has 140 on the speed odometer? Did you set your kid up for failure when you gave him the keys to your car knowing that it can run 140 and he has a lead foot? Or did you let him prove himself?



Whether they choose to have a relationship with me is really beside the point of whether I hold a gun to their head and pull the trigger based on a choice I knew they would make all along AND SET THE STAGE FOR THEM TO MAKE.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> God sent the prophet to Ahab to tell him the kingdom would be taken from his family. Ahab prayed and God changed the timeline so that the kingdom was not removed from the family during Ahab's life, but that of his son.
> 
> Prayer can change things, but ultimately everything will fall into line with God's plans.  He is not bound by time like we are.



Sent no one on behalf of the Amorites. Instead chose to wait for them to become wicked enough to justify committing genocide against them including children and infants.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> You’re not going to change his plans. His plans will be accomplished with or without you. It’s your choice to be in his will or not. So are you saying that knowing what a person will do means that it was predestined for that person to do that? Knowing that means that person doesn’t have a choice? I realize that this is not the best analogy but I know that my son will forget to take the trash out, does my knowing that mean that he had no choice in the matter?









Part of his plan?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Part of his plan?


The answer HAS to be, MUST be yes.
And what I mean when I said this -


> I honestly believe the average Christian does not realize/understand or does not allow themselves to realize/understand the far reaching impact of what it would mean to be omniscient and omnipotent.
> It goes a heck of a lot deeper than turning water into wine or just "knowing" what is going to happen ahead of time.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I honestly believe the average Christian does not realize/understand or does not allow themselves to realize/understand the far reaching impact of what it would mean to be omniscient and omnipotent.
> It goes a heck of a lot deeper than turning water into wine or just "knowing" what is going to happen ahead of time.



It's not fair!


Precisely.  


But it is not unjust.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> It's not fair!
> 
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> 
> But it is not unjust.


I completely disagree.


> un·just
> [ËŒÉ™nËˆjÉ™st]
> ADJECTIVE
> not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair:



But I do acknowledge it would depend on one's view of what is moral or not.


----------



## rmp

NE GA Pappy said:


> Prayer can change things, but ultimately everything will fall into line with God's plans.  He is not bound by time like we are.



I never understood this line of thinking even as a believer. Prayer can change nothing other than possibly a persons mindset. In a meditation sense if you will.  

If the family gathers around grandma dying of cancer and she dies anyway, it was gods will. His ways not ours. If she lives, it was also his will from the beginning of time. Praying was essentially a waste of time as she was meant to live as part of his master plan.


----------



## Israel

Definition of mercy

plural mercies
1 a : compassion or forbearance (see forbearance 1) shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It’s always been about who so ever will. Would you prefer your child to choose to love you and do right or force them to?
> 
> Get away from religion for a second, our speeding laws are there for a reason, people have goofed up and will again. Do you find it humorous knowing that people will speed anyway? Do you prefer that they govern all cars at a max speed of 55 mph and force you into obeying the speed limit, or give you the choice to do right? Do you feel set up for failure when you buy a car that has 140 on the speed odometer? Did you set your kid up for failure when you gave him the keys to your car knowing that it can run 140 and he has a lead foot? Or did you let him prove himself?



Speeding ticket/burning for all of eternity. 

I can see that you in no way want to even get close to touching what the real stakes are.

Do you leave a loaded handgun on the kitchen table and let your children and their friends prove themselves?

As a parent you do as much as possible to prevent harm to loved ones  with the foresight that you can possibly see. You hope that you have prepared your children well enough and that they can be trusted as they grow.
If they mess up a small punishment is in order and that teaches then a lesson.

You will have us believe that coming home with a speeding ticket where the child is now grounded and must get a summer job to pay for the fine is equal to a life of sin where the punishment is to burn every second of every day for all of eternity.

If you KNEW that your child, grandchild, spouse, neighbor or sibling was going to take your vehicle and hit 140mph and die in a fiery crash while hitting a bridge pillar, would you hand them the keys and say "be careful"?

And add to it...
You built a 5 mile long totally flat asphalt road with a bridge pillar smack in the middle of the lane. Then you give them the keys and say, drive safe.....
You and your version of god set up all of the possibilities to fail.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Definition of mercy
> 
> plural mercies
> 1 a : compassion or forbearance (see forbearance 1) shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment


Read that definition closely.
Now think - flood story as an example.


> compassion or forbearance (see forbearance 1) shown especially to an offender


Everybody except Noah and family (which includes women, children, babies, unborn babies) were deemed the "offenders".


> or to one subject to one's power


Which would be everyone and everything.


> lenient or compassionate treatment


Loud buzzer sound.

And note -


> shown especially to an offender


----------



## atlashunter

rmp said:


> I never understood this line of thinking even as a believer. Prayer can change nothing other than possibly a persons mindset. In a meditation sense if you will.
> 
> If the family gathers around grandma dying of cancer and she dies anyway, it was gods will. His ways not ours. If she lives, it was also his will from the beginning of time. Praying was essentially a waste of time as she was meant to live as part of his master plan.



I agree with this but I don't think most believers do. The Bible says ask and you shall receive.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> The answer HAS to be, MUST be yes.
> And what I mean when I said this -



No point in lifting a finger to help anyone if you really believe it's part of his plan. If the believer really believes that kids lot in life is just then walk over and whisper in their ear. Explain it to them. God knew you and had a plan for you before you were even conceived. He knew the number of hairs on your head even while you were in your mothers womb. He has a plan for your life little one. And this is part of it. You've starved and suffered in a war ravaged country. You're to suffer and be abandoned. His plan is for you to be alone and too weakened from malnourishment to move. The flies and ants will harass you relentlessly. The sun will burn your tender skin. You'll cry in misery but help will not come. The vultures are gathering around to consume you. Even now god is watching with folded arms. He is a just god and his plans are just. You're getting exactly what you deserve and for that reason I can't intervene in his plan and help you.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> No point in lifting a finger to help anyone if you really believe it's part of his plan. If the believer really believes that kids lot in life is just then walk over and whisper in their ear. Explain it to them. God knew you and had a plan for you before you were even conceived. He knew the number of hairs on your head even while you were in your mothers womb. He has a plan for your life little one. And this is part of it. You've starved and suffered in a war ravaged country. You're to suffer and be abandoned. His plan is for you to be alone and too weakened from malnourishment to move. The flies and ants will harass you relentlessly. The sun will burn your tender skin. You'll cry in misery but help will not come. The vultures are gathering around to consume you. Even now god is watching with folded arms. He is a just god and his plans are just. You're getting exactly what you deserve and for that reason I can't intervene in his plan and help you.


Geez you are pretty good at painting a ghastly picture 
You've actually got me angry.
And the kicker is, you aren't even having to stretch the truth based on Christian beliefs.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Part of his plan?



His Will is that no one will parish, and if it takes a famine to turn a people around......

I admit that I once struggled with images such as this until I realized that the relationship between God and his people is no different than the one between me and my children. He takes care of his, I take care of mine. A people that have not turned to God are not his. Not an exact quote but the righteous are not forsaken nor his seed will beg for bread.  

I’m not obligated to deliver pizza to every house every day, but if someone knocks on my door or approached me for food, I will feed them.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Read that definition closely.
> Now think - flood story as an example.
> 
> Everybody except Noah and family (which includes women, children, babies, unborn babies) were deemed the "offenders".
> 
> Which would be everyone and everything.
> 
> Loud buzzer sound.
> 
> And note -



Yes.



> shown especially to an offender



I am in no position to find fault with anyone.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Speeding ticket/burning for all of eternity.
> 
> I can see that you in no way want to even get close to touching what the real stakes are.
> 
> Do you leave a loaded handgun on the kitchen table and let your children and their friends prove themselves?
> 
> As a parent you do as much as possible to prevent harm to loved ones  with the foresight that you can possibly see. You hope that you have prepared your children well enough and that they can be trusted as they grow.
> If they mess up a small punishment is in order and that teaches then a lesson.
> 
> You will have us believe that coming home with a speeding ticket where the child is now grounded and must get a summer job to pay for the fine is equal to a life of sin where the punishment is to burn every second of every day for all of eternity.
> 
> If you KNEW that your child, grandchild, spouse, neighbor or sibling was going to take your vehicle and hit 140mph and die in a fiery crash while hitting a bridge pillar, would you hand them the keys and say "be careful"?
> 
> And add to it...
> You built a 5 mile long totally flat asphalt road with a bridge pillar smack in the middle of the lane. Then you give them the keys and say, drive safe.....
> You and your version of god set up all of the possibilities to fail.



No, I do realize the stakes are higher. I chose to use a comparison that had nothing to do with religion just for the sake of conversation to get away from religion.

I do realize that the outcomes are much different in the two. 

But since the two are sort of mingled now, yes as a parent I will do whatever it takes to protect my child. But if he goes out there and just gets stupid and ends up wrecking because of his actions, who’s fault is that? Who’s fault is it if someone runs a red light and hits him?

Am I reading this right - the non believer thinks that for God to exist, then all the bad stuff just goes away? Because bad stuff happens, there can’t be a God?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> His Will is that no one will parish, and if it takes a famine to turn a people around......
> 
> I admit that I once struggled with images such as this until I realized that the relationship between God and his people is no different than the one between me and my children. He takes care of his, I take care of mine. A people that have not turned to God are not his. Not an exact quote but the righteous are not forsaken nor his seed will beg for bread.
> 
> I’m not obligated to deliver pizza to every house every day, but if someone knocks on my door or approached me for food, I will feed them.



Aside from a very poor defense of the indefensible (I really hope you don't starve and drown your children when they are on your naughty list) I guess you don't realize that South Sudan is predominantly Christian.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no position to find fault with anyone.


Sounds noble on the surface Israel.
In my opinion, upon deeper investigation its just a cop out. Letting yourself off the hook. Turning a blind eye.
Possibly for completely selfish reasons.

A thief is in no position to find fault with a thief.
A murderer is in no position to find fault with a murderer.
As per the example (flood story) if you aren't guilty of an equal action then........


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> No, I do realize the stakes are higher. I chose to use a comparison that had nothing to do with religion just for the sake of conversation to get away from religion.
> 
> I do realize that the outcomes are much different in the two.
> 
> But since the two are sort of mingled now, yes as a parent I will do whatever it takes to protect my child. But if he goes out there and just gets stupid and ends up wrecking because of his actions, who’s fault is that? Who’s fault is it if someone runs a red light and hits him?
> 
> Am I reading this right - the non believer thinks that for God to exist, then all the bad stuff just goes away? Because bad stuff happens, there can’t be a God?





> I chose to use a comparison that had nothing to do with religion just for the sake of conversation to get away from religion.


You can't.
Why not?
Because there is no comparison you can make where one of the participants is Omni-everything.
It changes the whole ball game.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> His Will is that no one will parish, and if it takes a famine to turn a people around......
> 
> I admit that I once struggled with images such as this until I realized that the relationship between God and his people is no different than the one between me and my children. He takes care of his, I take care of mine. A people that have not turned to God are not his. Not an exact quote but the righteous are not forsaken nor his seed will beg for bread.
> 
> I’m not obligated to deliver pizza to every house every day, but if someone knocks on my door or approached me for food, I will feed them.



Is god the father and creator of all people?

Would you turn your back to a child of yours if they thought they knew better and left the home at 18 and did thier own thing? Are they still your child and are you still their father?


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> I am in no position to find fault with anyone.



Then you are likewise in no position to proclaim his goodness. If you are going to recuse yourself then do it completely, not just when it is convenient.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No, I do realize the stakes are higher. I chose to use a comparison that had nothing to do with religion just for the sake of conversation to get away from religion.
> 
> I do realize that the outcomes are much different in the two.
> 
> But since the two are sort of mingled now, yes as a parent I will do whatever it takes to protect my child. But if he goes out there and just gets stupid and ends up wrecking because of his actions, who’s fault is that? Who’s fault is it if someone runs a red light and hits him?
> 
> Am I reading this right - the non believer thinks that for God to exist, then all the bad stuff just goes away? Because bad stuff happens, there can’t be a God?


If you were capable of preventing harm to anyone that you care about would you do it?


You are not reading it right.
What you are reading is the argument against an all loving all caring father.
You are reading the arguments against a man made deity.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> You can't.
> Why not?
> Because there is no comparison you can make where one of the participants is Omni-everything.
> It changes the whole ball game.



Parent places a venomous snake in the room with a child. Tells the child not to touch the snake while knowing the child will be curious and touch the snake and knowing the child will die. Stands back and watches the kid touch the snake, get bit, and die. Parent is charged with murder. Parent says the child was warned and it was their choice therefore his hands are clean. Spotlite is on the jury. Reckon how he votes?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Am I reading this right - the non believer thinks that for God to exist, then all the bad stuff just goes away? Because bad stuff happens, there can’t be a God?



Nope. The problem of evil is not a rebuttal to the existence of any god. It's a rebuttal to the claim of a god with certain qualities.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Parent places a venomous snake in the room with a child. Tells the child not to touch the snake while knowing the child will be curious and touch the snake and knowing the child will die. Stands back and watches the kid touch the snake, get bit, and die. Parent is charged with murder. Parent says the child was warned and it was their choice therefore his hands are clean. Spotlite is on the jury. Reckon how he votes?


He'd vote for the death penalty for the somehow non christian actions of the parent, and then go and pray to his christian god that is a billion times worse than that parent.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> Is god the father and creator of all people?
> 
> Would you turn your back to a child of yours if they thought they knew better and left the home at 18 and did thier own thing? Are they still your child and are you still their father?


It takes two to have a relationship


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Geez you are pretty good at painting a ghastly picture
> You've actually got me angry.
> And the kicker is, you aren't even having to stretch the truth based on Christian beliefs.



It barely scratches the surface when you consider the scale and duration of this kind of suffering.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/taung-child

But hey there is good news too. God helped someone find their lost wedding ring on the beach. Proof of his goodness.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> It takes two to have a relationship



It take common sense to be able to see the difference between a relationship between two humans and a relationship with an omniscient being that is supposed to have created humans in his image and is claimed to love them.

So jseph, if your child goes their seperate way because of a falling out between you both and you never see him or her again would you stop loving them and sentence them to eternal torture for not acknowledging you even though they are a decent human being?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Parent places a venomous snake in the room with a child. Tells the child not to touch the snake while knowing the child will be curious and touch the snake and knowing the child will die. Stands back and watches the kid touch the snake, get bit, and die. Parent is charged with murder. Parent says the child was warned and it was their choice therefore his hands are clean. Spotlite is on the jury. Reckon how he votes?


Well I know how I would hope he votes.
And interestingly, what would make the parent subject to murder charges?
The KNOWING.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> It takes two to have a relationship


Or one of them imagining there is a relationship. To the one doing the imagining there actually IS a relationship.
Happens a lot when one is infatuated with someone else.


----------



## bullethead

bullethead said:


> It take common sense to be able to see the difference between a relationship between two humans and a relationship with an omniscient being that is supposed to have created humans in his image and is claimed to love them.
> 
> So jseph, if your child goes their seperate way because of a falling out between you both and you never see him or her again would you stop loving them and sentence them to eternal torture for not acknowledging you even though they are a decent human being?


Chirp chirp chirp....


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I guess you don't realize that South Sudan is predominantly Christian.



I realize that. Genesis, Ezekiel and Isaiah talks about Sudan, further demonstrates free will and reaping what you sow.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> The problem of evil .



Quoted out of context but this really is the problem.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> You can't.
> Why not?
> Because there is no comparison you can make where one of the participants is Omni-everything.
> It changes the whole ball game.



Yup. I realize it’s a poor and weak analogy for comparison. But to relate, it was worth a shot.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Is god the father and creator of all people?
> 
> Would you turn your back to a child of yours if they thought they knew better and left the home at 18 and did thier own thing? Are they still your child and are you still their father?



Absolutely I’m still my child’s Father. Making a mistake and being accountable for it is different than rejecting your parents and isolating yourself from them. What can you actually do if your child rejected you?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Yup. I realize it’s a poor and weak analogy for comparison. But to relate, it was worth a shot.



By now, you have to know that we are too sharp to let an answer go that is just there to fill space in the hopes that nobody calls you on it.

It seems that you realize how terrible a supposed  all knowing and all powerful beings actions are and to compensate you try to play it down with comparisons that are nowhere close to the actual ones being discussed.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Absolutely I’m still my child’s Father. Making a mistake and being accountable for it is different than rejecting your parents and isolating yourself from them. What can you actually do if your child rejected you?



I would make an effort to let them know that while they may feel that they need their space and i am not a part of it, I am here if they need me.

If your child rejected you would you send them to burn eternally if you had that power?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Absolutely I’m still my child’s Father. Making a mistake and being accountable for it is different than rejecting your parents and isolating yourself from them. What can you actually do if your child rejected you?


Take a great vacation, buy some guns etc with all the money you'll save in the long run


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite, how would you handle a child that rejects you?
Would you say that they were never your child to begin with?
Would they need to be punished?
How would you punish them?
What is a fitting punishment?


----------



## PopPop

The universe, our planet, the seasons, atoms, molecules, starving children, good men with terminal cancer, bad men with great health, Heaven or Hades?
My mind is is small, I'll take the safe bet. The intelligent bet.


----------



## WaltL1

PopPop said:


> The universe, our planet, the seasons, atoms, molecules, starving children, good men with terminal cancer, bad men with great health, Heaven or Hades?
> My mind is is small, I'll take the safe bet. The intelligent bet.


Wouldn't the safest and most intelligent bet be to believe in ALL the gods?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I realize that. Genesis, Ezekiel and Isaiah talks about Sudan, further demonstrates free will and reaping what you sow.



What exactly did the child in that picture sow? You really gonna double down on this?


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> It take common sense to be able to see the difference between a relationship between two humans and a relationship with an omniscient being that is supposed to have created humans in his image and is claimed to love them.
> 
> So jseph, if your child goes their seperate way because of a falling out between you both and you never see him or her again would you stop loving them and sentence them to eternal torture for not acknowledging you even though they are a decent human being?





bullethead said:


> Chirp chirp chirp....



Patience is a virtue bullethead, quit chirping
So lets see, I don't have a child however I do have 3 beautiful step kids. Matter of fact one of them was turned against his mom by his daddy and we hardly ever see or hear a word. No I would not nor would his mom quit loving him nor sentence them to eternal torture. However it takes 2 to have a relationship as I mentioned prior to this. We can send messages, letters, emails to him and call him. We cannot make him answer the phone or reply back to us. However any given time he needs something(not often) and reaches out we are there to make it happen and take care of it. Just in the last 2 years I have watched him grow farther from his mom and less and less contact with her. Kind of goes along with what bible mentions of heart growing hard creating more and more distance and resistance to be close with his mom. Even though he has seen what his dad done to his mom, and knows it was not right he was lead by another(his dad) or in a biblical sense, led by the world. To hear a mom say she would give her life for her child and he won't even try to have a relationship with her is pretty deep. 
So see we have myself and my wife who are there for him, we can knock all day but he has to open that door. Until he is ready to make that first step away from his dad(the world) there cannot be a relationship. We cannot advise him not to do this or that because he will not seek council with us. He seeks it from his dad(the world) and probably why in the last 2 years his grades have went from straight A and B to C and D. He chose the wrong path that was broad instead of the narrow way. Had he seeked council with us we could have helped him maintain those grades. God help where he could end up if he doesn't get on that narrow path but we can do nothing but pray for him and her ex. The Ex was called to preach, stood 2 times and said this ain't for me. He lost his business, where he lived, the most caring, nourishing wife anyone could ever have. All of the problems and issues started right after he quit obeying God. Prayers have went up that their beds be hard and their sheets be short that both of them will do what they know in their hearts to be right. Last time I seen her Ex at a wedding he could hardly get around. Done Rambling


----------



## PopPop

WaltL1 said:


> Wouldn't the safest and most intelligent bet be to believe in ALL the gods?



Like I said, a small mind. Yet I am able to dismiss the Flying Spaghetti Monster and others fairly easily.


----------



## atlashunter

PopPop said:


> Like I said, a small mind. Yet I am able to dismiss the Flying Spaghetti Monster and others fairly easily.



How about El Elyon, the god of Abraham and father of Yahweh? Does he get dismissed too?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Patience is a virtue bullethead, quit chirping
> So lets see, I don't have a child however I do have 3 beautiful step kids. Matter of fact one of them was turned against his mom by his daddy and we hardly ever see or hear a word. No I would not nor would his mom quit loving him nor sentence them to eternal torture. However it takes 2 to have a relationship as I mentioned prior to this. We can send messages, letters, emails to him and call him. We cannot make him answer the phone or reply back to us. However any given time he needs something(not often) and reaches out we are there to make it happen and take care of it. Just in the last 2 years I have watched him grow farther from his mom and less and less contact with her. Kind of goes along with what bible mentions of heart growing hard creating more and more distance and resistance to be close with his mom. Even though he has seen what his dad done to his mom, and knows it was not right he was lead by another(his dad) or in a biblical sense, led by the world. To hear a mom say she would give her life for her child and he won't even try to have a relationship with her is pretty deep.
> So see we have myself and my wife who are there for him, we can knock all day but he has to open that door. Until he is ready to make that first step away from his dad(the world) there cannot be a relationship. We cannot advise him not to do this or that because he will not seek council with us. He seeks it from his dad(the world) and probably why in the last 2 years his grades have went from straight A and B to C and D. He chose the wrong path that was broad instead of the narrow way. Had he seeked council with us we could have helped him maintain those grades. God help where he could end up if he doesn't get on that narrow path but we can do nothing but pray for him and her ex. The Ex was called to preach, stood 2 times and said this ain't for me. He lost his business, where he lived, the most caring, nourishing wife anyone could ever have. All of the problems and issues started right after he quit obeying God. Prayers have went up that their beds be hard and their sheets be short that both of them will do what they know in their hearts to be right. Last time I seen her Ex at a wedding he could hardly get around. Done Rambling


All religious/believe or not believe stuff aside -
1. My hat is off to you for willing to continue to be there for him should he need you. Particularly with him being a step child.
2. As one who went down the wrong road and distanced myself from my parents, I sincerely hope that like me, he reaches a point in his life where he wants nothing more than to repair the damage done and that its not too late to accomplish that.

Ok back to  now.


----------



## PopPop

atlashunter said:


> How about El Elyon, the god of Abraham and father of Yahweh? Does he get dismissed too?



Yep. The quest for knowledge of what can't be known tormented me for a large part of my life. I won't trade in it again. I have discovered that I cannot know and neither can you. I do question my Faith and then find the Peace it delivers.
Lots of very intelligent people have reasoned themselves into knowing the things that can't be known, just as I did. Faith is funny like that, might it be possible that Faith is the ultimate grasp of knowledge. Rather than wondering why God allows children starve in Africa, maybe we should ask, why do we let children starve in Africa? Would that not be a more productive quest? I can see it also being the answer to why God lets Children starve in Africa.
I don't know who coined the phrase,"if you are praying for potatoes, you'd better have a hoe", but I like it.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Patience is a virtue bullethead, quit chirping
> So lets see, I don't have a child however I do have 3 beautiful step kids. Matter of fact one of them was turned against his mom by his daddy and we hardly ever see or hear a word. No I would not nor would his mom quit loving him nor sentence them to eternal torture. However it takes 2 to have a relationship as I mentioned prior to this. We can send messages, letters, emails to him and call him. We cannot make him answer the phone or reply back to us. However any given time he needs something(not often) and reaches out we are there to make it happen and take care of it. Just in the last 2 years I have watched him grow farther from his mom and less and less contact with her. Kind of goes along with what bible mentions of heart growing hard creating more and more distance and resistance to be close with his mom. Even though he has seen what his dad done to his mom, and knows it was not right he was lead by another(his dad) or in a biblical sense, led by the world. To hear a mom say she would give her life for her child and he won't even try to have a relationship with her is pretty deep.
> So see we have myself and my wife who are there for him, we can knock all day but he has to open that door. Until he is ready to make that first step away from his dad(the world) there cannot be a relationship. We cannot advise him not to do this or that because he will not seek council with us. He seeks it from his dad(the world) and probably why in the last 2 years his grades have went from straight A and B to C and D. He chose the wrong path that was broad instead of the narrow way. Had he seeked council with us we could have helped him maintain those grades. God help where he could end up if he doesn't get on that narrow path but we can do nothing but pray for him and her ex. The Ex was called to preach, stood 2 times and said this ain't for me. He lost his business, where he lived, the most caring, nourishing wife anyone could ever have. All of the problems and issues started right after he quit obeying God. Prayers have went up that their beds be hard and their sheets be short that both of them will do what they know in their hearts to be right. Last time I seen her Ex at a wedding he could hardly get around. Done Rambling





> So lets see, I don't have a child however I do have 3 beautiful step kids. Matter of fact one of them was turned against his mom by his daddy and we hardly ever see or hear a word. No I would not nor would his mom quit loving him nor sentence them to eternal torture.


Exactly.
All the rest is anecdotal filler.


Why would you not make him suffer for eternity for turning his back on his mother and you?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Sounds noble on the surface Israel.
> In my opinion, upon deeper investigation its just a cop out. Letting yourself off the hook. Turning a blind eye.
> Possibly for completely selfish reasons.
> 
> A thief is in no position to find fault with a thief.
> A murderer is in no position to find fault with a murderer.
> As per the example (flood story) if you aren't guilty of an equal action then........





> A thief is in no position to find fault with a thief.
> A murderer is in no position to find fault with a murderer.



That's right. There's not a thing "noble" to it. Every bit of favor is being done me. All and every bit of what I don't deserve, could never deserve, and have in practice...resisted, even to its withholding toward others...remains speaking to me.

I have not one thing that hasn't been "given to me" by a grace I cannot fathom.


----------



## atlashunter

PopPop said:


> Yep. The quest for knowledge of what can't be known tormented me for a large part of my life. I won't trade in it again. I have discovered that I cannot know and neither can you. I do question my Faith and then find the Peace it delivers.
> Lots of very intelligent people have reasoned themselves into knowing the things that can't be known, just as I did. Faith is funny like that, might it be possible that Faith is the ultimate grasp of knowledge. Rather than wondering why God allows children starve in Africa, maybe we should ask, why do we let children starve in Africa? Would that not be a more productive quest? I can see it also being the answer to why God lets Children starve in Africa.
> I don't know who coined the phrase,"if you are praying for potatoes, you'd better have a hoe", but I like it.



The question was a simple one based on scripture. I assume you're a monotheist yet even your god of choice originated out of polytheism. There is scripture (biblical inerrancy?) that indicates the god of Abraham is a different god from Yahweh. That's problematic for Abrahamic monotheism. We can run away from good questions and call it faith but that doesn't make the questions go away. There are truthful answers to the difficult questions. I've never understood those who prefer not to seek them out.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> That's right. There's not a thing "noble" to it. Every bit of favor is being done me. All and every bit of what I don't deserve, could never deserve, and have in practice...resisted, even to its withholding toward others...remains speaking to me.
> 
> I have not one thing that hasn't been "given to me" by a grace I cannot fathom.



You're talking in circles. Justice is getting what you deserve.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> You're talking in circles. Justice is getting what you deserve.



Till one knows they are only in a position to beg mercy, they believe they are fit to call for justice.

Among men, I have never seen it any other way. And justice revealed will make one beg for mercy.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> Exactly.
> All the rest is anecdotal filler.
> 
> 
> Why would you not make him suffer for eternity for turning his back on his mother and you?


Because of Love for him. No matter how much Love his mom has combined with mine, until he is ready and makes his freewill choice all we can do is love him, pray for him. The door is open, he has to make THE choice. If his daddy(world) ain't telling him what he is doing is dangerous where we would and he gets killed doing it, no matter how much love we have, his choices effected by his daddy(world) would be the reasoning it happened.


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> All religious/believe or not believe stuff aside -
> 1. My hat is off to you for willing to continue to be there for him should he need you. Particularly with him being a step child.
> 2. As one who went down the wrong road and distanced myself from my parents, I sincerely hope that like me, he reaches a point in his life where he wants nothing more than to repair the damage done and that its not too late to accomplish that.
> 
> Ok back to  now.


Thank you sir, funny his mom said that she hoped and prayed that it doesn't take her death to finally see it/get it.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Till one knows they are only in a position to beg mercy, they believe they are fit to call for justice.
> 
> Among men, I have never seen it any other way. And justice revealed will make one beg for mercy.



You continue to contradict yourself. In one breath you claim a god is just and in the next you say merciful. Make up your mind. If he is one he isn't the other. If you've received a reprieve from justice that may be merciful but it isn't just.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Because of Love for him. No matter how much Love his mom has combined with mine, until he is ready and makes his freewill choice all we can do is love him, pray for him. The door is open, he has to make THE choice. If his daddy(world) ain't telling him what he is doing is dangerous where we would and he gets killed doing it, no matter how much love we have, his choices effected by his daddy(world) would be the reasoning it happened.


Again I agree.
Now how would you punish him if he never chooses to make the effort to have a relationship with you and your wife?

Is punishment necessary?

Would you have him suffer eternally if you could?


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Again I agree.
> Now how would you punish him if he never chooses to make the effort to have a relationship with you and your wife?
> 
> Is punishment necessary?
> 
> Would you have him suffer eternally if you could?



Do what any just and loving father would do, set him on fire. It was his choice after all.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Do what any just and loving father would do, set him on fire. It was his choice after all.




"Vengeance is mine."

Just more of the "Do as I say, not as I do".  It's the answer to why a believer calls the horrific "loving" when God does it.  His world, His rules.  He can call lighting you on fire good and loving and you just better go along with it.  I feel as though I completely understand their position.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Do what any just and loving father would do, set him on fire. It was his choice after all.



Yes. I am wondering if that would be an option for jseph and his wife.
And if not,
Why?


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> "Vengeance is mine."
> 
> Just more of the "Do as I say, not as I do".  It's the answer to why a believer calls the horrific "loving" when God does it.  His world, His rules.  He can call lighting you on fire good and loving and you just better go along with it.  I feel as though I completely understand their position.



What would god have to do to be considered evil? If the answer is nothing then it really renders the good and evil distinction for god moot.


----------



## PopPop

atlashunter said:


> The question was a simple one based on scripture. I assume you're a monotheist yet even your god of choice originated out of polytheism. There is scripture (biblical inerrancy?) that indicates the god of Abraham is a different god from Yahweh. That's problematic for Abrahamic monotheism. We can run away from good questions and call it faith but that doesn't make the questions go away. There are truthful answers to the difficult questions. I've never understood those who prefer not to seek them out.



The answer is not available to us. Just not enough evidence. At that time there was thought to be a possible difference in the mind of the author of that scripture.
There are many good questions generated by scripture and I am poorly equipped to answer them. Yet I have not seen one example of error or confusion or duplicity which shoots the thing down.
Faith does not mean, I have more knowledge or facts than the Atheist, the Atheist does not have more knowledge or facts than the Faithful. The difference is how we process the unknowable. Just as the Big Bang v Intelligent Design question, you can no more show proof than can I.


----------



## atlashunter

PopPop said:


> The answer is not available to us. Just not enough evidence. At that time there was thought to be a possible difference in the mind of the author of that scripture.
> There are many good questions generated by scripture and I am poorly equipped to answer them. Yet I have not seen one example of error or confusion or duplicity which shoots the thing down.
> Faith does not mean, I have more knowledge or facts than the Atheist, the Atheist does not have more knowledge or facts than the Faithful. The difference is how we process the unknowable. Just as the Big Bang v Intelligent Design question, you can no more show proof than can I.



There is archaeological evidence of Canaanite polytheism and the pantheon of deities which included Elyon. Kind of tough to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to know something when you aren't willing to look at it in the first place.


----------



## PopPop

atlashunter said:


> There is archaeological evidence of Canaanite polytheism and the pantheon of deities which included Elyon. Kind of tough to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to know something when you aren't willing to look at it in the first place.



I acknowledged the evidence, it indicates polytheism and you extrapolate something else from that. There are archaeological suggestions that we were bred by ancient space travelers and called them gods, I don't dismiss them, I know that I don't know.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> By now, you have to know that we are too sharp to let an answer go that is just there to fill space in the hopes that nobody calls you on it.
> 
> It seems that you realize how terrible a supposed  all knowing and all powerful beings actions are and to compensate you try to play it down with comparisons that are nowhere close to the actual ones being discussed.


 No I tried to use something that we both could relate to from the same perspective rather than something that we both look at from different views.



WaltL1 said:


> Take a great vacation, buy some guns etc with all the money you'll save in the long run


Very true ! 


bullethead said:


> Spotlite, how would you handle a child that rejects you?
> Would you say that they were never your child to begin with?
> Would they need to be punished?
> How would you punish them?
> What is a fitting punishment?


There’s nothing that my child could ever do that would change my behavior and love towards them. Before this gets too far off on a Cow trail, this was only an analogy of knowing that someone will booger up because they do have a choice. While I feel that way about my child, I don’t feel that way about every child in the neighborhood, they’re not all mine, neither is everyone in the planet a child of God.


atlashunter said:


> What exactly did the child in that picture sow? You really gonna double down on this?


Read John 9. You know that a Christian is going to view this from a biblical standpoint and “it rains on the just and the unjust”


----------



## atlashunter

PopPop said:


> I acknowledged the evidence, it indicates polytheism and you extrapolate something else from that. There are archaeological suggestions that we were bred by ancient space travelers and called them gods, I don't dismiss them, I know that I don't know.



Not sure what I extrapolated. The bible makes reference to the god of Abraham as Elyon. We also know that Hebrew is a Canaanite language so it should come as no surprise that their god has common origin. The bible also says Elyon divided the nations according to the number of the gods (plural) and that Yahweh's portion was Israel. That indicates polytheism and it indicates Elyon and Yahweh are distinct deities in that pantheon. If only one of those gods was real which one was it and how do you make that determination?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Read John 9. You know that a Christian is going to view this from a biblical standpoint and “it rains on the just and the unjust”



Don't give me a bible verse just tell me what that child did to deserve that experience? If the child was reaping what it sowed then what exactly did it sow to deserve that?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No I tried to use something that we both could relate to from the same perspective rather than something that we both look at from different views.
> 
> 
> Very true !
> 
> There’s nothing that my child could ever do that would change my behavior and love towards them. Before this gets too far off on a Cow trail, this was only an analogy of knowing that someone will booger up because they do have a choice. While I feel that way about my child, I don’t feel that way about every child in the neighborhood, they’re not all mine, neither is everyone in the planet a child of God.
> 
> Read John 9. You know that a Christian is going to view this from a biblical standpoint and “it rains on the just and the unjust”



So not all humans are the children of god. 
Interesting 

Who created humans again? I want to make sure that I am not missing something.


----------



## PopPop

atlashunter said:


> Not sure what I extrapolated. The bible makes reference to the god of Abraham as Elyon. We also know that Hebrew is a Canaanite language so it should come as no surprise that their god has common origin. The bible also says Elyon divided the nations according to the number of the gods (plural) and that Yahweh's portion was Israel. That indicates polytheism and it indicates Elyon and Yahweh are distinct deities in that pantheon. If only one of those gods was real which one was it and how do you make that determination?



Forgive me, I thought your were presenting evidence to support the Atheist position. If I mistook you, consider this my apology.
You are an intelligent  guy, like many in this sub forum and I enjoy the discussions. I have been told by professionals that I too, am intelligent, very intelligent, though I see evidence everyday to the contrary. The one thing my intelligence has absolutely provided is that none of us actually know very much. We feel pretty smug, comparing ourselves with ancient goat herders and what they wrote, but we are actually barely progressed in real knowledge of our place in the universe.


----------



## atlashunter

PopPop said:


> Forgive me, I thought your were presenting evidence to support the Atheist position. If I mistook you, consider this my apology.
> You are an intelligent  guy, like many in this sub forum and I enjoy the discussions. I have been told by professionals that I too, am intelligent, very intelligent, though I see evidence everyday to the contrary. The one thing my intelligence has absolutely provided is that none of us actually know very much. We feel pretty smug, comparing ourselves with ancient goat herders and what they wrote, but we are actually barely progressed in real knowledge of our place in the universe.



Well we could go back and forth as to how much we know and how far or little human knowledge has progressed since the time of those goat herders but we do have common ground I think to acknowledge that there is far more that we have yet to learn. I'll place my chips with reason and observable evidence in that endeavor. Faith has a horrible batting record in that regard.


----------



## PopPop

mm





atlashunter said:


> Well we could go back and forth as to how much we know and how far or little human knowledge has progressed since the time of those goat herders but we do have common ground I think to acknowledge that there is far more that we have yet to learn. I'll place my chips with reason and observable evidence in that endeavor. Faith has a horrible batting record in that regard.



I am not so sure. Take Artic Ice, you would think we could establish how much there is and was, apparently we can not. I do trust my reasoning and the evidence I can observe, finding the observations of evidence and rationale of others to be often tainted or skewed by ideology.
I have seen, on two occasions, intelligently controlled UFOs that could not be of this Earth. What I saw leads me to believe nothing beyond that we simply do not know what that means.


----------



## WaltL1

PopPop said:


> Forgive me, I thought your were presenting evidence to support the Atheist position. If I mistook you, consider this my apology.
> You are an intelligent  guy, like many in this sub forum and I enjoy the discussions. I have been told by professionals that I too, am intelligent, very intelligent, though I see evidence everyday to the contrary. The one thing my intelligence has absolutely provided is that none of us actually know very much. We feel pretty smug, comparing ourselves with ancient goat herders and what they wrote, but we are actually barely progressed in real knowledge of our place in the universe.


In a way, that's pretty much exactly what my/our (A/As) argument is.
On a daily basis we get told how, why and by who.
Not as a guess, not as a maybe, not as a theory, not as evidence suggests.... but in fact.

Oh and I assure you, I have never been told by a professional that I am intelligent let alone very intelligent


----------



## PopPop

WaltL1 said:


> In a way, that's pretty much exactly what my/our (A/As) argument is.
> On a daily basis we get told how, why and by who.
> Not as a guess, not as a maybe, not as a theory, not as evidence suggests.... but in fact.
> 
> Oh and I assure you, I have never been told by a professional that I am intelligent let alone very intelligent



I can blame meddlesome teachers, thankfully you were spared, yet the evidence is observable.
I know what transgressions are made by Christians. Just recently a preacher told me I was lost because I don't attend church. This was after his brothers and my good friends funeral. I asked him if he ever prayed with his Brother, you know beyond saying the blessing, he said he had not. I then told him that I did pray with his brother, my friend often, his brother and my friend took great comfort from those occasions and told me so. I informed the Preacherman that I was entirely comfortable in my assessment of my salvation. We Christians are way too often our own worst enemy.
I was raised in the Baptist Church, turned away from it and faith completely. I embraced Science and Scientific Reasoning, then one day, out of the blue, I felt him, heard him, at the pinnacle of my personal success Jesus called. Not a Preacher or a Deacon in sight. I can't say what happens to others or what will happen, just what happened to me. I accepted Jesus, still do, I also still question everything I see and think I know, I just have my special friend with me as I do it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Does the earth have freewill? Did God make it pure and then it decided to create interior hot gases that cause earthquakes? Maybe the earth decides which of it's rivers will make canyons or where it's rains will fall or not fall. 
Does the earth have that much power or is it guided my God? Why would God make a planet that would create famine and paradise? Maybe hurricanes aren't random after all. It could be the earth using it's free will.


----------



## Artfuldodger

OK, ya'll missed this;

 "A man reaps what he sows."

"The rain falls on the just and unjust."


----------



## Israel

One may _ask_ for justice, even find oneself demanding it as though it were a right.

But mercy, well, it can _only_ be _asked for_...

ask, seek, knock...


----------



## ambush80

PopPop said:


> I can blame meddlesome teachers, thankfully you were spared, yet the evidence is observable.
> I know what transgressions are made by Christians. Just recently a preacher told me I was lost because I don't attend church. This was after his brothers and my good friends funeral. I asked him if he ever prayed with his Brother, you know beyond saying the blessing, he said he had not. I then told him that I did pray with his brother, my friend often, his brother and my friend took great comfort from those occasions and told me so. I informed the Preacherman that I was entirely comfortable in my assessment of my salvation. We Christians are way too often our own worst enemy.
> I was raised in the Baptist Church, turned away from it and faith completely. I embraced Science and Scientific Reasoning, then one day, out of the blue, I felt him, heard him, at the pinnacle of my personal success Jesus called. Not a Preacher or a Deacon in sight. I can't say what happens to others or what will happen, just what happened to me. I accepted Jesus, still do, I also still question everything I see and think I know, I just have my special friend with me as I do it.



Would you mind sharing what this was like, maybe in a PM if it's very personal?  I find these stories the most interesting part of conversion.


----------



## PopPop

ambush80 said:


> Would you mind sharing what this was like, maybe in a PM if it's very personal?  I find these stories the most interesting part of conversion.



Better in person. I will probably make a trip to Highland Hardware, after Christmas, I believe you had mentioned a good burger joint close by? A couple of new spokeshaves a good burger and fine fellowship always makes for a good day.


----------



## bullethead

bullethead said:


> So not all humans are the children of god.
> Interesting
> 
> Who created humans again? I want to make sure that I am not missing something.



Spotlite?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Some believe in two different creation accounts. Genesis one is the creation of all man and Genesis 2 is the creation of the Jews.


----------



## ambush80

PopPop said:


> Better in person. I will probably make a trip to Highland Hardware, after Christmas, I believe you had mentioned a good burger joint close by? A couple of new spokeshaves a good burger and fine fellowship always makes for a good day.



You just let me know when.  I'll be glad to meet you.


----------



## red neck richie

Atlas you have an issue with this?


----------



## WaltL1

Takes a lot to move me but I think that ^ is one of the most beautiful things Ive ever seen.
If there is such a thing as angels, surely that nurse must be one.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> Atlas you have an issue with this?




Ritchie,
If you were dying I would absolutely lie to you and tell you you were going to Heaven.  I would do that for anyone if I felt that's what they wanted to hear.  Would you do the same for me and assure me that when I die that it will be the end of me because that's what I want to hear?


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> Takes a lot to move me but I think that ^ is one of the most beautiful things Ive ever seen.
> If there is such a thing as angels, surely that nurse must be one.



Amen brother Walt now your speaking my language.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> Ritchie,
> If you were dying I would absolutely lie to you and tell you you were going to Heaven.  I would do that for anyone if I felt that's what they wanted to hear.  Would you do the same for me and assure me that when I die that it will be the end of me because that's what I want to hear?



No. I wouldn't.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> No. I wouldn't.



Interesting.....

Atlas, your point has been made.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> Interesting.....
> 
> Atlas, your point has been made.



I wouldn't lie. You would. You don't believe. I do so I don't get your point? Perhaps it is to Irritate me as to your attitude but you will not succeed. What ever makes your boat float bro. Just learned a lot about you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Ritchie,
> If you were dying I would absolutely lie to you and tell you you were going to Heaven.  I would do that for anyone if I felt that's what they wanted to hear.  Would you do the same for me and assure me that when I die that it will be the end of me because that's what I want to hear?



You think that is what the nurse is doing?


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> I wouldn't lie. You would. You don't believe. I do so I don't get your point? Perhaps it is to Irritate me as to your attitude but you will not succeed. What ever makes your boat float bro. Just learned a lot about you.



And I about you and what you think about compassion.  It's ugly, Ritchie.  Thank you for shining a light on it for everyone to see.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> You think that is what the nurse is doing?




I don't know and I don't care.  I'm guessing the nurse believes but even if she doesn't, she brought comfort to that old lady instead of filling her with dread and guilt.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> And I about you and what you think about compassion.  It's ugly, Ritchie.  Thank you for shining a light on it for everyone to see.



Heartless. I will pray for you. Sad really.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> Heartless. I will pray for you. Sad really.




Right there, kids and those playing at home.  _I'M_ the heartless one.

Pray for yourself.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> Right there, kids and those playing at home.  _I'M_ the heartless one.
> 
> Pray for yourself.



I do. As well as you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> And I about you and what you think about compassion.  It's ugly, Ritchie.  Thank you for shining a light on it for everyone to see.



I'm a bit confused as to this light Ritchie has shined on it. What point is being made. I have to agree that you are sounding a bit cold.

I guess what you are saying is that if there was a God, he is heartless for letting this woman die a cruel and painful death. That at least God could let one die in peace before they gain eternal life.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> I do. As well as you.




If anyone ever asks "What difference does it make if I believe and I'm wrong?" I will point them to you and your posts.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> If anyone ever asks "What difference does it make if I believe and I'm wrong?" I will point them to you and your posts.



Salvation.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm a bit confused as to this light Ritchie has shined on it. What point is being made. I have to agree that you are sounding a bit cold.



If you had a dying friend who was Buddhist and his family was performing some ritual like lighting incense or ringing a bell would you tell them that you can't participate?  If your friend asked you if they were going to "Buddhist Heaven" would you tell them no?

The point is that Ritchie's belief has blinded him to what true compassion would be at that moment.  He thinks his dogma is more important than filling that persons last moments with comfort.  Perhaps he might plead with them to convert as they take their last breath.

It's absolutely sickening and if you can't see that then it's an indication of how mind messed you are.


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> Salvation.



Walk around with these ideas for a while.  Pray on it.  Whatever you do, really think about the kind of person you want to be.  

I was getting to a "live and let live" point.  Now I've been reminded of what a sickness religion is and why it should be combated.


----------



## red neck richie

ambush80 said:


> Walk around with these ideas for a while.  Pray on it.  Whatever you do, really think about the kind of person you want to be.
> 
> I was getting to a "live and let live" point.  Now I've been reminded of what a sickness religion is.


I hate it for you. Maybe you are the sick one? Regardless I hope I am no were around you when my time on earth is done.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> So not all humans are the children of god.
> Interesting
> 
> Who created humans again? I want to make sure that I am not missing something.



We are all his creation, but not all are children of God. To be a child of God you have to believe in him, abide in him and follow him. If we were all children of God, there’s no need for the hot place.

Of course this is from the Christian stand point and you’d have to believe the same biblical principles to agree with that.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> If you had a dying friend who was Buddhist and his family was performing some ritual like lighting incense or ringing a bell would you tell them that you can't participate?  If your friend asked you if they were going to "Buddhist Heaven" would you tell them no?.



Out of respect and honor for the family, I think we’ve all been in a church where rituals for weddings, dedications, and funerals have been performed that didn’t align with our beliefs. 

I believe that you can definitely comfort a dying friend without lying to them. If mine asked me if he was going to Buddhist heaven, I’d certainly smile and say “buddy, I believe that you’ve done everything that you knew was required to get there” 

And truthfully, if he believes in Buddhist heaven, he’s certainly done what he thinks is required to get there.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> We are all his creation, but not all are children of God. To be a child of God you have to believe in him, abide in him and follow him. If we were all children of God, there’s no need for the hot place.
> 
> Of course this is from the Christian stand point and you’d have to believe the same biblical principles to agree with that.



I was just going by one of the conflicting passages in scripture. 

1 John 2:2, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

bullethead said:


> I was just going by one of the conflicting passages in scripture.
> 
> 1 John 2:2, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.



What about the following verses?


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Atlas you have an issue with this?



Nope, no issue with that. Not sure why you would even ask.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> I hate it for you. Maybe you are the sick one? Regardless I hope I am no were around you when my time on earth is done.



You seem very bitter. Did an atheist shoot your dog or steal your wife?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I was just going by one of the conflicting passages in scripture.
> 
> 1 John 2:2, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


Amen!

Great post brother.

Thank you.


----------



## hummerpoo

atlashunter said:


> You seem very bitter. Did an atheist shoot your dog or steal your wife?



If I may ask; where do you see bitterness?


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> I don't know and I don't care.  I'm guessing the nurse believes but even if she doesn't, she brought comfort to that old lady instead of filling her with dread and guilt.



Thank you! Glad someone gets it. Respect both the beliefs and wishes of the dying. If you don't think they have done the right things to go to a nice place in the afterlife keep it to yourself. And if you genuinely believe a just being is going to cast them in a fire and they actually deserve that then you probably shouldn't be around them.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> Ritchie,
> If you were dying I would absolutely lie to you and tell you you were going to Heaven.  I would do that for anyone if I felt that's what they wanted to hear.  Would you do the same for me and assure me that when I die that it will be the end of me because that's what I want to hear?



I wouldn't lie and tell them they are going to heaven. I also wouldn't tell them I think they are wrong.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I wouldn't lie and tell them they are going to heaven. I also wouldn't tell them I think they are wrong.



We just disagree.  If a loved one, a believer, asked me on their deathbed if I thought they were going to Heaven I would say "Yes".  I wouldn't say "I don't know".  I wouldn't say "You deserve to".  I wouldn't say "I hope so".  I would lie. I would tell them "You are going to Heaven to be with Sweet Jesus.  Can you see Him now?" I can justify it if you want me to.  I've thought about it quite a bit.

What if they implored you to tell them what you think?


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> We just disagree.  If a loved one, a believer, asked me on their deathbed if I thought they were going to Heaven I would say "Yes".  I wouldn't say "I don't know".  I wouldn't say "You deserve to".  I wouldn't say "I hope so".  I would lie. I would tell them "You are going to Heaven to be with Sweet Jesus.  Can you see Him now?" I can justify it if you want me to.  I've thought about it quite a bit.
> 
> What if they implored you to tell them what you think?



If it's someone I love then they already know what I think. If they ask then I will tell them and be truthful about it. I was actually in that situation earlier this year with a loved one who had cancer. I wasn't there in his final moments but I spent quite a bit of time with him in his last six months. We never discussed it actually. We both knew what the other thought about it. I made sure he knew how loved and valued he was. That was enough.

But imagine if I had said, "Ya know all that stuff about Jesus and the afterlife is nonsense. You don't have to worry about where you're going because once your brain dies that's it. You don't need to fear burning or surrender your intellectual integrity to that fear." That would be pretty crass wouldn't it? Yet nobody questions the religious doing exactly that to persuade the dying of their beliefs. That's the point of this thread.


----------



## atlashunter

And I will add to that last post that if I was the dying and asked a believer what they thought I wouldn't expect them to lie to me to tell me what I wanted to hear. I would expect them to answer truthfully.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Come to think of it, I've never been to a funeral where the preacher preached that a loved one wasn't going to Heaven.
Usually they use the opportunity to give a little sermon. Something like, "the deceased is going to Heaven. This could be any of us laying here. 
Repent before it's too late."


----------



## Artfuldodger

To the Atheist, if you were on your deathbed and someone asked to pray at your bed, would you let them? Knowing that it may ease their mind instead of yours.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I was just going by one of the conflicting passages in scripture.
> 
> 1 John 2:2, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.



Conflicting as in? It’s very true that he died for all of us, including you and I, and we are perfect examples that everyone will not accept him. The rest of that chapter is a good read.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> To the Atheist, if you were on your deathbed and someone asked to pray at your bed, would you let them? Knowing that it may ease their mind instead of yours.


If its ok if both A and A's (A/As) respond -
I was in Intensive Care at the VA earlier in the year and a priest/preacher, would make the rounds each day and ask if it was ok to say a short prayer over the patient. He didn't ask what I did or didn't believe just asked if it was ok if he said a short prayer.
I didn't have a problem with it due to his approach.
1. I figured let the man have the satisfaction of doing his job.
2. I was in no mood for a potential sales pitch if I were to say that I was Agnostic.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't think VA hospital chaplains are suppose to proselytize but I'm sure some of them do. I read an account of a Jewish patient that said they did.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> If it's someone I love then they already know what I think. If they ask then I will tell them and be truthful about it. I was actually in that situation earlier this year with a loved one who had cancer. I wasn't there in his final moments but I spent quite a bit of time with him in his last six months. We never discussed it actually. We both knew what the other thought about it. I made sure he knew how loved and valued he was. That was enough.
> 
> But imagine if I had said, "Ya know all that stuff about Jesus and the afterlife is nonsense. You don't have to worry about where you're going because once your brain dies that's it. You don't need to fear burning or surrender your intellectual integrity to that fear." That would be pretty crass wouldn't it? Yet nobody questions the religious doing exactly that to persuade the dying of their beliefs. That's the point of this thread.


I don’t really believe that’s it the religious doing this. I do believe that there are some hard core but overall, most churches will simply open the door for discussion if the dying person wants to discuss it. If not, from what I’ve seen they’ve all been respectful and honored the dying mans wish of talking about salvation or leaving it alone.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> If it's someone I love then they already know what I think. If they ask then I will tell them and be truthful about it. I was actually in that situation earlier this year with a loved one who had cancer. I wasn't there in his final moments but I spent quite a bit of time with him in his last six months. We never discussed it actually. We both knew what the other thought about it. I made sure he knew how loved and valued he was. That was enough.
> 
> But imagine if I had said, "Ya know all that stuff about Jesus and the afterlife is nonsense. You don't have to worry about where you're going because once your brain dies that's it. You don't need to fear burning or surrender your intellectual integrity to that fear." That would be pretty crass wouldn't it? Yet nobody questions the religious doing exactly that to persuade the dying of their beliefs. That's the point of this thread.



Yes.  I understand that.  I also understand that the believer thinks that what they are doing is out of love.  I don't necessarily try to convince them that god isn't real out of love.  It's more out of utility because I see many problems and difficulties caused by those with faith based beliefs.  

On the subject of love I find it hard to understand how a Christian could possibly have a clear grasp of what love is if they use God as their example.  Surely they must have a problem reconciling God's sense of appropriate punishment with a human standard.  What if the fearful Christian punished their disobedient children using God as an example?  What if they told their bad kids or even convicted criminals that they would torture them for as long as possible for what they did?  It sounds like the makings of a Hannibal Lechter movie.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> And I will add to that last post that if I was the dying and asked a believer what they thought I wouldn't expect them to lie to me to tell me what I wanted to hear. I would expect them to answer truthfully.




I would find it refreshing if more believers did just that.  If more of them said to dying people, with their own mouths "If you remain unrepentant you are going to He11."  If they actually said it I think the repulsiveness of it would sink in.  I don't think they even think about it.  They must have to put it out of their minds to think about a loved one burning in He11 as they make their coffee or make love or deer hunt.  If thought of properly I think the idea of He11 should cause people to reject that god, real or not.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> To the Atheist, if you were on your deathbed and someone asked to pray at your bed, would you let them? Knowing that it may ease their mind instead of yours.



It depends.  If it's that grandstanding blowhard preacher that came to my Mom and Dad's house and did my Dad's funeral I'd probably try to dump my colostomy bag on his head (assuming I have a colostomy bag when I'm dying).


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> To the Atheist, if you were on your deathbed and someone asked to pray at your bed, would you let them? Knowing that it may ease their mind instead of yours.



I probably don't care what anybody does at my deathbed as long as they don't harsh my mellow*.

*agitate me.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> To the Atheist, if you were on your deathbed and someone asked to pray at your bed, would you let them? Knowing that it may ease their mind instead of yours.



For me it would depend who it was.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> I would find it refreshing if more believers did just that.  If more of them said to dying people, with their own mouths "If you remain unrepentant you are going to He11."  If they actually said it I think the repulsiveness of it would sink in.  I don't think they even think about it.  They must have to put it out of their minds to think about a loved one burning in He11 as they make their coffee or make love or deer hunt.  If thought of properly I think the idea of He11 should cause people to reject that god, real or not.



I agree. Or at the very least not proclaim him as loving and righteous. If someone has a gun to my child's head I may do what they demand out of fear. I may even tell the child to obey them if I think it will spare them. What I won't do is love and admire that individual.


----------



## PopPop

Zealots of any persuasion are dangerous.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> Come to think of it, I've never been to a funeral where the preacher preached that a loved one wasn't going to Heaven.
> Usually they use the opportunity to give a little sermon. Something like, "the deceased is going to Heaven. This could be any of us laying here.
> Repent before it's too late."



Put a less subtle way, "We all deserve to be thrown in an eternal fire including your deceased loved one. Follow our religion or else."


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I agree. Or at the very least not proclaim him as loving and righteous. If someone has a gun to my child's head I may do what they demand out of fear. I may even tell the child to obey them if I think it will spare them. What I won't do is love and admire that individual.



That's where we disagree.  When someone commits to a God and His doctrines, and one of those doctrines is that He is loving and good in whatever He does, and further more, the believer is not to question God, they will put those principles before any rational argument about the good or evil of any act made by that God.

It makes sense to me.  I just refuse to accept the doctrines whether God is real or not.

Sorry.  After rereading your post it seems we are on the same page.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> Put a less subtle way, "We all deserve to be thrown in an eternal fire including your deceased loved one. Follow our religion or else."



Or the return to the meme about Jesus knocking on the door.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> That's where we disagree.  When someone commits to a God and His doctrines, and one of those doctrines is that He is loving and good in whatever He does, and further more, the believer is not to question God, they will put those principles before any rational argument about the good or evil of any act made by that God.
> 
> It makes sense to me.  I just refuse to accept the doctrines whether God is real or not.
> 
> Sorry.  After rereading your post it seems we are on the same page.



They may not openly say it but inside they know it's unjust. That's why you get all the sugar coating and rationalizations we have seen here.


----------



## PopPop

ambush80 said:


> I would find it refreshing if more believers did just that.  If more of them said to dying people, with their own mouths "If you remain unrepentant you are going to He11."  If they actually said it I think the repulsiveness of it would sink in.  I don't think they even think about it.  They must have to put it out of their minds to think about a loved one burning in He11 as they make their coffee or make love or deer hunt.  If thought of properly I think the idea of He11 should cause people to reject that god, real or not.



I have never suggested to anyone that they would end up in Hades and I never will. Beyond me to make that Judgement, supported by scripture.  I have consoled more than my fair share of dying people, asked them if they would like to pray and have never been turned down and have always, without exception been thanked. There is simply no more personal facet of ones existence than his faith or lack of it. I know those who are on a mission to collect souls with a repulsive exuberance. We were given a model and that ain't it. I will never pretend to understand how this all works except for one thing. That thing is to offer Love to my fellow man, to demonstrate Peace and Serenity, even in the face of hostility. I know that I will fail but in the trying I will leave goodness in my wake. Like I said before, we were given a model. I have little patience with rock throwing Christians and never shirk the responsibility to call them on it. It's only a hot mess if that is what you are looking for.
I look forward to a good burger with an Atheist who wants to hear my Testimony, the fellowship will be fine, I will leave his soul to being his business.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> They may not openly say it but inside they know it's unjust. That's why you get all the sugar coating and rationalizations we have seen here.



I don't think so.  They actually think that it's "just".  They really believe that God is loving and just _no matter what He does_.  They will tell you themselves that they don't understand it and they are reassured because they are TOLD that they can't possibly understand it (convenient, no?).  They will lay questions like this "at the foot of the cross", "trust and obey".    The more thoughtful believers will try to sugar coat to no avail by saying "It's just a separation from God.  You actually just die and are no more just like you wanted". Or "He11 isn't REALLY burning in a fire for all eternity.  It's just symbolic".  

The reality of what is claimed about He11 in the Bible must be just put in a box, shelved, and never thought of agian because it would be too much to bear; to think that the God you worship would do such a thing.  

Think of lighting someone on fire in a cage like that pilot that got captured by ISIS.  Even if it was the person who kidnapped, killed and raped my child, I don't think I would want to hear them wailing in pain everyday, every hour for all eternity.  Maybe I would want to torture them for a while, maybe burn them some and let them recover and whenever I missed my daughter burn them some more.  I might even do that for a year, I don't know.  Sounds horrific but I think I might could do it, I love my little girl so much.  

Maybe that's what the idea of He11 is for.  If I believed that they are eternally suffering someplace then I don't have to think of them in my backyard all day.  I can just think of them suffering at the times when I remember my daughter and the rest of the day go about my business.  God keeps the fires stoked for me.  That sounds pretty bad for MY psychology and mental health.


----------



## ambush80

PopPop said:


> I have never suggested to anyone that they would end up in Hades and I never will. Beyond me to make that Judgement, supported by scripture.  I have consoled more than my fair share of dying people, asked them if they would like to pray and have never been turned down and have always, without exception been thanked. There is simply no more personal facet of ones existence than his faith or lack of it. I know those who are on a mission to collect souls with a repulsive exuberance. We were given a model and that ain't it. I will never pretend to understand how this all works except for one thing. That thing is to offer Love to my fellow man, to demonstrate Peace and Serenity, even in the face of hostility. I know that I will fail but in the trying I will leave goodness in my wake. Like I said before, we were given a model. I have little patience with rock throwing Christians and never shirk the responsibility to call them on it. It's only a hot mess if that is what you are looking for.
> I look forward to a good burger with an Atheist who wants to hear my Testimony, the fellowship will be fine, I will leave his soul to being his business.



I'm glad that your faith has had a positive effect on you and those you touched.  I'm truly glad for that.

However, the doctrine that you are devoted to allows someone to say "If you remain unrepentant you are going to He11" in truth.  It says so in the book and it's one of the principles that's aimed at modifying behavior. That's why so many of the guys in here say "I ain't sayin' it.  The Good Book says it."  They're telling the truth as they know it.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> I don't think so.  They actually think that it's "just".  They really believe that God is loving and just _no matter what He does_.  They will tell you themselves that they don't understand it and they are reassured because they are TOLD that they can't possibly understand it (convenient, no?).  They will lay questions like this "at the foot of the cross", "trust and obey".    The more thoughtful believers will try to sugar coat to no avail by saying "It's just a separation from God.  You actually just die and are no more just like you wanted". Or "He11 isn't REALLY burning in a fire for all eternity.  It's just symbolic".
> 
> The reality of what is claimed about He11 in the Bible must be just put in a box, shelved, and never thought of agian because it would be too much to bear; to think that the God you worship would do such a thing.
> 
> Think of lighting someone on fire in a cage like that pilot that got captured by ISIS.  Even if it was the person who kidnapped, killed and raped my child, I don't think I would want to hear them wailing in pain everyday, every hour for all eternity.  Maybe I would want to torture them for a while, maybe burn them some and let them recover and whenever I missed my daughter burn them some more.  I might even do that for a year, I don't know.  Sounds horrific but I think I might could do it, I love my little girl so much.
> 
> Maybe that's what the idea of He11 is for.  If I believed that they are eternally suffering someplace then I don't have to think of them in my backyard all day.  I can just think of them suffering at the times when I remember my daughter and the rest of the day go about my business.  God keeps the fires stoked for me.  That sounds pretty bad for MY psychology and mental health.



You just gave examples of the rationalizations, minimizing and avoidance that I'm talking about. People who genuinely believe an act is just don't do that.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> You just gave examples of the rationalizations, minimizing and avoidance that I'm talking about. People who genuinely believe an act is just don't do that.



To be fair, we often press them to explain how they can call a detestable act by God just and loving and often their ultimate answer is "I don't know".  I think it a fair, albeit lazy answer.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Put a less subtle way, "We all deserve to be thrown in an eternal fire including your deceased loved one. Follow our religion or else."



You may have gotten involved with those “rabid Christians”........I to would have turned atheist based on the dealings that you’ve obviously experienced, were taught, or observed, etc.


----------



## PopPop

ambush80 said:


> I'm glad that your faith has had a positive effect on you and those you touched.  I'm truly glad for that.
> 
> However, the doctrine that you are devoted to allows someone to say "If you remain unrepentant you are going to He11" in truth.  It says so in the book and it's one of the principles that's aimed at modifying behavior. That's why so many of the guys in here say "I ain't sayin' it.  The Good Book says it."  They're telling the truth as they know it.



You may find that my devotion to doctrine is pretty slim. I actually can find no scripture that supports me assessing the fitness of another's soul.


----------



## Spotlite

PopPop said:


> You may find that my devotion to doctrine is pretty slim. I actually can find no scripture that supports me assessing the fitness of another's soul.



Exactly!!


----------



## ambush80

PopPop said:


> You may find that my devotion to doctrine is pretty slim. I actually can find no scripture that supports me assessing the fitness of another's soul.





Spotlite said:


> Exactly!!



I'm glad.  Most Christians are "nominal Christians".  That's what makes them sufferable.


----------



## PopPop

ambush80 said:


> I'm glad.  Most Christians are "nominal Christians".  That's what makes them sufferable.



You are familiar with my statement about Zealots?
Zealots of any persuasion.


----------



## ambush80

PopPop said:


> You are familiar with my statement about Zealots?
> Zealots of any persuasion.



PopPop,
I'm glad there are some like you.  They're hard to come by in the South.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> You may have gotten involved with those “rabid Christians”........I to would have turned atheist based on the dealings that you’ve obviously experienced, were taught, or observed, etc.



Has nothing to do with that. The sugar coated pill is the same at its core as the bitter pill. Some folks are just more honest about it than others. I realize there are some christians like hobbs that don't believe in the hot place at all but christians like that are in the extreme minority.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Has nothing to do with that. The sugar coated pill is the same at its core as the bitter pill. Some folks are just more honest about it than others. I realize there are some christians like hobbs that don't believe in the hot place at all but christians like that are in the extreme minority.



I’m just saying that I’ve been a Christian all of my life and the hatred and other attributes that you have applied to Christianity.......I’ve never witnessed nor do I even recall anyone that has witnessed them. If you’re basing your opinions on things like the wicked being destroyed, etc., the reality is the sugar coated pill comes into play when one feels that everything is just a rose garden and everyone goes to heaven. 

I realize that you don’t believe in a heaven so I would expect you to disagree with the Bible in its entirety, but a true Christian does not have any hatred toward you or anyone else, they will be full of compassion for you and will actually be praying for you.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I’m just saying that I’ve been a Christian all of my life and the hatred and other attributes that you have applied to Christianity.......I’ve never witnessed nor do I even recall anyone that has witnessed them. If you’re basing your opinions on things like the wicked being destroyed, etc., the reality is the sugar coated pill comes into play when one feels that everything is just a rose garden and everyone goes to heaven.
> 
> I realize that you don’t believe in a heaven so I would expect you to disagree with the Bible in its entirety, but a true Christian does not have any hatred toward you or anyone else, they will be full of compassion for you and will actually be praying for you.


Just a comment -


> but a true Christian does not


I do not hold you responsible and I honestly can appreciate your attitude but Ive got to say I/we hear this whole "a TRUE Christian does not do" or "a REAL Christian does do" so many times that it pretty much means nothing anymore.  
So much so that I really wonder if there is more than a dozen or so REAL/TRUE Christians on the planet.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Just a comment -
> 
> I do not hold you responsible and I honestly can appreciate your attitude but Ive got to say I/we hear this whole "a TRUE Christian does not do" or "a REAL Christian does do" so many times that it pretty much means nothing anymore.
> So much so that I really wonder if there is more than a dozen or so REAL/TRUE Christians on the planet.



This


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> Just a comment -
> 
> I do not hold you responsible and I honestly can appreciate your attitude but Ive got to say I/we hear this whole "a TRUE Christian does not do" or "a REAL Christian does do" so many times that it pretty much means nothing anymore.
> So much so that I really wonder if there is more than a dozen or so REAL/TRUE Christians on the planet.



Whose definition of Christian are you using?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Just a comment -
> 
> I do not hold you responsible and I honestly can appreciate your attitude but Ive got to say I/we hear this whole "a TRUE Christian does not do" or "a REAL Christian does do" so many times that it pretty much means nothing anymore.
> So much so that I really wonder if there is more than a dozen or so REAL/TRUE Christians on the planet.


I absolutely agree with you Walt. The term is used way too loosely. The reality is that there are those that claim to be something and they don’t even know what it means. That does not exclude Christianity. 

It’s funny to hear how many of those that are behind bars claim Christianity until they’re released. Although I do believe that some really are sincere and they continue with it after they’re release, but the majority thinks it makes them appear that they’ve made progress. I know folks that are only preaching so tgat they can get the tithes and offerings. 

But, to your point, I can’t argue with it.


----------



## Spotlite

red neck richie said:


> Whose definition of Christian are you using?



I’m not trying to answer for Walt, but this is one group that I would not associate with and if I wasn’t already a Christian, I would struggle with becoming one because of the way that they act

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


----------



## red neck richie

Spotlite said:


> I’m not trying to answer for Walt, but this is one group that I would not associate with and if I wasn’t already a Christian, I would struggle with becoming one because of the way that they act
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church



I agree with you. There are extremist out there. But they have no effects on my personal beliefs. I'm just saying you may want to take the time to get to know a person before you lump them into a category that you have already predetermined. Like Pop Pop said zealots of any persuasion.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I’m not trying to answer for Walt, but this is one group that I would not associate with and if I wasn’t already a Christian, I would struggle with becoming one because of the way that they act
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church



I've often struggled with my desire to see religious people be true to what they espouse and my desire to see them reject most of their religion in favor of liberal secular values.  My favorite example used to be the Amish.  I like how fundamentalist they are when it comes to ideas like pacifism and even some of their values about asceticism that they get from their interpretation of scripture.  As a Humanist I kind of don't like how they treat their women but as a liberal I think that it's their business. In the same way I can absolutely see how Westboro can get their beliefs from the very same Bible.  

In both cases I often admired how fundamentalist they are.  They don't water it down.  Gays are a sin and we should admonish sin and women need to keep their heads covered.  They read the words and they do what they words tell them.  There's a honesty about that that I respected.  Lately, I prefer the modern, nominal Christian who cherry picks the love and peace Jesus over the "I come bringing a sword" Jesus, but I put them all in under the same tent as Christians.  In the same way I put nominal secular Muslims and Jihadists under the same tent of Muslim.  

The problem isn't the people.  People will be good and bad depending on many different things.  The problem is with the texts.  They have the power to a confuse a simple person to extremes.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Whose definition of Christian are you using?


This one -


> Chris·tian
> [ËˆkrisCHÉ™n]
> ADJECTIVE
> of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings:


Now I figure you will probably point to that definition and say something like "Christianity doesn't teach insert whatever bad thing here". But if someone says they are a Christian, I take their word for it. I certainly don't have the time to follow them around 24/7 looking to see if they do or don't follow the letter of the Bible.


----------



## bullethead

I want to know what a "real" Christian is.

And is any Christian here one of the "real"?

I have found that people who use the terms "real" and "true"  really mean  "anyone who agrees with me, hunts the way I hunt, drive the same vehicle as I drive, worships/believes in the same way I do etc etc".  "Real/true" seems to mean "As I do" and everyone else has got it wrong.


----------



## Spotlite

red neck richie said:


> I agree with you. There are extremist out there. But they have no effects on my personal beliefs. I'm just saying you may want to take the time to get to know a person before you lump them into a category that you have already predetermined. Like Pop Pop said zealots of any persuasion.


10-4 there is a danger of lumping folks


ambush80 said:


> I've often struggled with my desire to see religious people be true to what they espouse and my desire to see them reject most of their religion in favor of liberal secular values.  My favorite example used to be the Amish.  I like how fundamentalist they are when it comes to ideas like pacifism and even some of their values about asceticism that they get from their interpretation of scripture.  As a Humanist I kind of don't like how they treat their women but as a liberal I think that it's their business. In the same way I can absolutely see how Westboro can get their beliefs from the very same Bible.
> 
> In both cases I often admired how fundamentalist they are.  They don't water it down.  Gays are a sin and we should admonish sin and women need to keep their heads covered.  They read the words and they do what they words tell them.  There's a honesty about that that I respected.  Lately, I prefer the modern, nominal Christian who cherry picks the love and peace Jesus over the "I come bringing a sword" Jesus, but I put them all in under the same tent as Christians.  In the same way I put nominal secular Muslims and Jihadists under the same tent of Muslim.
> 
> The problem isn't the people.  People will be good and bad depending on many different things.  The problem is with the texts.  They have the power to a confuse a simple person to extremes.


I do appreciate folks that have the integrity to live by the standards that they profess. Some just don’t understand what they’re professing.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I’m not trying to answer for Walt, but this is one group that I would not associate with and if I wasn’t already a Christian, I would struggle with becoming one because of the way that they act
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church


While I certainly put the Westboro Baptist folks in the same category as pond scum and I don't mean to insult pond scum like that but, their actions wouldn't even be a consideration for me or in any way stop me from being a Christian if I truly believed.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> 10-4 there is a danger of lumping folks
> 
> I do appreciate folks that have the integrity to live by the standards that they profess. Some just don’t understand what they’re professing.


Are they the same ones that do not really understand scripture also?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> I want to know what a "real" Christian is.
> 
> And is any Christian here one of the "real"?
> 
> I have found that people who use the terms "real" and "true"  really mean  "anyone who agrees with me, hunts the way I hunt, drive the same vehicle as I drive, worships/believes in the same way I do etc etc".  "Real/true" seems to mean "As I do" and everyone else has got it wrong.



I would be interested in that definition as well. Maybe sinners saved by Gods grace.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I've often struggled with my desire to see religious people be true to what they espouse and my desire to see them reject most of their religion in favor of liberal secular values.  My favorite example used to be the Amish.  I like how fundamentalist they are when it comes to ideas like pacifism and even some of their values about asceticism that they get from their interpretation of scripture.  As a Humanist I kind of don't like how they treat their women but as a liberal I think that it's their business. In the same way I can absolutely see how Westboro can get their beliefs from the very same Bible.
> 
> In both cases I often admired how fundamentalist they are.  They don't water it down.  Gays are a sin and we should admonish sin and women need to keep their heads covered.  They read the words and they do what they words tell them.  There's a honesty about that that I respected.  Lately, I prefer the modern, nominal Christian who cherry picks the love and peace Jesus over the "I come bringing a sword" Jesus, but I put them all in under the same tent as Christians.  In the same way I put nominal secular Muslims and Jihadists under the same tent of Muslim.
> 
> The problem isn't the people.  People will be good and bad depending on many different things.  The problem is with the texts.  They have the power to a confuse a simple person to extremes.





> People will be good and bad depending on many different things.


Yes. Including Christians.
Christians are people so I don't expect them to be "perfect".
And I think that's more or less my point. What would be a "true/real" Christian? It sort of seems to me that's just a convenient response to attempt to explain away bad behavior. I don't think its even possible to be "good" 24/7/365.
Even Christianity itself acknowledges that.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I want to know what a "real" Christian is.
> 
> And is any Christian here one of the "real"?
> 
> I have found that people who use the terms "real" and "true"  really mean  "anyone who agrees with me, hunts the way I hunt, drive the same vehicle as I drive, worships/believes in the same way I do etc etc".  "Real/true" seems to mean "As I do" and everyone else has got it wrong.


I don’t personally know anyone on here enough to determine if they’re real or not. You are known by the fruit you bear. In order to know that, I would have to know their life. 

A real Christian can stand his ground with his beliefs about what he considers sin and still be your friend and not partake of the sin.  A fake one will condemn you and exclude you from society unless you believe the way he does, and go out do what he told you was a sin.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don’t personally know anyone on here enough to determine if they’re real or not. You are known by the fruit you bear. In order to know that, I would have to know their life.
> 
> A real Christian can stand his ground with his beliefs about what he considers sin and still be your friend and not partake of the sin.  A fake one will condemn you and exclude you from society unless you believe the way he does, and go out do what he told you was a sin.


By your definition of a real Christian, is it safe to assume that you are a REAL Christian then?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> By your definition of a real Christian, is it safe to assume that you are a REAL Christian then?



 Im not going to tell you that something is a sin and then go out and do it when you’re not looking.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Are they the same ones that do not really understand scripture also?



People can certainly misunderstand scripture and live according to their misunderstanding. But some folks don’t have a clue of what Christianity is and they’ll attach their selves to it thinking it’s just the right thing to do to fit it with coworkers or other groups.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> People can certainly misunderstand scripture and live according to their misunderstanding. But some folks don’t have a clue of what Christianity is and they’ll attach their selves to it thinking it’s just the right thing to do to fit it with coworkers or other groups.


Be careful, that's a slippery slope.
For some of us, finding out what Christianity "is", is what caused us to reject it (including the Bible).
Christianity's history, when viewed completely objectively, is not a pretty story.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Be careful, that's a slippery slope.
> For some of us, finding out what Christianity "is", is what caused us to reject it (including the Bible).
> Christianity's history, when viewed completely objectively, is not a pretty story.



Yes Sir, I’m aware. And it will ultimately come down to the person to decide what he believes after viewing. 

But for this discussion of what I’m referring to when it comes to folks claiming Christianity and not having a clue of what Christianity is - there are those that join the church because their family said so, or the new job said it would look good on future promotions, or as a salesman, it looks good if you’re a Christian, etc.


----------



## Israel

What_ is _christianity?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Israel said:


> What_ is _christianity?



In a word, it's the Word. I can't quit sinning so I needed someone to wipe away my sins. To wipe my slate clean.
I tried to quit sinning and save myself, but it just never seem to work out for me. Then Jesus found me and told me he died for my sins.
It was like a load was lifted from my shoulders. A yoke was removed from my neck.

By many other men, I'm not considered a Christian because I don't believe in the Trinity exactly as they do. I also don't believe in eternal punishment by fire either.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> What_ is _christianity?


A monotheistic religion.


----------



## Israel

The broadness of range in those two answers says quite a bit. Thank you.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Are you saying that your Son forgetting to take out the trash and all of Mankind being held accountable for a guy eating a piece of fruit (not to mention the millions upon millions of deaths due to religious beliefs) is the same?
> 
> I think difference in the repercussions of each may be a little greater than you are able to fathom.



I see the rightness in what you speak. Especially regarding repercussions. What may appear a small thing, may even be proposed as a _seemingly_ small thing contains in it a world of woe, literally.

But in that scene I see something with which all men contend...and am inclined to believe would agree to if openly and thoroughly examined.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> The broadness of range in those two answers says quite a bit. Thank you.


Probably a perfect representation of believer vs. nonbeliever, emotional attachment vs. nonemotional attachment.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Probably a perfect representation of believer vs. nonbeliever, emotional attachment vs. nonemotional attachment.



There might be little less a range, but not much, amongst those who identify in that title.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I’m just saying that I’ve been a Christian all of my life and the hatred and other attributes that you have applied to Christianity.......I’ve never witnessed nor do I even recall anyone that has witnessed them. If you’re basing your opinions on things like the wicked being destroyed, etc., the reality is the sugar coated pill comes into play when one feels that everything is just a rose garden and everyone goes to heaven.
> 
> I realize that you don’t believe in a heaven so I would expect you to disagree with the Bible in its entirety, but a true Christian does not have any hatred toward you or anyone else, they will be full of compassion for you and will actually be praying for you.



Who said anything about hatred? I don't believe I did. Condemnation perhaps but if you think the point is condemnation by Christians you miss the point. The condemnation is already there in scripture. There is no point to salvation if there is nothing to be saved from. And the Christian bible makes clear in explicit terms what it claims to be saving people from.

Matthew 13

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”


If anything it's the Westboro Baptist types that are being more honest about the Christian religion. Their motive may be hate and their delivery may be harsh but the message contained in the core doctrine of Christianity remains the same. No veil of being a peaceful and loving Christian can cover up the nastiness found in these scriptures.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Who said anything about hatred? I don't believe I did. Condemnation perhaps but if you think the point is condemnation by Christians you miss the point. The condemnation is already there in scripture. There is no point to salvation if there is nothing to be saved from. And the Christian bible makes clear in explicit terms what it claims to be saving people from.
> 
> Matthew 13
> 
> 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
> 
> 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
> 
> 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
> 
> 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
> 
> 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> 
> Revelation 21:8
> 
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> If anything it's the Westboro Baptist types that are being more honest about the Christian religion. Their motive may be hate and their delivery may be harsh but the message contained in the core doctrine of Christianity remains the same. No veil of being a peaceful and loving Christian can cover up the nastiness found in these scriptures.


Yep.
The average Christian is definitely caught between a rock and a hard place.
While I can appreciate those who "soften" the whole thing, at the same time that is exactly what they are doing. Softening the whole thing.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Who said anything about hatred? I don't believe I did. Condemnation perhaps but if you think the point is condemnation by Christians you miss the point. The condemnation is already there in scripture. There is no point to salvation if there is nothing to be saved from. And the Christian bible makes clear in explicit terms what it claims to be saving people from.
> 
> Matthew 13
> 
> 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
> 
> 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
> 
> 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
> 
> 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
> 
> 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> 
> Revelation 21:8
> 
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
> 
> 
> If anything it's the Westboro Baptist types that are being more honest about the Christian religion. Their motive may be hate and their delivery may be harsh but the message contained in the core doctrine of Christianity remains the same. No veil of being a peaceful and loving Christian can cover up the nastiness found in these scriptures.


Ok I was confused on the hatred issue, may have been someone else’s post. I see your point, but the wicked will be destroyed in the end. And to your point about west boro, their actions are uncalled for.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Spotlite said:


> Ok I was confused on the hatred issue, may have been someone else’s post. I see your point, but the wicked will be destroyed in the end. And to your point about west boro, their actions are uncalled for.



The issue I have is that not only are the wicked destroyed, but the good and just and kind are tortured for eternity also, if they never accepted Jesus. He!! is the default position, not the punishment for wickedness.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

NCHillbilly said:


> The issue I have is that not only are the wicked destroyed, but the good and just and kind are tortured for eternity also, if they never accepted Jesus. He!! is the default position, not the punishment for wickedness.



don't confuse the reason for spending eternity in one place or the other.  It isn't because you are good you get to go to heaven, or that you were bad, so hades is your destination.  Your behavior is not the deciding issue.

the deciding issue is whether or not you accepted that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and repented of your wrongdoing.

What some people confuse is the 'he wasn't a bad person, I have known a lot worse' spending eternity in hades.

Righteousness and sin are like oil and water.  They won't mix. You can put them together in a bottle and shake them for a year, and when you put the bottle down, the oil will float to the top.  So it is with sin/righteousness.  It doesn't matter if you were a 'good' sinner or a 'despicable' sinner.  Sin and God won't go together, and He will not allow sin to enter heaven.  Not even a little bit. Not a drop.

The only way to rid yourself of sin is through Jesus Christ. 

OK... go ahead with your poking and prodding about my answer.  It won't hurt me a bit, but remember, I wasn't the one who made the rules, and neither were you.  If you don't like the rules, take it up with the One who made everything.


----------



## j_seph

NCHillbilly said:


> The issue I have is that not only are the wicked destroyed, but the good and just and kind are tortured for eternity also, if they never accepted Jesus. He!! is the default position, not the punishment for wickedness.


If that is the issue you have then why not seek him? Humble yourself to seek him, not saying directly at you but if one is always trying to prove the nonexistence then how can they ever humble their self to seek him?


----------



## atlashunter

NCHillbilly said:


> The issue I have is that not only are the wicked destroyed, but the good and just and kind are tortured for eternity also, if they never accepted Jesus. He!! is the default position, not the punishment for wickedness.



^This. You can be a much better person than any christian that ever lived and still fall into the "wicked" camp for being faithless. This is what passes for morality in the christian bible and it is core to the message. Hence post #263. And the presumption that anyone can be let alone everyone by default _is_ wicked enough to warrant being burned for an eternity is questionable to say the least.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> If that is the issue you have then why not seek him? Humble yourself to seek him, not saying directly at you but if one is always trying to prove the nonexistence then how can they ever humble their self to seek him?



Why not question the premise which is dubious at best? A righteous god and the god of the bible are two different gods. Regardless of which one you worship the christian religion should be rejected outright.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> If that is the issue you have then why not seek him? Humble yourself to seek him, not saying directly at you but if one is always trying to prove the nonexistence then how can they ever humble their self to seek him?


One doesn't have to prove nonexistence.
If something can't be proven to in fact exist... well it doesn't until it can.
You are called a believer for a reason.
You are required to have faith for a reason.

Name something that in fact exists.
Do you have to believe it exists?
Do you have to have faith it exists?
Does something that in fact exists cease to exist if you don't believe it does or don't have faith it does?

Its really odd how you guys cling to this "prove something doesn't exist" nonsense.


----------



## bullethead

NE GA Pappy said:


> don't confuse the reason for spending eternity in one place or the other.  It isn't because you are good you get to go to heaven, or that you were bad, so hades is your destination.  Your behavior is not the deciding issue.
> 
> the deciding issue is whether or not you accepted that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and repented of your wrongdoing.
> 
> What some people confuse is the 'he wasn't a bad person, I have known a lot worse' spending eternity in hades.
> 
> Righteousness and sin are like oil and water.  They won't mix. You can put them together in a bottle and shake them for a year, and when you put the bottle down, the oil will float to the top.  So it is with sin/righteousness.  It doesn't matter if you were a 'good' sinner or a 'despicable' sinner.  Sin and God won't go together, and He will not allow sin to enter heaven.  Not even a little bit. Not a drop.
> 
> The only way to rid yourself of sin is through Jesus Christ.
> 
> OK... go ahead with your poking and prodding about my answer.  It won't hurt me a bit, but remember, I wasn't the one who made the rules, and neither were you.  If you don't like the rules, take it up with the One who made everything.



"One" is a no-show nowhere to be found.
Things that do not exist cannot make rules.
On the other hand, a man made book is full of rules.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> If that is the issue you have then why not seek him? Humble yourself to seek him, not saying directly at you but if one is always trying to prove the nonexistence then how can they ever humble their self to seek him?


I did and another god showed up.


----------



## Spotlite

NCHillbilly said:


> The issue I have is that not only are the wicked destroyed, but the good and just and kind are tortured for eternity also, if they never accepted Jesus. He!! is the default position, not the punishment for wickedness.



Valid point if it was just about who’s good or bad. There’s more to not accepting Jesus than simply not accepting.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> "One" is a no-show nowhere to be found.
> Things that do not exist cannot make rules.
> On the other hand, a man made book is full of rules.



We will see one day


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> And the presumption that anyone can be let alone everyone by default _is_ wicked enough to warrant being burned for an eternity is questionable to say the least.



For arguments sake, if I’m wrong, I pray to God that you’re right


----------



## Spotlite

NE GA Pappy said:


> don't confuse the reason for spending eternity in one place or the other.  It isn't because you are good you get to go to heaven, or that you were bad, so hades is your destination.  Your behavior is not the deciding issue.
> 
> the deciding issue is whether or not you accepted that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and repented of your wrongdoing.
> 
> What some people confuse is the 'he wasn't a bad person, I have known a lot worse' spending eternity in hades.
> 
> Righteousness and sin are like oil and water.  They won't mix. You can put them together in a bottle and shake them for a year, and when you put the bottle down, the oil will float to the top.  So it is with sin/righteousness.  It doesn't matter if you were a 'good' sinner or a 'despicable' sinner.  Sin and God won't go together, and He will not allow sin to enter heaven.  Not even a little bit. Not a drop.
> 
> The only way to rid yourself of sin is through Jesus Christ.
> 
> OK... go ahead with your poking and prodding about my answer.  It won't hurt me a bit, but remember, I wasn't the one who made the rules, and neither were you.  If you don't like the rules, take it up with the One who made everything.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> One doesn't have to prove nonexistence.
> If something can't be proven to in fact exist... well it doesn't until it can.
> You are called a believer for a reason.
> You are required to have faith for a reason.
> 
> Name something that in fact exists.
> Do you have to believe it exists?
> Do you have to have faith it exists?
> Does something that in fact exists cease to exist if you don't believe it does or don't have faith it does?
> 
> Its really odd how you guys cling to this "prove something doesn't exist" nonsense.





Known to exist. Like Sandra Bullock?

Insertion of consciousness where it is not...yet? Or is it... never was? 

Like the big bang? 

El concho es muy slipperrioso. It thinks it goes places it doesn't.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> We will see one day



We will Cease one day.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> We will Cease one day.



Physically, without a doubt


----------



## Israel

And from the "Now for Something Completely Different" archive:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/la...icial-intelligence-religion-way-of-the-future


----------



## Spotlite

Israel said:


> Known to exist. Like Sandra Bullock?
> 
> 
> Like the big bang?
> .



I saw Sandra on TV so I know she does......and they said the Big Bang, or a dust cloud, or possibly some type of spontaneous combustion of gases, etc so it had to exist even though no one saw it........right????


----------



## NCHillbilly

j_seph said:


> If that is the issue you have then why not seek him? Humble yourself to seek him, not saying directly at you but if one is always trying to prove the nonexistence then how can they ever humble their self to seek him?



God supposedly made us in his own image. Then roasts us in a big fire for eternity for acting just like he designed us to act, unless we grovel to him and beg his forgiveness for being the way he made us. Not a god I really would want to worship as a morally superior being. This god sounds like Ramsey Bolton from Game of Thrones. 

I do not believe that this is the true nature of God. But, it is the God of the Bible. I think I would prefer to look for God elsewhere. 

And, what most would call "radical fundamentalist Christians," are the ones who take the Bible (which is supposed to be the Word of God,) literally, and follow it to a T.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I saw Sandra on TV so I know she does......and they said the Big Bang, or a dust cloud, or possibly some type of spontaneous combustion of gases, etc so it had to exist even though no one saw it........right????


Evidence either proves or disproves claims.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I saw Sandra on TV so I know she does......and they said the Big Bang, or a dust cloud, or possibly some type of spontaneous combustion of gases, etc so it had to exist even though no one saw it........right????



There is physical evidence of the big bang. For Yahweh not so much and thank goodness for that.


----------



## Israel

NCHillbilly said:


> God supposedly made us in his own image. Then roasts us in a big fire for eternity for acting just like he designed us to act, unless we grovel to him and beg his forgiveness for being the way he made us. Not a god I really would want to worship as a morally superior being. This god sounds like Ramsey Bolton from Game of Thrones.
> 
> I do not believe that this is the true nature of God. But, it is the God of the Bible. I think I would prefer to look for God elsewhere.
> 
> And, what most would call "radical fundamentalist Christians," are the ones who take the Bible (which is supposed to be the Word of God,) literally, and follow it to a T.



What the Hebrews learned they learned through many painful lessons...if any learned at all. I am convinced some did. One may not like what they read, may not agree, may not _believe_...but I do find one thing, what is called the OT is replete with stories of a people "telling on themselves" through the prophets.

Who can read and miss the warnings? Who can read and miss the recorded missteps contained? Who can read and miss  (as others have said) the "warts and all" revelations? Stories of a people chosen, who in that state took it to themselves to think themselves now "hot stuff", moved by a headiness that led them astray time after time, yet thinking themselves immune to the righteousness of the God they proclaimed. And finding themselves, time after time as they themselves the ones rebuked for disobedience and pride, landing in serious hot water. Captivities, humiliating defeats, dread judgments for things not hidden, but written; adulteries, murders, deceits, presumptions and craven lusts in greed for power. Not hidden, not spun as some history of a people so noble and exemplary in their manner and pursuits as to make the world blush in shame. Plainly...very much in some ways, in almost all ways, as the world at large.

But the story/stories, almost compellingly honest to a self admitted embarrassment (and as such I believe merit consideration on that basis alone) also have the rebukes and chastenings plainly contained. Warnings. Warnings issued from prophets in a call to justice, against dealing falsely, against a people so swollen in pride at their "own chosenness" as to disregard the commands of the very One whom they claim "made them special" by His choosing. One can disagree with the claims, disagree with the instructions given, disagree with the commands...but I would find it hard to disagree that these things are found...a people preserving a history replete with all their own earned humiliations. In that, by itself, something speaks.

Paul has said (_that_ apostle) these things happened that a people may be warned. Admonished. Be instructed. Learn. That God is not a talisman to be carried, not a rabbit's foot for possession, but Himself, possessor. The claim of "knowing Him" or "having Him" is not to the end of a prideful boast of immunity, nor to a capriciousness of will as though "this God" who made the ear is deaf, who made the eye, is blind. It is both, and always, the blessing of knowing, with the stern warning of not departing from Him who has given the knowing. Too stern? Unnecessarily harsh? Not if one learns. If one learns of a proclivity to be swollen in pride, a thing never far from any, never too distant a temptation as to be "now" easily disregarded.
One can go through those pages for a plain instruction in result.

Jesus appeared after a long silence. "The" people now under the boot of the most formidable, entrenched, and far reaching worldly power the world had ever seen. It is said it was in the "fullness of time" He appeared, in this protracted silence toward the "people of God" in now misery of occupation, misery of of what probably seemed to them the most willful, and capricious exercise of such power over them, that perhaps they were "ripe" for a hearing...finally, through that suffering ready to acknowledge, "God is the Lord", and there is no escaping His righteous judgment...for any...even "His own".

Yes, I see a growth. A growth in mankind, and a mankind chosen. Daddy is "the Dad" (with whatever attendant understanding of because) as in "Because I am the Dad".
Finally understood in some measure, by at least some, now made ready to hear more. His unquestionable authority is not needing to be explained, (as never it was)...but a people called, and even made for excursions against it...have shown the result. It is a full grown son sent as though saying to those "who would/could hear"..."now that that matter is is finally understood, there is no God but God...hear _all of His will _for man"

I see what may appear obvious objection. "Why those people for example?" "Why that grouping for exposition" "Why that kind of plan...at all?" And I likewise understand that for any who cannot "see themselves" in that group, of "those kind of people" who could take a truth and depart so far from it as to shame themselves, this probably means little or nothing. But for some of us we identify, we see how we have made of our lives an occupation of strong and brutal forces, in likewise measure now enlightened to the truth..."we can blame no one...but ourselves"...we have deceived ourselves in our own pride. Yes, some of us are born to cry out for deliverance from those things we have "rightly earned".


And to this end, and for us, Jesus Christ appears...in the fullness of time. Our fight against authority, The Authority, is both revealed as it is, our own rebelliousness...and the great gift given to help us lay down our arms against Him. By lifting them empty, to Him.

We do not wonder why men do not see their judgment coming...for we surely did not. We ourselves were all so "very special to ourselves" in likewise manner thinking that all we saw "happening to others" was surely not _for us_. But such things were all so precisely arranged for us, that we might even think so, and there discover our own pride...and then, when its dreadful bonds revealed in terrible consequences too great to bear, we might cry out. And crying out is as great a gift given that those who have, have learned not to despise it.


----------



## oldfella1962

NCHillbilly said:


> God supposedly made us in his own image. Then roasts us in a big fire for eternity for acting just like he designed us to act, unless we grovel to him and beg his forgiveness for being the way he made us. Not a god I really would want to worship as a morally superior being. This god sounds like Ramsey Bolton from Game of Thrones.
> 
> I do not believe that this is the true nature of God. But, it is the God of the Bible. I think I would prefer to look for God elsewhere.
> 
> And, what most would call "radical fundamentalist Christians," are the ones who take the Bible (which is supposed to be the Word of God,) literally, and follow it to a T.



yep, that's my "sticking point" with Christianity - I just cannot (maybe my feeble human brain is limited) equate "loving god" with "eternal torment." Yes, the default Christian answer is "he gives us a choice" but that doesn't make sense.  Why would that choice even be on the table?  It seems that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and it is really revenge and cruelty for cruelty's sake. 

A few weeks ago the pastor at the church I attend (I go to spend time with my wife - I'd rather be outside) was talking about hades and said "why _wouldn't_ there be eternal torment? Because now you don't have god to protect you from it."  Wait - didn't god create hades in the first place? It's not like another god created it and he wants to keep you from getting caught by the enemy, so to speak. He is the enemy (sort of) for creating eternal torment in the first place. 

I guess my "religion" would be positive thinking, tolerance, respect for all living things, no such thing as good or evil, and realizing humans are not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we are all very complicated and thus not perfect. And humans did indeed evolve from a long line of critters and we will face extinction like every other critter and that's okay.


----------



## Israel

oldfella1962 said:


> yep, that's my "sticking point" with Christianity - I just cannot (maybe my feeble human brain is limited) equate "loving god" with "eternal torment." Yes, the default Christian answer is "he gives us a choice" but that doesn't make sense.  Why would that choice even be on the table?  It seems that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and it is really revenge and cruelty for cruelty's sake.
> 
> A few weeks ago the pastor at the church I attend (I go to spend time with my wife - I'd rather be outside) was talking about hades and said "why _wouldn't_ there be eternal torment? Because now you don't have god to protect you from it."  Wait - didn't god create hades in the first place? It's not like another god created it and he wants to keep you from getting caught by the enemy, so to speak. He is the enemy (sort of) for creating eternal torment in the first place.
> 
> I guess my "religion" would be positive thinking, tolerance, respect for all living things, no such thing as good or evil, and realizing humans are not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we are all very complicated and thus not perfect. And humans did indeed evolve from a long line of critters and we will face extinction like every other critter and that's okay.






> but we are all very complicated and thus not perfect.



That's a niggling and nagging thing...isn't it?

That notion of something being what it is...yet in its being what it is...there's still the perception of something called perfect...and this thing being "not quite right" relative to it.

It seems it could be more, yet falls short.

Now, feel free to throw out all and any consideration of better/best/perfect...as mere constructs...but recognize how much else is discarded in that assumption. I wouldn't be afraid to say...everything of which man thinks.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Evidence either proves or disproves claims.


But most of the time the non believer says that he doesn’t have to disprove God, the believer has to prove him. Is there evidence that disproves God?


atlashunter said:


> There is physical evidence of the big bang. For Yahweh not so much and thank goodness for that.



Just a question - are you two absolutely 100% positive that God doesn’t exist?

This is not an argumentative question, just curious if you’re absolutely positive or if you found evidence, you’d believe.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Israel said:


> That's a niggling and nagging thing...isn't it?
> 
> That notion of something being what it is...yet in its being what it is...there's still the perception of something called perfect...and this thing being "not quite right" relative to it.
> 
> It seems it could be more, yet falls short.
> 
> Now, feel free to throw out all and any consideration of better/best/perfect...as mere constructs...but recognize how much else is discarded in that assumption. I wouldn't be afraid to say...everything of which man thinks.



I don't believe humans are perfect by a long shot, but I don't believe that we are born depraved and inherently sinful and in need of redemption, either. 

We are what we are. Better than some critters on this floating ball, worse than others.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> That's a niggling and nagging thing...isn't it?
> 
> That notion of something being what it is...yet in its being what it is...there's still the perception of something called perfect...and this thing being "not quite right" relative to it.
> 
> It seems it could be more, yet falls short.
> 
> Now, feel free to throw out all and any consideration of better/best/perfect...as mere constructs...but recognize how much else is discarded in that assumption. I wouldn't be afraid to say...everything of which man thinks.



Oh look! Your deity happens to be among the discarded. Along with a great many other gods. Yahweh could be more yet falls short. To be expected I suppose considering his maker.


----------



## atlashunter

oldfella1962 said:


> yep, that's my "sticking point" with Christianity - I just cannot (maybe my feeble human brain is limited) equate "loving god" with "eternal torment." Yes, the default Christian answer is "he gives us a choice" but that doesn't make sense.  Why would that choice even be on the table?  It seems that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and it is really revenge and cruelty for cruelty's sake.
> 
> A few weeks ago the pastor at the church I attend (I go to spend time with my wife - I'd rather be outside) was talking about hades and said "why _wouldn't_ there be eternal torment? Because now you don't have god to protect you from it."  Wait - didn't god create hades in the first place? It's not like another god created it and he wants to keep you from getting caught by the enemy, so to speak. He is the enemy (sort of) for creating eternal torment in the first place.
> 
> I guess my "religion" would be positive thinking, tolerance, respect for all living things, no such thing as good or evil, and realizing humans are not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we are all very complicated and thus not perfect. And humans did indeed evolve from a long line of critters and we will face extinction like every other critter and that's okay.



Well said.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> But most of the time the non believer says that he doesn’t have to disprove God, the believer has to prove him. Is there evidence that disproves God?
> 
> 
> Just a question - are you two absolutely 100% positive that God doesn’t exist?
> 
> This is not an argumentative question, just curious if you’re absolutely positive or if you found evidence, you’d believe.



Not 100% but pretty close to it.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> But most of the time the non believer says that he doesn’t have to disprove God, the believer has to prove him. Is there evidence that disproves God?



Give me any piece of evidence that disproves another god that would not apply equally to your god.


----------



## Israel

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't believe humans are perfect by a long shot, but I don't believe that we are born depraved and inherently sinful and in need of redemption, either.
> 
> We are what we are. Better than some critters on this floating ball, worse than others.





> We are what we are. Better than some critters on this floating ball, worse than others



I don't see how the second sentence is consistent with the first. In the first is exemption from any comparison, a thing is what it is.

But the second...well...comparison is again introduced.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Israel said:


> I don't see how the second sentence is consistent with the first. In the first is exemption from any comparison, a thing is what it is.
> 
> But the second...well...comparison is again introduced.



A thing being what it is does not make it incapable of being compared to other things that are what they are?

Humans and liver flukes have their similarities, but they are also different.


----------



## Spineyman

atlashunter said:


> I understand the concern that a loved one might get sent to the hot place if they haven't crossed the right T's and dotted the right I's in this life. If someone really believes that then of course they would want to help. What I can't wrap my mind around is why the believer can't step back from that situation and ask the question "Does my loved one really deserve to be cast in an eternal fire?". Never seems to cross their mind that anyone who might do that to their loved one is unworthy of their love and admiration.


Here is the crux of the matter. God is so Holy that He cannot look on sin. He clearly stated the wages of sin is death. That is not only physical death but also spiritual death as well. Which means separation form God. The only way back to a right relationship with your Creator, the Only True God is through the mediation of His Son whom He sent to be sin so that we may know life. So in answering you the answer is yes we all deserve to die, but God has in His Mercy provided a way out, and there is only one way. That is through the Blood of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Israel

NCHillbilly said:


> A thing being what it is does not make it incapable of being compared to other things that are what they are?
> 
> Humans and liver flukes have their similarities, but they are also different.





> We are what we are. Better than some critters on this floating ball, worse than others.



Did I misinterpret the comparison of "better/worse"? If so...and you only meant distinction of kind, then I stand corrected. Might you see how a better/worse stance includes a judgment beyond mere distinction of kind?


----------



## atlashunter

Spineyman said:


> Here is the crux of the matter. God is so Holy that He cannot look on sin. He clearly stated the wages of sin is death. That is not only physical death but also spiritual death as well. Which means separation form God. The only way back to a right relationship with your Creator, the Only True God is through the mediation of His Son whom He sent to be sin so that we may know life. So in answering you the answer is yes we all deserve to die, but God has in His Mercy provided a way out, and there is only one way. That is through the Blood of Jesus Christ.



A god so holy he cannot look on sin yet knowingly created all the conditions for it to be. A god that declares people evil and then intentionally waits for them to become more evil so that he can destroy them. A god that hardens the hearts of men so that he has the pretense to kill the first born of an entire nation. Sorry but your claims simply don't add up.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Oh look! Your deity happens to be among the discarded. Along with a great many other gods. Yahweh could be more yet falls short. To be expected I suppose considering his maker.



You do know I was speaking of the comparison men make among themselves? Neither did the original context imply an inclusion of any but man. But you have seen fit to _turn it_ to your purpose, which is of course, something you are capable of doing. 

I think you're swinging about as high as your arms can reach, being as specific it seems as you can, in mention of "name"...not simply finding fault in god as concept, but that _very one_. Of course you must. Above all He must appear as offense to you. Precisely because He is...above all...and there's a thing that just cannot bear being found to be not god over all.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> You do know I was speaking of the comparison men make among themselves? Neither did the original context imply any inclusion of any but man. But you have seen fit to _turn it_ to your purpose, which is of course, something you are capable of doing.
> 
> I think you're swinging about as high as your arms can reach, being as specific it seems as you can, in mention of "name"...not simply finding fault in god as concept, but that _very one_. Of course you must. Above all He must appear as offense to you. Precisely because He is...above all...and there's a thing that just cannot bear being found to be not god over all.



He happens to be the most popular one in our culture and yeah the suck is pretty strong with him. The suck is stronger for the Muslim version of this god if that makes you feel any better. It's easier to find fault in particular gods when inconsistent and dubious claims are made for those gods than would apply to a generic god concept.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> What the Hebrews learned they learned through many painful lessons...if any learned at all. I am convinced some did. One may not like what they read, may not agree, may not _believe_...but I do find one thing, what is called the OT is replete with stories of a people "telling on themselves" through the prophets.
> 
> Who can read and miss the warnings? Who can read and miss the recorded missteps contained? Who can read and miss  (as others have said) the "warts and all" revelations? Stories of a people chosen, who in that state took it to themselves to think themselves now "hot stuff", moved by a headiness that led them astray time after time, yet thinking themselves immune to the righteousness of the God they proclaimed. And finding themselves, time after time as they themselves the ones rebuked for disobedience and pride, landing in serious hot water. Captivities, humiliating defeats, dread judgments for things not hidden, but written; adulteries, murders, deceits, presumptions and craven lusts in greed for power. Not hidden, not spun as some history of a people so noble and exemplary in their manner and pursuits as to make the world blush in shame. Plainly...very much in some ways, in almost all ways, as the world at large.
> 
> But the story/stories, almost compellingly honest to a self admitted embarrassment (and as such I believe merit consideration on that basis alone) also have the rebukes and chastenings plainly contained. Warnings. Warnings issued from prophets in a call to justice, against dealing falsely, against a people so swollen in pride at their "own chosenness" as to disregard the commands of the very One whom they claim "made them special" by His choosing. One can disagree with the claims, disagree with the instructions given, disagree with the commands...but I would find it hard to disagree that these things are found...a people preserving a history replete with all their own earned humiliations. In that, by itself, something speaks.
> 
> Paul has said (_that_ apostle) these things happened that a people may be warned. Admonished. Be instructed. Learn. That God is not a talisman to be carried, not a rabbit's foot for possession, but Himself, possessor. The claim of "knowing Him" or "having Him" is not to the end of a prideful boast of immunity, nor to a capriciousness of will as though "this God" who made the ear is deaf, who made the eye, is blind. It is both, and always, the blessing of knowing, with the stern warning of not departing from Him who has given the knowing. Too stern? Unnecessarily harsh? Not if one learns. If one learns of a proclivity to be swollen in pride, a thing never far from any, never too distant a temptation as to be "now" easily disregarded.
> One can go through those pages for a plain instruction in result.
> 
> Jesus appeared after a long silence. "The" people now under the boot of the most formidable, entrenched, and far reaching worldly power the world had ever seen. It is said it was in the "fullness of time" He appeared, in this protracted silence toward the "people of God" in now misery of occupation, misery of of what probably seemed to them the most willful, and capricious exercise of such power over them, that perhaps they were "ripe" for a hearing...finally, through that suffering ready to acknowledge, "God is the Lord", and there is no escaping His righteous judgment...for any...even "His own".
> 
> Yes, I see a growth. A growth in mankind, and a mankind chosen. Daddy is "the Dad" (with whatever attendant understanding of because) as in "Because I am the Dad".
> Finally understood in some measure, by at least some, now made ready to hear more. His unquestionable authority is not needing to be explained, (as never it was)...but a people called, and even made for excursions against it...have shown the result. It is a full grown son sent as though saying to those "who would/could hear"..."now that that matter is is finally understood, there is no God but God...hear _all of His will _for man"
> 
> I see what may appear obvious objection. "Why those people for example?" "Why that grouping for exposition" "Why that kind of plan...at all?" And I likewise understand that for any who cannot "see themselves" in that group, of "those kind of people" who could take a truth and depart so far from it as to shame themselves, this probably means little or nothing. But for some of us we identify, we see how we have made of our lives an occupation of strong and brutal forces, in likewise measure now enlightened to the truth..."we can blame no one...but ourselves"...we have deceived ourselves in our own pride. Yes, some of us are born to cry out for deliverance from those things we have "rightly earned".
> 
> 
> And to this end, and for us, Jesus Christ appears...in the fullness of time. Our fight against authority, The Authority, is both revealed as it is, our own rebelliousness...and the great gift given to help us lay down our arms against Him. By lifting them empty, to Him.
> 
> We do not wonder why men do not see their judgment coming...for we surely did not. We ourselves were all so "very special to ourselves" in likewise manner thinking that all we saw "happening to others" was surely not _for us_. But such things were all so precisely arranged for us, that we might even think so, and there discover our own pride...and then, when its dreadful bonds revealed in terrible consequences too great to bear, we might cry out. And crying out is as great a gift given that those who have, have learned not to despise it.


The OT (and NT) are full of stories of events that have been proven to have never happened at all.
They are full of events that cannot be proved to have ever happened.
Whats left is not much to have faith in.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> But most of the time the non believer says that he doesn’t have to disprove God, the believer has to prove him. Is there evidence that disproves God?
> 
> 
> Just a question - are you two absolutely 100% positive that God doesn’t exist?
> 
> This is not an argumentative question, just curious if you’re absolutely positive or if you found evidence, you’d believe.


The same evidence that You use to disprove any and all other gods is good enough for me.


I am not 100% sure of much of anything let alone the existence of a being that is beyond my capability to understand. But, I am not going to pick one god out of the tens of thousands of gods JUST to somehow make myself feel good and hope that I picked the right one.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Give me any piece of evidence that disproves another god that would not apply equally to your god.





bullethead said:


> The same evidence that You use to disprove any and all other gods is good enough for me.



So if my disbelief can’t disprove another god, how does yours disprove any of of them?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> So if my disbelief can’t disprove another god, how does yours disprove any of of them?



My disbelief is based off of lack of evidence. My disbelief is the result of whether it is more likely or not a god exists based off of evidence.
A sunrise is not evidence.
A feeling is not evidence.
A man written book that was done by mostly anonymous authors over thousands of years and its contents decided upon by councils is not evidence.
An unexplained experience is not evidence.

If any of those were evidence of a god that is to be worshiped then there are many gods and they all should be worshiped.

If there exists such a thing that is responsible for creating creation I am convinced that no major or minor religion has gotten their version correct. Especially if such a being wants itself known to its potential followers.
If in fact a god exists I am not capable of understanding it's complexity.  If in fact it exists and I am supposed to know of it,  it should be capable of contacting me in a way (that only such a being could) that makes it crystal clear and unique to me.

I am open to such contact 24/7.
A god would already know that.
If such a being wants me to know it, it will contact me. If such a being could care less if I know of it, it won't contact me.

Until then I have to go with what I am able to observe and educate myself about.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> So if my disbelief can’t disprove another god, how does yours disprove any of of them?



And in a sense your disbelief has disproved all of those other gods. You have seen enough evidence, or better yet LACK of evidence, that has you positive that those gods just do not exist and the people who say that those gods exists are mistaken and their evidence is not really evidence that convinces you.
I go one god further.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> And in a sense your disbelief has disproved all of those other gods. You have seen enough evidence, or better yet LACK of evidence, that has you positive that those gods just do not exist and the people who say that those gods exists are mistaken and their evidence is not really evidence that convinces you.
> I go one god further.



I follow you now.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> So if my disbelief can’t disprove another god, how does yours disprove any of of them?



If there is equal evidence (or lack of evidence) in the existence of gods which you reject then why should anyone give more credence to your god?


----------



## Israel

Have you ever had a friend tell you something so painfully deep about yourself that you did not want to believe it, and that at that time appeared to you as a betrayal of sorts, a hurtful rejection from which you did not believe you could recover?

Yet, you know it's true?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Have you ever had a friend tell you something so painfully deep about yourself that you did not want to believe it, and that at that time appeared to you as a betrayal of sorts, a hurtful rejection from which you did not believe you could recover?
> 
> Yet, you know it's true?



You'll get over it.
We tell you these things because we care.


----------



## PopPop

Here is my take.
We are part of a reality that we can not measure, define nor map. To state with any level of certainty that we know how or when or why it came to be is the absolute height of arrogance.
The only thing we know is that we don't know and probably never will.
That leaves us only with what we believe. Your belief is no more rational nor relevant than mine, it is not superior, does not demonstrate any heightened awareness and could be simply a collection of chemicals in our own brain.
Now, I do believe what I believe, with a passion. I do not believe that your different belief becomes superior or inferior based on the differences in our passion. And those differences in passion do not become reason.
Here's the kicker, I am comfortable with you believing whatever you want. But when you tell me you Know, I ain't buying it, not even on double coupon tuesdays blue light special.
I pray to Jesus for peace on Earth and Goodwill to men.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> you'll get over it.
> We tell you these things because we care.



lol...


----------



## atlashunter

PopPop said:


> Here is my take.
> We are part of a reality that we can not measure, define nor map. To state with any level of certainty that we know how or when or why it came to be is the absolute height of arrogance.
> The only thing we know is that we don't know and probably never will.
> That leaves us only with what we believe. Your belief is no more rational nor relevant than mine, it is not superior, does not demonstrate any heightened awareness and could be simply a collection of chemicals in our own brain.
> Now, I do believe what I believe, with a passion. I do not believe that your different belief becomes superior or inferior based on the differences in our passion. And those differences in passion do not become reason.
> Here's the kicker, I am comfortable with you believing whatever you want. But when you tell me you Know, I ain't buying it, not even on double coupon tuesdays blue light special.
> I pray to Jesus for peace on Earth and Goodwill to men.



Good speech. Try that one in a church some time.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> lol...


I was reading this the other day and I couldn't help but think about you 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-text-about-james-brother-of-jesus-isnt-exactly-new



> Recent scholarship has questioned the accuracy of this caricature and suggested instead that the Gnostics were philosophically inclined Christians who were in many ways identical to their more orthodox counterparts.


----------



## Israel

Thanks for that Walt. It seems a kind thing to be retained somewhere in the thoughts of another, and kinder yet to have it mentioned. 

As I have taken what I hope will remain a constant stance in its diffusion throughout my being to a consistency, this helps a great deal. My stance is simple...all that the Lord has done He has done in favor to me, and for me.

He is beyond expecting anything "from" me in the sense that "I might come up with something to offer Him in return". That alone almost sounds heretical, I know...but to touch what you said (and was briefly discussed as to omniscience)...it becomes laughable for me to think (as a man, barely knowing himself before the One who knows me completely) that I might find something he hasn't seen, doesn't know of me, to present. The impetus born of a gratitude may be there to think one might try, and I am coming to see it is that precisely...a gratitude, that the Lord enjoys. Having little to do with what one may have erroneously thought one would find or could fulfill in a "return". To be grateful. 

And then I begin to see, perhaps understand...even in more particular what I claimed as stance...that is, all having been done as gift. Gratitude! What a wonderful thing! I can be made to be grateful! The joy of it far outshines the obvious relegations inherent in so being...and those particularly are easily seen as the misadventures pursued by one moved by a sense of lack. (Contentment has within itself much to the avoidance of many griefs)

I am poor in translation. What may yet remain in any form...no matter how small and fading of regret...I see clearly have all been owed to a thing in their nativity...my striving to, in whatever form...be more than I see myself to be. Because I was operating from that place of dissatisfaction...either with estate, in comparisons, and the like. But gratitude! It more than amply reveals places of previous misstep to avoid...it is really O! so very pleasant! To know I am enough, "have" enough, can never make myself more in answer to One who holds all (what do you get for the Being who not only _has_ everything...but _is_ the Everything?) What can one give to add to Him? (Forgive the gender pronoun if need be)

It has taken decades, but I am not ashamed...any light...even if seen seemingly _late_ is never _too_ late. I think fathers begin to get this, how their joy is best fulfilled in their children, their little ones. How much greater to watch the child's wonder when it lands a 4" blue gill than to put one's own name in a record book with a Blue Marlin. That kind of thing. I believe Jesus referenced that when He said "These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full." One rejoicing...in the joy of another.


Yes Walt, thank you. It is good to be thought of, to know, in whatever part...there's a part of you residing in another.

You are often with me, too, in thoughts. And prayer.

Yeah, you help me understand "I have all, and am full".


----------



## ambush80

PopPop said:


> Here is my take.
> We are part of a reality that we can not measure, define nor map. To state with any level of certainty that we know how or when or why it came to be is the absolute height of arrogance.
> The only thing we know is that we don't know and probably never will.
> That leaves us only with what we believe. Your belief is no more rational nor relevant than mine, it is not superior, does not demonstrate any heightened awareness and could be simply a collection of chemicals in our own brain.
> Now, I do believe what I believe, with a passion. I do not believe that your different belief becomes superior or inferior based on the differences in our passion. And those differences in passion do not become reason.
> Here's the kicker, I am comfortable with you believing whatever you want. But when you tell me you Know, I ain't buying it, not even on double coupon tuesdays blue light special.
> I pray to Jesus for peace on Earth and Goodwill to men.



There are different kinds of knowledge. There's the kind that appears to be universal like math.  Then there's the kind that's based on math but isn't completely provable like physics, and then there's purely anecdotal knowledge like when someone says "I felt it" or "I heard it" or "I saw it" with no corroboration of witnesses or physical evidence.  

"I saw what I saw" will probably only be meaningful         to people who trust you very deeply and even then if what you claim to have seen seems extraordinary or supernatural they might not believe you and I think that's fair.  I haven't had an extraordinary or supernatural experiences that I'm absolutely convinced were true.  Any experiences that I've had that came close to that could be explained by natural causes.


----------



## PopPop

atlashunter said:


> Good speech. Try that one in a church some time.



Been there and done that.


----------



## WaltL1

PopPop said:


> Here is my take.
> We are part of a reality that we can not measure, define nor map. To state with any level of certainty that we know how or when or why it came to be is the absolute height of arrogance.
> The only thing we know is that we don't know and probably never will.
> That leaves us only with what we believe. Your belief is no more rational nor relevant than mine, it is not superior, does not demonstrate any heightened awareness and could be simply a collection of chemicals in our own brain.
> Now, I do believe what I believe, with a passion. I do not believe that your different belief becomes superior or inferior based on the differences in our passion. And those differences in passion do not become reason.
> Here's the kicker, I am comfortable with you believing whatever you want. But when you tell me you Know, I ain't buying it, not even on double coupon tuesdays blue light special.
> I pray to Jesus for peace on Earth and Goodwill to men.


I'm with you in spirit but just a comment -
I think there is a place between here -


> The only thing we know is that we don't know and probably never will.


and here -


> That leaves us only with what we believe.


- It acknowledges the "we don't know".
- ** It accounts for "what we do know".
- And that is the basis for what we do/don't believe
And in broad terms, is where we as A/As sit and argue/debate from. And it does, in reality, impact this due to the definition of "rational" -


> Your belief is no more rational





> I pray to Jesus for peace on Earth and Goodwill to men.


Can't argue with that


----------



## 1gr8bldr

It has always bothered me that Christians accuse God of something so brutal, that he would commit something he created to eternal agony. Eternally, not just one life span but suffer forever and ever. And where would be his cut off line for age? Babies, teen.... We have determined that our judicial system considers 18 of age as an adult thus suffering the full wrath of the law. How about God? Does he throw an 8 year old in he11 because they did not accept him at bible school and then got killed that year in a car accident? Do you say no? Well what age then to you think God has determined to do this horrible thing? Since he created man, is he then not responsible for for our lack of trust/belief in him. Would it not be his fault because he has not convinced all? And just think about it, how many souls are in agony now, suffering in he11 right now? How many of your family members are there now, in agony. Shameful that Christianity loves this concept. It should make you sick to your stomach. Mankind should be trying to find a way to overcome this god. Would our country not work to destroy a metorite that was headed toward earth? Or a ruthless leader? Disgusting that Christianity has accused God of such a thing. And to present a belief as if believe or else this. This concept and many others in the bible are accepted because everyone wants to take a book and believe every word.... although it's been tampered with.  This concept of he11 is built around 2 basic wrongs. The story of the rich man and Lazurus is a parable that has assisted in the wrong interpretations of many other verses. All the NT verses that  have the same topic where translated as a fire that consumes, not burns forever..... except those regarding the fallen angels. There is a real he11 for them because something has to be done with them because they are eternal beings. We are not eternal beings unless born again of the spirit as was Jesus. Christians actually love the concept of he11. They lose no sleep over the socalled reality of it. They have no remorse that their God would do such a thing. And yet, even though proving the he11 concept as wrong takes very little bible study, looking at the words used, very little research, being the easiest false bible concept to prove wrong...... funny how not one of them will say to themselves, I will check into this to see if this has any merit. They will not research it, they might throw out 1 verses as if theology builds from one verses. They will move on as if they almost would hate to discover that they are wrong. Do they enjoy this concept that much.... or are they guided to dismiss it? I say it would be most important to check into it because of the magnitude of accusing a just God of something so unjust


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I'm with you in spirit but just a comment -
> I think there is a place between here -
> 
> and here -
> 
> - It acknowledges the "we don't know".
> - ** It accounts for "what we do know".
> - And that is the basis for what we do/don't believe
> And in broad terms, is where we as A/As sit and argue/debate from. And it does, in reality, impact this due to the definition of "rational" -
> 
> 
> 
> Can't argue with that



Once you assume God then everything is attributable to Him and impossible to disprove that He did it.  That guy that used to come on here named Lowjack said his congregation rebuked a hurricane once.  I wasn't there but I imagine they were in the path of a hurricane, they prayed and the hurricane turned.    To them it was enough proof that their rebuke worked.  How did they know it was God or even _their_ God?  Strangely, as is often brought up here, God never regrows a lost limb that's prayed for.  What's that prove to a believer? 

There are way to use ones ability to reason that seem better suited and more in line with the natural world.


----------



## WaltL1

1gr8bldr said:


> It has always bothered me that Christians accuse God of something so brutal, that he would commit something he created to eternal agony. Eternally, not just one life span but suffer forever and ever. And where would be his cut off line for age? Babies, teen.... We have determined that our judicial system considers 18 of age as an adult thus suffering the full wrath of the law. How about God? Does he throw an 8 year old in he11 because they did not accept him at bible school and then got killed that year in a car accident? Do you say no? Well what age then to you think God has determined to do this horrible thing? Since he created man, is he then not responsible for for our lack of trust/belief in him. Would it not be his fault because he has not convinced all? And just think about it, how many souls are in agony now, suffering in he11 right now? How many of your family members are there now, in agony. Shameful that Christianity loves this concept. It should make you sick to your stomach. Mankind should be trying to find a way to overcome this god. Would our country not work to destroy a metorite that was headed toward earth? Or a ruthless leader? Disgusting that Christianity has accused God of such a thing. And to present a belief as if believe or else this. This concept and many others in the bible are accepted because everyone wants to take a book and believe every word.... although it's been tampered with.  This concept of he11 is built around 2 basic wrongs. The story of the rich man and Lazurus is a parable that has assisted in the wrong interpretations of many other verses. All the NT verses that  have the same topic where translated as a fire that consumes, not burns forever..... except those regarding the fallen angels. There is a real he11 for them because something has to be done with them because they are eternal beings. We are not eternal beings unless born again of the spirit as was Jesus. Christians actually love the concept of he11. They lose no sleep over the socalled reality of it. They have no remorse that their God would do such a thing. And yet, even though proving the he11 concept as wrong takes very little bible study, looking at the words used, very little research, being the easiest false bible concept to prove wrong...... funny how not one of them will say to themselves, I will check into this to see if this has any merit. They will not research it, they might throw out 1 verses as if theology builds from one verses. They will move on as if they almost would hate to discover that they are wrong. Do they enjoy this concept that much.... or are they guided to dismiss it? I say it would be most important to check into it because of the magnitude of accusing a just God of something so unjust


And we thought it was just us who found the concept somewhat troubling 
But yes, the whole "burn in he11" concept, while certainly a foundation in modern Christian belief, can certainly be strongly debated against as to "accurate Bible interpretation"/historical accuracy.


----------



## Spotlite

1gr8bldr said:


> Shameful that Christianity loves this concept. Disgusting that Christianity has accused God of such a thing. Christians actually love the concept of he11. They lose no sleep over the socalled reality of it. They have no remorse that their God would do such. Do they enjoy this concept that much.... or are they guided to dismiss it?


Im just going to assume that you don’t fully understand Christianity and leave it at that, based on the number of Christians that I know that do no such thing.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> If there is equal evidence (or lack of evidence) in the existence of gods which you reject then why should anyone give more credence to your god?


But at this point, based on your answer to my question below, you’re not able to positively disprove God or any god with evidence? 


Spotlite said:


> Just a question - are you two absolutely 100% positive that God doesn’t exist?
> .





atlashunter said:


> Not 100% but pretty close to it.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr
> Shameful that Christianity loves this concept. Disgusting that Christianity has accused God of such a thing. Christians actually love the concept of he11. They lose no sleep over the socalled reality of it. They have no remorse that their God would do such. Do they enjoy this concept that much.... or are they guided to dismiss it?





Spotlite said:


> Im just going to assume that you don’t fully understand Christianity and leave it at that, based on the number of Christians that I know that do no such thing.


Throwing my opinion out there   -
I kind of think you are both right.


> Do they enjoy this concept that much.... or are they guided to dismiss it?


I think neither. I think they are so psychologically comfortable that they aren't going there that its really not a place to fear, its really not a threat etc. so therefore much easier to accept without over thinking it.


> based on the number of Christians that I know that do no such thing


And I would agree. The average Christian doesn't run around doing the fire and brimstone burn in he11 thing. SEE ABOVE as to why they dont.


----------



## PopPop

WaltL1 said:


> I'm with you in spirit but just a comment -
> I think there is a place between here -
> 
> and here -
> 
> - It acknowledges the "we don't know".
> - ** It accounts for "what we do know".
> - And that is the basis for what we do/don't believe
> And in broad terms, is where we as A/As sit and argue/debate from. And it does, in reality, impact this due to the definition of "rational" -
> 
> 
> 
> Can't argue with that



A is indeed A, yet we live in a world where we can personally redefine A in the most absurd ways. Then there is the A that is redefined in service of an Agenda, by a consensus of people, unhappy with the original meaning of A. Knowledge has historically been proven to be a fluid state, wisdom comes from that recognition.
I personally don't struggle with A/A's having been one myself. It is only the A/A that is absolutely certain that he/ she is correct, to the point of questioning the intellect of believers, never recognizing that their own position is based on belief.
Intelligent design has been my life's work, I see it in the works of man and I see it the works of Life and this planet that supports it. I observe evolution and see intelligent design, not random mutations. It fascinates me, it humbles me. And I have seen the evolutions of A/A s. some of the finest Preachers I have ever known were reasoned, rational Atheist. I expect, if I live long enough, to see Hal running one of those big TV churches. Lol.


----------



## PopPop

ambush80 said:


> Once you assume God then everything is attributable to Him and impossible to disprove that He did it.  That guy that used to come on here named Lowjack said his congregation rebuked a hurricane once.  I wasn't there but I imagine they were in the path of a hurricane, they prayed and the hurricane turned.    To them it was enough proof that their rebuke worked.  How did they know it was God or even _their_ God?  Strangely, as is often brought up here, God never regrows a lost limb that's prayed for.  What's that prove to a believer?
> 
> There are way to use ones ability to reason that seem better suited and more in line with the natural world.



If you are praying for potatoes, you'd better have a hoe.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Spotlite said:


> Im just going to assume that you don’t fully understand Christianity and leave it at that, based on the number of Christians that I know that do no such thing.


I have spent 15 years trying to deprogram myself from the teachings I was brought up on. I have read the NT over 1000 times, Even learned to read greek in an effort to see the biased translation errors. I have taken one topic...many times and read through the entire bible several times with one mindset, to see what it says about the subject. I knew the bible so well that I began to see what is in there but more important, what was not. So, I say this to verify that I have studied this topic to extreme degree so that I am confident in my conclusion. Have you or do you just accept traditional teachings? I am not looking for an answer, or to change anyone's mind, but confident no one will say, You spurred me to investigate this. And as you, I'll leave it at that. And to clarify, I'm here because I enjoy discussion. I hope I don't come off as a debater.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Throwing my opinion out there   -
> I kind of think you are both right.
> 
> I think neither. I think they are so psychologically comfortable that they aren't going there that its really not a place to fear, its really not a threat etc. so therefore much easier to accept without over thinking it.
> 
> And I would agree. The average Christian doesn't run around doing the fire and brimstone burn in he11 thing. SEE ABOVE as to why they dont.


I could agree here.


1gr8bldr said:


> I have spent 15 years trying to deprogram myself from the teachings I was brought up on. I have read the NT over 1000 times, Even learned to read greek in an effort to see the biased translation errors. I have taken one topic...many times and read through the entire bible several times with one mindset, to see what it says about the subject. I knew the bible so well that I began to see what is in there but more important, what was not. So, I say this to verify that I have studied this topic to extreme degree so that I am confident in my conclusion. Have you or do you just accept traditional teachings? I am not looking for an answer, or to change anyone's mind, but confident no one will say, You spurred me to investigate this. And as you, I'll leave it at that. And to clarify, I'm here because I enjoy discussion. I hope I don't come off as a debater.


And you’re not coming off in an argumentative way. No worries there. I like to discussion over debate myself.


----------



## Israel

Might there be some acceptance that, regardless of whatever we may perceive of this "thing" in its dreadful descriptions, it is at least as much a thing to be avoided in some measure commensurate with the price paid to deliver men from it?

I am very much persuaded the opposite of this is true as stated, at least as regards our Lord's intent of what men should know of it:



> I think they are so psychologically comfortable that they aren't going there that its really not a place to fear, its really not a threat etc. so therefore much easier to accept without over thinking it.



Not that the above statement may not be true to some extent of some. But rather that the Lord will measure to us any revelation as needed that would disabuse us of any notion that "some are just going to miss the big picnic". No, there is a something to which man may go, unbearable in the extreme...that both Jesus, and now His disciples, do not _wish upon_ any. As surely as the Heaven of Christ is all of joy unspeakable, and where grief and regret cannot be found, there is something apart that is all not of that, where no joy is ever present.

Paul said this in testimony of his labor: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

And was not ashamed of knowing, or speaking this:
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Refusing grace has consequences to the same end a man may encounter by trying to reverse the truth. What may often be mistaken as the weakest exercise of God's nature, that is mercy and grace, is found to be the thing the _very strongest_ can not stand against to any prevailing.


There is a falling upon the Rock, and a falling of the Rock upon.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Might there be some acceptance that, regardless of whatever we may perceive of this "thing" in its dreadful descriptions, it is at least as much a thing to be avoided in some measure commensurate with the price paid to deliver men from it?
> 
> I am very much persuaded the opposite of this is true as stated, at least as regards our Lord's intent of what men should know of it:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that the above statement may not be true to some extent of some. But rather that the Lord will measure to us any revelation as needed that would disabuse us of any notion that "some are just going to miss the picnic". No, there is a something to which man may go, unbearable in the extreme...that both Jesus, and now His disciples, do not _wish upon_ any.
> 
> Paul said this in testimony of his labor: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
> 
> And was not ashamed of knowing, or speaking this:
> Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
> 
> Refusing grace has consequences to the same end a man may encounter by trying to reverse the truth. What may often be mistaken as the weakest exercise of God's nature, that is mercy and grace, is found to be the thing the _very strongest_ can not stand against to any prevailing.


I don't know Israel. I'm not convinced 


> I am very much persuaded the opposite of this is true as stated, at least as regards our Lord's intent of what men should know of it:


I'm thinking you are stating how it SHOULD be.
I think I am stating how it IS -


> I think they are so psychologically comfortable that they aren't going there that its really not a place to fear, its really not a threat etc. so therefore much easier to accept without over thinking it.


Ponder this -
Which have you heard/read etc from fellow Christians a thousand times? -
1. They, them, you, those people, them over there, those kind of people, that religion...... are going to he11.
2. I am going to he11.

I think the answer to that question shows a certain level of psychological comfort.


----------



## Israel

I don't doubt there are _some_. 

I also know those sentiments/psychological projections/adjustments are both dangerous to indulge and disastrous to hold. To think one can preach a Savior who poured out His life, while casually dismissing some "others" of meriting the very thing that Savior came to save _from_, well, there's a dissonance there that only God can deliver...from. 

Or, God forbid, leave one in.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> But at this point, based on your answer to my question below, you’re not able to positively disprove God or any god with evidence?



I can't positively disprove god. Nor can I disprove Poseidon, leprechauns, fairies, purple flying elephants, Valhalla, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't need to disprove them. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim those things actually exist. What I can say is that the observable evidence comports with what we would expect if god did not exist and does not comport with the claims made by the Bible about what we should expect if he does exist. So the weight of probability leans in the extreme toward this god being a myth.


----------



## PopPop

atlashunter said:


> I can't positively disprove god. Nor can I disprove Poseidon, leprechauns, fairies, purple flying elephants, Valhalla, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't need to disprove them. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim those things actually exist. What I can say is that the observable evidence comports with what we would expect if god did not exist and does not comport with the claims made by the Bible about what we should expect if he does exist. So the weight of probability leans in the extreme toward this god being a myth.



I believe that you believe that.


----------



## atlashunter

PopPop said:


> I believe that you believe that.



If John 14:13-14 were true it would be demonstrable. Turns out it is demonstrably false. That is what I would expect if god didn't exist. The ball is in the court of the Christian to make the case for their claims.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> I can't positively disprove god. Nor can I disprove Poseidon, leprechauns, fairies, purple flying elephants, Valhalla, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't need to disprove them. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim those things actually exist. What I can say is that the observable evidence comports with what we would expect if god did not exist and does not comport with the claims made by the Bible about what we should expect if he does exist. So the weight of probability leans in the extreme toward this god being a myth.


A burden really? Please explain. I find nothing but comfort and peace. I like the discussion and sharing my experiences and hearing yours. I don't feel burdened at all. To prove anything.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> A burden really? Please explain. I find nothing but comfort and peace. I like the discussion and sharing my experiences and hearing yours. I don't feel burdened at all. To prove anything.



Figure of speech Richie. If you can't demonstrate your god exists then nobody should take your claims of his existence as any more credible than any other mythical claim. Your feelings are irrelevant.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Figure of speech Richie. If you can't demonstrate your god exists then nobody should take your claims of his existence as any more credible than any other mythical claim. Your feelings are irrelevant.



That's where we disagree. Feelings, senses, intuition, experiences, a sixth sense, feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit. They are irrelevant to some very real to others. But again I feel no burden of proof. You believe what you like based on your experience. I believe what I like based on mine. My point is I don't understand the burden reference.


----------



## red neck richie

By the way Atlas. I posted a video of two nurses comforting a dying women and they were singing about Angels. My best friend died at the age of 29 of cancer. The last words he spoke were that he saw Angels and that they had come for him. I am currently doing research on how many of the dying see Angles right before they pass. You should look it up its very interesting.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> By the way Atlas. I posted a video of two nurses comforting a dying women and they were singing about Angels. My best friend died at the age of 29 of cancer. The last words he spoke were that he saw Angels and that they had come for him. I am currently doing research on how many of the dying see Angles right before they pass. You should look it up its very interesting.



That's called hallucinations. Try some DMT. You'll have quite the experience and feelings. It will seem real. Doesn't mean anything is actually happening beyond the grey matter between your ears.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> That's where we disagree. Feelings, senses, intuition, experiences, a sixth sense, feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit. They are irrelevant to some very real to others. But again I feel no burden of proof. You believe what you like based on your experience. I believe what I like based on mine. My point is I don't understand the burden reference.



I believe what the evidence supports. You don't.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> That's called hallucinations. Try some DMT. You'll have quite the experience and feelings. It will seem real. Doesn't mean anything is actually happening beyond the grey matter between your ears.



Hallucinations brought on by what? Prove your theory.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Hallucinations brought on by what? Prove your theory.



Brought on by a dying brain.

https://www.livescience.com/11010-death-experiences-linked-oxygen-deprivation.html


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Hallucinations brought on by what? Prove your theory.



You ask for proof,  we always provide it, and you never provide any to support your claims.
THAT is the burden. When the opportunity arises for you to back up a claim it is so difficult that you cannot.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> That's called hallucinations. Try some DMT. You'll have quite the experience and feelings. It will seem real. Doesn't mean anything is actually happening beyond the grey matter between your ears.


Interesting factoid about DMT -


> Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a naturally occurring psychedelic drug of the tryptamine family. DMT is found in many plants along with the human body. DMT is created in the body during normal metabolism by the enzyme tryptamine-N-methyltransferase and the neurotransmitter serotonin. DMT can be ingested, injected, and inhaled. Doctor Richard Strassman was among the first psychologists to study the effects of DMT and other psychedelic chemicals. Dr. Strassman discovered that DMT is released by the pineal gland while a person is approaching death. Thus explaining the imagery reported by survivors of near death experiences (NDE phenomenon). DMT is also released during the 49th day of fetus development. Dr. Strassman attributes this to the beginning of the soul. He often referred to the drug as the "God molecule" or the "spirit molecule".


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Interesting factoid about DMT -



Wow I didn't know that.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> You ask for proof,  we always provide it, and you never provide any to support your claims.
> THAT is the burden. When the opportunity arises for you to back up a claim it is so difficult that you cannot.



Hence post 384.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Wow I didn't know that.


Me neither, Ive heard it called the "God drug" but never really looked in to it.
Turns out we all do it!


----------



## ambush80

What's the best argument for someone who says "I can't imagine a world where God doesn't exist and I wouldn't want to live in that world"?


----------



## PopPop

ambush80 said:


> What's the best argument for someone who says "I can't imagine a world where God doesn't exist and I wouldn't want to live in that world"?



That person is beyond reach.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I believe what the evidence supports. You don't.


This is where it gets confusing for me.....”I believe what the evidence supports“ And the “burden of proof lies with those making the claim”

It all fairness, it appears that you’re actually making a claim that God doesn’t exist. And if you are, do you have any “evidence” that’s 100% certain and not based on probability? 

If you’re not making the claim that he doesn’t exist, is there rational reasoning for stating that he is myth?

I can say the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist because I saw my Daddy put the $$ under the pillow and then I did the same thing with my child. That’s my evidence, but it’s based on a belief. Someone else can claim that they saw the Tooth Fairy or they wanted the $20 for the Tooth and that’s what they got, based on their experiences, they believe the Tooth Fairy exist.

I’m putting myself in your shoes, what evidence can I give this person to disprove the Tooth Fairy, other than my my research that ends at someone else’s disbelief, my own disbelief or probability? If I tell them that Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist, shouldn’t I have “evidence” because I too am making a claim? 

But at the end of the day both of us end with what we believe or disbelieve for a foundation of our stance.


atlashunter said:


> I can't positively disprove god. I don't need to disprove......The burden of proof lies with those making the claim..... What I can say is that the observable evidence comports with what we would expect if god did not exist.





Spotlite said:


> Just a question - are you two absolutely 100% positive that God doesn’t exist?
> .





atlashunter said:


> Not 100% but pretty close to it.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> This is where it gets confusing for me.....”I believe what the evidence supports“ And the “burden of proof lies with those making the claim”
> 
> It all fairness, it appears that you’re actually making a claim that God doesn’t exist. And if you are, do you have any “evidence” that’s 100% certain and not based on probability?
> 
> If you’re not making the claim that he doesn’t exist, is there rational reasoning for stating that he is myth?
> 
> I can say the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist because I saw my Daddy put the $$ under the pillow and then I did the same thing with my child. That’s my evidence, but it’s based on a belief. Someone else can claim that they saw the Tooth Fairy or they wanted the $20 for the Tooth and that’s what they got, based on their experiences, they believe the Tooth Fairy exist.
> 
> I’m putting myself in your shoes, what evidence can I give this person to disprove the Tooth Fairy, other than my my research that ends at someone else’s disbelief, my own disbelief or probability? If I tell them that Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist, shouldn’t I have “evidence” because I too am making a claim?
> 
> But at the end of the day both of us end with what we believe or disbelieve for a foundation of our stance.


What you are asking for is "proof".
Evidence is not proof.
Overwhelming evidence is not proof.
People are given the death penalty every day based on evidence but not proof.
You are trying to make evidence do something it doesn't.


----------



## ambush80

PopPop said:


> That person is beyond reach.



I just realized that I wrote the question a in a confusing way.  It should have been: What's your best argument _against_ someone who says "I can't imagine a world where God doesn't exist and I wouldn't want to live in that world"?

Strangely, I imagine your answer is the same.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> What you are asking for is "proof".
> Evidence is not proof.
> Overwhelming evidence is not proof.
> People are given the death penalty every day based on evidence but not proof.
> You are trying to make evidence do something it doesn't.



Ahh - ok I see what you’re saying. In a sense, the non believer is saying that he doesn’t have enough evidence to support that God exist, but can’t ”prove” he doesn’t - while the believer says that he has enough evidence to support that God exist but can’t ”prove” it. 

I was mostly curious as to why the burden of proof has to be on the believer (the claimer) when it appeared that both sides were making a claim.

Sort of like “I’m innocent” - ok prove it.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> What's the best argument for someone who says "I can't imagine a world where God doesn't exist and I wouldn't want to live in that world"?


I don't think there is one.
That's where I just kind of go -


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Ahh - ok I see what you’re saying. In a sense, the non believer is saying that he doesn’t have enough evidence to support that God exist, but can’t ”prove” he doesn’t - while the believer says that he has enough evidence to support that God exist but can’t ”prove” it.
> 
> I was mostly curious as to why the burden of proof has to be on the believer (the claimer) when it appeared that both sides were making a claim.
> 
> Sort of like “I’m innocent” - ok prove it.


A non believer doesn't have to claim anything.  Something doesn't exist until its proven to exist. You don't have to "claim" that. It just is. 
On the other hand, when you / a Christian says that in fact God exists you are saying that you and other Christians have proven that.
And don't forget, its not just a matter of proving it to yourself. You have now told us that God in fact exists. 
That's puts the responsibility on you.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> A non believer doesn't have to claim anything.  Something doesn't exist until its proven to exist. You don't have to "claim" that. It just is.
> On the other hand, when you / a Christian says that in fact God exists you are saying that you and other Christians have proven that.
> And don't forget, its not just a matter of proving it to yourself. You have now told us that God in fact exists.
> That's puts the responsibility on you.


I sure wish God would have made it easier


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I sure wish God would have made it easier


1. Its not easy because he didn't want it to be.
2. Its not easy because its all man made stories that cant be proven.

If I was a bettin' man (which I am), I bet you choose #1


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> 1. Its not easy because he didn't want it to be.
> 2. Its not easy because its all man made stories that cant be proven.
> 
> If I was a bettin' man (which I am), I bet you choose #1



Given the choices, good bet, I would go with # 1 over # 2.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Ahh - ok I see what you’re saying. In a sense, the non believer is saying that he doesn’t have enough evidence to support that God exist, but can’t ”prove” he doesn’t - while the believer says that he has enough evidence to support that God exist but can’t ”prove” it.
> 
> I was mostly curious as to why the burden of proof has to be on the believer (the claimer) when it appeared that both sides were making a claim.
> 
> Sort of like “I’m innocent” - ok prove it.



See post 376. The last sentence in particular.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> A non believer doesn't have to claim anything.  Something doesn't exist until its proven to exist. You don't have to "claim" that. It just is.
> On the other hand, when you / a Christian says that in fact God exists you are saying that you and other Christians have proven that.
> And don't forget, its not just a matter of proving it to yourself. You have now told us that God in fact exists.
> That's puts the responsibility on you.



It's worse than that for the believer because the Bible does make claims about god that are demonstrably false. The evidence or lack of evidence is not equally weighted between the two claims.


----------



## Israel

We do all recognize we are continually in communications (even here with one another) to a thing that can't be seen? I'm not talking about the fact that we are not visible to one another over the computer.

If you got a wife, got a child, got a friend...go as much eye to eye with them as allowed...you'll find out.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> We do all recognize we are continually in communications (even here with one another) to a thing that can't be seen? I'm not talking about the fact that we are not visible to one another over the computer.
> 
> If you got a wife, got a child, got a friend...go as much eye to eye with them as allowed...you'll find out.



Is your first sentence a statement or a question?


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> It's worse than that for the believer because the Bible does make claims about god that are demonstrably false. The evidence or lack of evidence is not equally weighted between the two claims.



Not! Atlas I am really starting to think you have some superiority issues. It is not worse, In fact I find it to be a blessing. I think the burden is on you.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Not! Atlas I am really starting to think you have some superiority issues. It is not worse, In fact I find it to be a blessing. I think the burden is on you.



With all due respect, you have shown that what you think and what is true are often two completely different things.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> With all due respect, you have shown that what you think and what is true are often two completely different things.



How so? I have shared my experiences with you. You discredit them. I find them to be truth. Please explain. By the way I would like to see a picture of your Christmas tree this year. Did you hand a string of Lights?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> How so? I have shared my experiences with you. You discredit them. I find them to be truth. Please explain.



The experiences are yours. Many similar experiences happen to believers of other gods and non believers, so yes they are able to be discredited. Im not saying that you didn't have the experiences, what I am saying is that in no way are they evidence of any specific god or god at all...you just give credit to the god you believe in.


But, as in your reply to atlas above....you take no time or effort to show him why he may be wrong you say "not". Explain not. He has shown many times in multiple threads how certain things contained in the bible are demonstrably false.
You seem to be using your disagreement as your evidence.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> How so? I have shared my experiences with you. You discredit them. I find them to be truth. Please explain. By the way I would like to see a picture of your Christmas tree this year. Did you hand a string of Lights?



Didn't get a tree yet.
My wife and son's girlfriend love to do the decorating. My wife delivers for UPS. Xmas isnt what is used to be for her.

And WHY are you concerned about a tree and whether or not I hang (or hand) a string of lights?
Did I miss the xmas tree thread?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> The experiences are yours. Many similar experiences happen to believers of other gods and non believers, so yes they are able to be discredited. Im not saying that you didn't have the experiences, what I am saying is that in no way are they evidence of any specific god or god at all...you just give credit to the god you believe in.
> 
> 
> But, as in your reply to atlas above....you take no time or effort to show him why he may be wrong you say "not". Explain not. He has shown many times in multiple threads how certain things contained in the bible are demonstrably false.
> You seem to be using your disagreement as your evidence.



I do not feel a burden. I have witnessed healing during prayer. I have witnessed people speaking in tounges. I have witnessed too many things to believe it is coincidental any more. I have felt the Holy Spirit in my very being. I have witnessed loved ones die. I don't claim to know exactly how it works. I only know it is real. And for those of you that believe it is a hallucination I disagree. I don't doubt that science has found chemicals in the body. I doubt that that is the cause, It is the by product of the experience. Kind of like a cut. The body didn't create it but tried to heal it.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Didn't get a tree yet.
> My wife and son's girlfriend love to do the decorating. My wife delivers for UPS. Xmas isnt what is used to be for her.
> 
> And WHY are you concerned about a tree and whether or not I hang (or hand) a string of lights?
> Did I miss the xmas tree thread?


To borrow a phrase - Good Lord!
She probably couldn't be happier to see Christmas over with !


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Didn't get a tree yet.
> My wife and son's girlfriend love to do the decorating. My wife delivers for UPS. Xmas isnt what is used to be for her.
> 
> And WHY are you concerned about a tree and whether or not I hang (or hand) a string of lights?
> Did I miss the xmas tree thread?



How will you teach your Grandchildren?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I do not feel a burden. I have witnessed healing during prayer. I have witnessed people speaking in tounges. I have witnessed too many things to believe it is coincidental any more. I have felt the Holy Spirit in my very being. I have witnessed loved ones die. I don't claim to know exactly how it works. I only know it is real. And for those of you that believe it is a hallucination I disagree. I don't doubt that science has found chemicals in the body. I doubt that that is the cause, It is the by product of the experience. Kind of like a cut. The body didn't create it but tried to heal it.


Burden in this sense means The Ball is in your court.
I dont remember anyone saying you witnessing someone talking in tongues is a hallucination, but someone on the verge of dying absolutely has a release of DMT and as a result absolutely has hallucinations.
I trust people who study these things for a living more than your doubt and my wishful thinking. I go with the evidence.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> To borrow a phrase - Good Lord!
> She probably couldn't be happier to see Christmas over with !



Yeah


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> How will you teach your Grandchildren?



How will I teach my grandchildren what?

To decorate a tree?
My 3 sons seemed to have learned it quite well.

If the day comes that I am blessed with grandchildren I am quite confident that I will not have lost the capacity to string up some lights and hang ornaments.


----------



## Spotlite

red neck richie said:


> It is not worse, In fact I find it to be a blessing.


I would agree. 


red neck richie said:


> I have witnessed too many things to believe it is coincidental any more


I’m with ya on this, but unfortunately bullet is correct. And until a person actually has personal experience with what we are saying, there’s nothing that you and I can provide as evidence. Although there are some that claim an experience and still chose not to believe, there are those that went from non believers to believers.


bullethead said:


> The experiences are yours.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I would agree.
> 
> I’m with ya on this, but unfortunately bullet is correct. And until a person actually has personal experience with what we are saying, there’s nothing that you and I can provide as evidence. Although there are some that claim an experience and still chose not to believe, there are those that went from non believers to believers.



I have shared my experiences in these threads a few times.
Strange 
Creepy
Phenominal
Spooky
Amazing
Odd
Unexplainable 
Explainable

But in no instance did I automatically think that a god took one second to have a hand in any of them.
I've thought of a dead relative helping more than a god...and I know how ridiculous that sounds.


----------



## bullethead

bullethead said:


> How will I teach my grandchildren what?
> 
> To decorate a tree?
> My 3 sons seemed to have learned it quite well.
> 
> If the day comes that I am blessed with grandchildren I am quite confident that I will not have lost the capacity to string up some lights and hang ornaments.


Richie???


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I have shared my experiences in these threads a few times.
> Strange
> Creepy
> Phenominal
> Spooky
> Amazing
> Odd
> Unexplainable
> Explainable
> 
> But in no instance did I automatically think that a god took one second to have a hand in any of them.
> I've thought of a dead relative helping more than a god...and I know how ridiculous that sounds.


And if you chose to give credit to a dead relative, I understand that you couldn’t convince me that the dead relative helped you and I would argue that it was ridiculous and stand firm that your experiences are not proof. On the other hand, I do understand how ridiculous it sounds to the non believers to give credit to God. The difference would be that your dead relative may not charge you with the task of “witnessing”. Often times and I’m guilty of this, the Christian goes further than “witnessing” and tries to do Gods part of the job of “proving” himself to the lost.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> And if you chose to give credit to a dead relative, I understand that you couldn’t convince me that the dead relative helped you and I would argue that it was ridiculous and stand firm that your experiences are not proof. On the other hand, I do understand how ridiculous it sounds to the non believers to give credit to God. The difference would be that your dead relative may not charge you with the task of “witnessing”. Often times and I’m guilty of this, the Christian goes further than “witnessing” and tries to do Gods part of the job of “proving” himself to the lost.


Yes, I can agree with what you've said. 

The dead relative part was when my grandfather passed and there was a safe in his house that my grandmother wanted opened. She eventually found the combination but just could not get it opened.
I tried and same results, it just wouldnt open.

My mom steps in, gives it a few tries and nothing. Out of frustration she says out loud, "ok dad, give us some help here" she gave the dial a hard spin and the safe door popped open.

We all just looked at each other in bewilderment and making sure we all saw the same thing. 

Crazy, cool, spooky, unusual, spine chilling.....
But can I honestly say that Pop-Pop gave it a Fonzy bump and opened it from beyond....

No


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Yes, I can agree with what you've said.
> 
> The dead relative part was when my grandfather passed and there was a safe in his house that my grandmother wanted opened. She eventually found the combination but just could not get it opened.
> I tried and same results, it just wouldnt open.
> 
> My mom steps in, gives it a few tries and nothing. Out of frustration she says out loud, "ok dad, give us some help here" she gave the dial a hard spin and the safe door popped open.
> 
> We all just looked at each other in bewilderment and making sure we all saw the same thing.
> 
> Crazy, cool, spooky, unusual, spine chilling.....
> But can I honestly say that Pop-Pop gave it a Fonzy bump and opened it from beyond....
> 
> No



Yup I’ve heard similar stories. I have caught myself at times saying “Daddy you gotta help me on this one” Sorry to hear about your Grandfather.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Yup I’ve heard similar stories. I have caught myself at times saying “Daddy you gotta help me on this one” Sorry to hear about your Grandfather.



Thank you,  but this was in 1981....I was 12. 

I have always thought, and have read many articles about how "gods" got started and it had to do with people talking to recently passed or passed loved ones.
Look up in the sky and talk to "father"....


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Thank you,  but this was in 1981....I was 12.
> 
> I have always thought, and have read many articles about how "gods" got started and it had to do with people talking to recently passed or passed loved ones.
> Look up in the sky and talk to "father"....



One that really bothers me is my cousin, she lost her daughter in a drowning several years ago. I know it’s comforting for her to “talk to her”, I get that and if that helps a mother grieve then so be it.  But to actually call on her to make it rain, or look over them while sleeping, etc. seems that she’s actually making a god out of her daughter. I would never ever say anything to her but I’ve been at their supper table and when they pray over their food it’s the normal “God bless this food” but it ends up with “Kimbo thank you for ordering the rain for the garden”. I know and understand it’s a grieving thing but I have no doubt that there’s many gods formed the same way.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> One that really bothers me is my cousin, she lost her daughter in a drowning several years ago. I know it’s comforting for her to “talk to her”, I get that and if that helps a mother grieve then so be it.  But to actually call on her to make it rain, or look over them while sleeping, etc. seems that she’s actually making a god out of her daughter. I would never ever say anything to her but I’ve been at their supper table and when they pray over their food it’s the normal “God bless this food” but it ends up with “Kimbo thank you for ordering the rain for the garden”. I know and understand it’s a grieving thing but I have no doubt that there’s many gods formed the same way.


That's a prime example.

I could picture early man losing an elder that was a great warrior and leader of the clan and someone asking that deceased leader for guidance and it turning into the entire clan doing it before a hunt or battle or harvest (but really it was their learning from him that helped guide them) and that snowballing into generation after generation as a ritual until it becomes something more than a deceased loved one hundreds of years down the line.

Another clan or tribe witnesses it and incorporates something similar because their deceased leader was greater than the other one....
So on
And
So on
Over thousands of years


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> How so? I have shared my experiences with you. You discredit them. I find them to be truth. Please explain. By the way I would like to see a picture of your Christmas tree this year. Did you hand a string of Lights?



I provided a biblical claim about prayer that is demonstrably false. In light of that your personal anecdotes really don't amount to much. Lots of people have lots of conflicting anecdotes. That tells us nothing about what is actually true.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I would agree.
> 
> I’m with ya on this, but unfortunately bullet is correct. And until a person actually has personal experience with what we are saying, there’s nothing that you and I can provide as evidence. Although there are some that claim an experience and still chose not to believe, there are those that went from non believers to believers.



You make the incorrect assumption that we have never experienced what you are talking about. I grew up in "spirit filled" churches. That feeling is in your head. There is group psychology involved and there is also some choreography involved. Why do you think the preacher calls the pianist up to start playing a slow emotional tune just as he is finishing up his sermon and about to make an alter call? Ever notice that? It serves a purpose. People also have a natural urge to cry when they see others crying. Your head is being screwed with but at the same time you're a willing participant. We see the same thing on other religions and even in political movements that take advantage of the same dynamics. It seems real at the time especially if you already have the predisposition and desire for it to be real.

Richie says he has witnessed healing in response to prayer. How many amputees has he seen miraculously healed by prayer? That would be a big goose egg. Not a single documented case of that ever happening. Yet in the Bible he healed the severed ear of a soldier and he said those believers who came after him would be able to perform the same and even greater works than him. So let's put that to the test. Bring forth your best faith healer and let's see how well they perform under a controlled study. Let's see how many amputees they can heal and how many corpses they can bring back to life.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> You make the incorrect assumption that we have never experienced what you are talking about. I grew up in "spirit filled" churches.





Spotlite said:


> Although there are some that claim an experience and still chose not to believe.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Thank you,  but this was in 1981....I was 12.
> 
> I have always thought, and have read many articles about how "gods" got started and it had to do with people talking to recently passed or passed loved ones.
> Look up in the sky and talk to "father"....



Yes, do.

Or look at the floor, at the insides of your eyelids, or into another's eyes. Just do it. As often as you can for as long as you can. Yes, talk to your Father, till it's about everything. About you, about others, about what you have, about what you think you lack, about what you believe you need...and all those things in which you are first inclined to speak in a bitterness "I don't need this, now", in however that may appear.

Yes, there is, and I believe I have inherited, a clear and unashamed confirmation bias. The cost of that bias in being passed down, becomes ever more clear in my sight as I am exercised in it. A bias now against what I was once in altogether agreement, and a bias toward the One who always knew of something better, but whom I opposed.

Can I boast of the end of my oppositions to Him? Hardly. Can I boast He has put an end to oppositions in Himself? Gladly.

I once wrote something to which you commented as to being in "the whole kit and kaboodle". It may have sounded then to you as though I was saying "I threw my lot in with Jesus Christ in all matters." It was, but wasn't.

Oh, I wandered after what is called "the good confession", and went places, did things for years that were harm to my own soul. Fornicator, adulterer, liar, cheat, venal empty husk...so proud of itself in its cleverness to evade, deceive, hold what seemed the upper hand without a seeming loss...but gain. Until, like a dog in the largest of pens I hit the fence, the boundary, the end...of what appeared my freedom. Yes, it was real. It was experienced.

And at that time, as I watched all I "thought I had" being stripped from me, and in such an undeniable and public way amongst those who knew me, I threw everything I knew against it, everything I could muster to its saving...of cleverness, of entreaties, of pleas and tears to no avail. The "jig was up", my hand had been called, and I didn't even have a pair of deuces. Zip. Zero.

And these words came, unbidden, not sought, not even to my mind in remembrance. Oh yes, the words are there, whether one knows them or not, acknowledges them or not, believes them, or not. They have been spoken, here, in this place of earth, sent here...and resonate still and will till the end of time. And, they came ..."to him who has more shall be given, but to him who has not, even that which he thinks he has, shall be taken from him".

And as I was watching all that I thought "I had" fleeing away, I rejoiced in knowing that the One whom I had abandoned in mind and deed, yet spoke to me. The words of themselves weren't pleasant, they nailed me there, showed me there, exposed me there, and plainly displayed my earning. Yes...at that point I can say I believe my attention was had, as at no other time.


But His attention, as it became plain, I had never been without. He once took me at my word..."Jesus is Lord", and allowed for all that He knew would be allowed to me in wandering, in self seeking, in sin...until I had some true glimpse of both what I had once years before uttered, and the unbreakable-ness of its truth, though I even be found a liar to it. 

Would I recover...? It didn't "feel" it. The words weren't of any particular comfort, in themselves, except the comfort of knowing what seemed "hard" truth. But it was the knowing then...of Someone there, someone real, who saw me...even as wretch...but saw. Yes, He watches...and waits. Patient for our hearing. For our ears to be opened.

Yes, He had taken me..."whole kit and kaboodle"...when I didn't even know such was the exchange. I thought it was "mine" yet, to do with as I pleased, as I liked, as I cared.

I think we all, to some measure...want to be "taken seriously". But when we meet the One who does, that is, take us quite seriously, altogether seriously, there's an inclination to want a little less gravity about things, there we may not want everything to "mean" something, it's simply too much to bear. But it cannot be both ways either "everything" means something, or everything means ...nothing. There's really, no middle ground at all.

Either reason exists apart from man, or man simply attributes his own construct of it where he will. There is reason for everything, or reason itself...does not exist. One cannot say _reasonably_ "I have found no reason in the universe", claiming with reason it has not been found, yet claiming he, with his assumed reason, plainly _exists in it_.

Man, either the subject of reason, and _subject to it_ or seeing himself as God, its source. Thinking he is somehow outside the universe he surveys saying "there's no reason to it". And so yes...in such a way each may manufacture his own universe in which to dwell, thinking himself God, at least till such time as he discovers God's reason for allowing this. So that he might hit the fence, hit the wall, hit the end...that is always so much nearer than he could ever imagine.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Yes, do.
> 
> Or look at the floor, at the insides of your eyelids, or into another's eyes. Just do it. As often as you can for as long as you can. Yes, talk to your Father, till it's about everything. About you, about others, about what you have, about what you think you lack, about what you believe you need...and all those things in which you are first inclined to speak in a bitterness "I don't need this, now", in however that may appear.
> 
> Yes, there is, and I believe I have inherited, a clear and unashamed confirmation bias. The cost of that bias in being passed down, becomes ever more clear in my sight as I am exercised in it. A bias now against what I was once in altogether agreement, and a bias toward the One who always knew of something better, but whom I opposed.
> 
> Can I boast of the end of my oppositions to Him? Hardly. Can I boast He has put an end to oppositions in Himself? Gladly.
> 
> I once wrote something to which you commented as to being in "the whole kit and kaboodle". It may have sounded then to you as though I was saying "I threw my lot in with Jesus Christ in all matters." It was, but wasn't.
> 
> Oh, I wandered after what is called "the good confession", and went places, did things for years that were harm to my own soul. Fornicator, adulterer, liar, cheat, venal empty husk...so proud of itself in its cleverness to evade, deceive, hold what seemed the upper hand without a seeming loss...but gain. Until, like a dog in the largest of pens I hit the fence, the boundary, the end...of what appeared my freedom. Yes, it was real. It was experienced.
> 
> And at that time, as I watched all I "thought I had" being stripped from me, and in such an undeniable and public way amongst those who knew me, I threw everything I knew against it, everything I could muster to its saving...of cleverness, of entreaties, of pleas and tears to no avail. The "jig was up", my hand had been called, and I didn't even have a pair of deuces. Zip. Zero.
> 
> And these words came, unbidden, not sought, not even to my mind in remembrance. Oh yes, the words are there, whether one knows them or not, acknowledges them or not, believes them, or not. They have been spoken, here, in this place of earth, sent here...and resonate still and will till the end of time. And, they came ..."to him who has more shall be given, but to him who has not, even that which he thinks he has, shall be taken from him".
> 
> And as I was watching all that I thought "I had" fleeing away, I rejoiced in knowing that the One whom I had abandoned in mind and deed, yet spoke to me. The words of themselves weren't pleasant, they nailed me there, showed me there, exposed me there, and plainly displayed my earning. Yes...at that point I can say I believe my attention was had, as at no other time.
> 
> 
> But His attention, as it became plain, I had never been without. He once took me at my word..."Jesus is Lord", and allowed for all that He knew would be allowed to me in wandering, in self seeking, in sin...until I had some true glimpse of both what I had once years before uttered, and the unbreakable-ness of its truth, though I even be found a liar to it.
> 
> Would I recover...? It didn't "feel" it. The words weren't of any particular comfort, in themselves, except the comfort of knowing what seemed "hard" truth. But it was the knowing then...of Someone there, someone real, who saw me...even as wretch...but saw. Yes, He watches...and waits. Patient for our hearing. For our ears to be opened.
> 
> Yes, He had taken me..."whole kit and kaboodle"...when I didn't even know such was the exchange. I thought it was "mine" yet, to do with as I pleased, as I liked, as I cared.
> 
> I think we all, to some measure...want to be "taken seriously". But when we meet the One who does, that is, take us quite seriously, altogether seriously, there's an inclination to want a little less gravity about things, there we may not want everything to "mean" something, it's simply too much to bear. But it cannot be both ways either "everything" means something, or everything means ...nothing. There's really, no middle ground at all.
> 
> Either reason exists apart from man, or man simply attributes his own construct of it where he will. There is reason for everything, or reason itself...does not exist. One cannot say _reasonably_ "I have found no reason in the universe", claiming with reason it has not been found, yet claiming he, with his assumed reason, plainly _exists in it_.
> 
> Man, either the subject of reason, and _subject to it_ or seeing himself as God, its source. Thinking he is somehow outside the universe he surveys saying "there's no reason to it". And so yes...in such a way each may manufacture his own universe in which to dwell, thinking himself God, at least till such time as he discovers God's reason for allowing this. So that he might hit the fence, hit the wall, hit the end...that is always so much nearer than he could ever imagine.



All that and it Literally has nothing to do with what you quoted from me.
Just an opportunity for a Drive By Preaching


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think there is one.
> That's where I just kind of go -



What could you offer a believer that can take the place of the kind of comfort that they get from their belief in God?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> All that and it Literally has nothing to do with what you quoted from me.
> Just an opportunity for a Drive By Preaching



Sadly true.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Sadly true.



The only purpose that I can see for a question and answer session with only one participant is self gratification. A way to constantly reassure oneself about beliefs that are not 100%.

The man doth profess too much me thinks


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> What could you offer a believer that can take the place of the kind of comfort that they get from their belief in God?


Nothing that's legal 
I would assume anything that I could offer a believer would, in their mind, pale in comparison to the comfort they get from their belief in God.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> What could you offer a believer that can take the place of the kind of comfort that they get from their belief in God?



Peace and comfort from within oneself.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Richie???



Yes. I was curious what you would tell you Grandchildren about Christmas. Do you celebrate the birth of Christ? Or do you just avoid the topic all together? Will you teach them anything about religion? Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I just got out of the woods. I didn't pull the trigger but had an awesome sit. I saw three hogs, one about 250 lbs. and a turkey.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Yes. I was curious what you would tell you Grandchildren about Christmas. Do you celebrate the birth of Christ? Or do you just avoid the topic all together? Will you teach them anything about religion? Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I just got out of the woods. I didn't pull the trigger but had an awesome sit. I saw three hogs, one about 250 lbs. and a turkey.


Richie, all my three Sons knew about Christianity and Christmas.  All were baptized.  Two of them graduated from a Catholic high school. My middle Son taught at a Catholic school for 2 years. My wife is Christian. I cannot imagine a scenaro where any grandchildren would not know about Christianity. And like my children when they are able to decide for themselves about what path they would like to take, I will be honest and sincere and caring in teaching them about all aspects of religion and belief, and I will respectfully attend any services they are involved in as I have always done.
I will respect their parents wishes as to how they will raise their children.

I was baptized Catholic and raised Lutheran Protestant. Married in a Catholic Church. I lived.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Yes. I was curious what you would tell you Grandchildren about Christmas. Do you celebrate the birth of Christ? Or do you just avoid the topic all together? Will you teach them anything about religion? Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I just got out of the woods. I didn't pull the trigger but had an awesome sit. I saw three hogs, one about 250 lbs. and a turkey.




Excellent day in the woods for you!
I was able to kill a  6pt buck and mature doe this year. Youngest Son shot a mature doe.
Today I finished dehydrating 25lbs of jerky.
We have 50lbs of snack stix ,that we made Thursday, currently at the butchers getting smoked. I dont have a smoker that large to handle 50lbs.
Good luck to you this season.

There are a few hogs in Western Pennsylvania that escaped from hunting preserves. I know they are a destructive nuisance but Id love to be able to hunt them locally.


----------



## Israel

I always thought a drive by was one in which one fires and flees...quickly.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I grew up in "spirit filled" churches. There is group psychology involved and there is also some choreography involved. Why do you think the preacher calls the pianist up to start playing a slow emotional tune just as he is finishing up his sermon and about to make an alter call? Ever notice that? It serves a purpose. People also have a natural urge to cry when they see others crying. Your head is being screwed with but at the same time you're a willing participant. We see the same thing on other religions and even in political movements that take advantage of the same dynamics. It seems real at the time especially if you already have the predisposition and desire for it to be real.



Preying on others emotions is definitely real, but it’s not of God. I’ve never seen a crying sad service considered a “movement of God”........I have witnessed my Pastor stop a visiting preacher before and remind him that we are not at a funeral.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I always thought a drive by was one in which one fires and flees...quickly.



Well, since it is 25+hours later until your next cruise through the neighborhood, yeah you have the definition and the act spot on.

Spray and pray has never been more fitting.


----------



## j_seph

atlashunter said:


> You make the incorrect assumption that we have never experienced what you are talking about. I grew up in "spirit filled" churches. That feeling is in your head. There is group psychology involved and there is also some choreography involved. Why do you think the preacher calls the pianist up to start playing a slow emotional tune just as he is finishing up his sermon and about to make an alter call? Ever notice that? It serves a purpose. People also have a natural urge to cry when they see others crying. Your head is being screwed with but at the same time you're a willing participant. We see the same thing on other religions and even in political movements that take advantage of the same dynamics. It seems real at the time especially if you already have the predisposition and desire for it to be real.
> 
> Richie says he has witnessed healing in response to prayer. How many amputees has he seen miraculously healed by prayer? That would be a big goose egg. Not a single documented case of that ever happening. Yet in the Bible he healed the severed ear of a soldier and he said those believers who came after him would be able to perform the same and even greater works than him. So let's put that to the test. Bring forth your best faith healer and let's see how well they perform under a controlled study. Let's see how many amputees they can heal and how many corpses they can bring back to life.


So do y'all have a AA bible that you all use?



> *Question: "Why won't God heal amputees?"
> 
> Answer: * Some use this question in an attempt to "disprove" the existence of God.  In fact, there is a popular anti-Christian website dedicated to the  “Why won’t God heal amputees?” argument: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com.  If God is all-powerful and if Jesus promised to do anything we ask (or  so the reasoning goes), then why won’t God ever heal amputees when we  pray for them? Why does God heal victims of cancer and diabetes, for  example, yet He never causes an amputated limb to be regenerated? The  fact that an amputee stays an amputee is "proof" to some that God does  not exist, that prayer is useless, that so-called healings are  coincidence, and that religion is a myth.


https://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> So do y'all have a AA bible that you all use?
> 
> 
> https://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html



Thank you for helping provide more information to the point, unless you have an answer as to why god doesn't heal amputees....?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Preying on others emotions is definitely real, but it’s not of God. I’ve never seen a crying sad service considered a “movement of God”........I have witnessed my Pastor stop a visiting preacher before and remind him that we are not at a funeral.



Then you haven't spent much time in churches like the one Richie was talking about. Crying is the norm in those churches. Not necessarily out of sadness. People may or may not know they are part of the game. A lot of them just like being stroked. You can say it's not of God. They say it is. You don't know what they FELT! Which is exactly the point isn't it? Feelings are no indicator of what is true. They often lead people to believe things that aren't true.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> So do y'all have a AA bible that you all use?
> 
> 
> https://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html



No bible. Just reasonable questions that no Christian can answer. We should expect prayer to be of no use to amputees in a godless universe. It's no surprise to us. It is believers who have a conflict between the claims of the Bible and reality to resolve.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> What could you offer a believer that can take the place of the kind of comfort that they get from their belief in Santa Claus, the fairy godmother, or any other comforting fantasy?



We are talking about adults here right?


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Then you haven't spent much time in churches like the one Richie was talking about. Crying is the norm in those churches. Not necessarily out of sadness. People may or may not know they are part of the game. A lot of them just like being stroked. You can say it's not of God. They say it is. You don't know what they FELT! Which is exactly the point isn't it? Feelings are no indicator of what is true. They often lead people to believe things that aren't true.


You’re right, and I don’t know what they felt. Feelings are definitely misleading. People are emotional when others around them are. Some times people give the the credit for that emotion to where it doesn’t belong. 

I’ve been in some crying services visiting other churches and felt the emotion from just being there, human nature. 

From my experience, a single person or maybe several will get convicted, “pricked at the heart” or whatever you want to call it and make their way to the alter. I don’t see that “sadness” bleed off and affect everyone and many others in the congregation and end up a crying service with sad songs being played. I have seen others joyous.

I can’t answer for what others have seen though.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Well, since it is 25+hours later until your next cruise through the neighborhood, yeah you have the definition and the act spot on.
> 
> Spray and pray has never been more fitting.



LOL. OK, gotcha, "it's not required, but we do like to see more frequent interaction, Hmmmm"

(insert pic of man steepling his fingers behind desk)


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> You’re right, and I don’t know what they felt. Feelings are definitely misleading. People are emotional when others around them are. Some times people give the the credit for that emotion to where it doesn’t belong.
> 
> I’ve been in some crying services visiting other churches and felt the emotion from just being there, human nature.
> 
> From my experience, a single person or maybe several will get convicted, “pricked at the heart” or whatever you want to call it and make their way to the alter. I don’t see that “sadness” bleed off and affect everyone and many others in the congregation and end up a crying service with sad songs being played. I have seen others joyous.
> 
> I can’t answer for what others have seen though.



Speaking of joy have you seen that Kenneth Hagin video I posted a while back? He just walks around through the crowd and people laugh uncontrollably? Ever seen the look of people who are following a cult leader with absolute conviction? I think there is much about group psychology that we still don't understand but can see when it is tapped into.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Speaking of joy have you seen that Kenneth Hagin video I posted a while back? He just walks around through the crowd and people laugh uncontrollably? Ever seen the look of people who are following a cult leader with absolute conviction? I think there is much about group psychology that we still don't understand but can see when it is tapped into.



Haven’t seen but am aware. Sadly, people are taken advantage of in every aspect of life, not just religion. But people who know the difference, know the difference.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> LOL. OK, gotcha, "it's not required, but we do like to see more frequent interaction, Hmmmm"
> 
> (insert pic of man steepling his fingers behind desk)



Actually that is not what was said or I implied at all.

You quoted me and then proceeded to go on a  question and answer conversation with yourself which had nothing to do with anything that you quoted from me.
All it was, was an opportunity to preach another sermon that you've told at some point in just about every thread already.
The only conversations that involve in depth thoughtful answers from you are between you and yourself because you ask the questions that nobody else is asking you in order to get whatever thoughts you've been working on out there. 

You have every right to post but why try to mask your intentions by quoting someone and never even remotely coming close to addressing their quote with your reply? 
Why not just do a 5oclock Charlie bombing run and get it over with? We will all set a time aside, break out the lawn chairs and watch the routine, and then go back to business doing what were doing after the show.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Haven’t seen but am aware. Sadly, people are taken advantage of in every aspect of life, not just religion. But people who know the difference, know the difference.





The people in this video pray to the same god you and Richie pray to. They read the same bible you and Richie read. But they are being fooled and you aren't?

Apparently the number of christians who don't know the difference is massive. I'm not just cherry picking some oddball back woods preacher with a tiny congregation that nobody ever heard of here. Kenneth Hagin was a very prominent man in the evangelical churches. That man on the front row at the 1:30 mark in case you didn't know is Kenneth Copeland. He has a huge church and a ministry that employs about 500 people. His net worth is estimated at $300 million.

I'm curious what you think is going on in that video with all of those people laughing and dancing. Are they faking? Are they genuine? Are they under some kind of influence of the preacher?

You may not act in the same way. I'm sure you probably don't. But the point is many people are susceptible to this kind of manipulation often times in more subtly expressed ways.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Then you haven't spent much time in churches like the one Richie was talking about. Crying is the norm in those churches. Not necessarily out of sadness. People may or may not know they are part of the game. A lot of them just like being stroked. You can say it's not of God. They say it is. You don't know what they FELT! Which is exactly the point isn't it? Feelings are no indicator of what is true. They often lead people to believe things that aren't true.



That's funny I never named a church or said all my experiences even happed in a church. Again speculation on your part. You do know that people don't always have to be in church to pray and worship.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> The people in this video pray to the same god you and Richie pray to. They read the same bible you and Richie read. But they are being fooled and you aren't?
> .


Im certain that tons of folks pray to the same God that Richie and I pray to. I can’t speak for Richie, but i would be one of those that got up and went to Burger King if I was in that service. You are aware of Matthew 7 starting somewhere around verse 20??

Regardless if you’re a believer or not, anyone that can read should obviously see that there are those that you speak of and it is acknowledged and pointed out that just because they claim it........doesn’t make it fact.

Why should anyone find it surprising that these type folks actually live up to what the Bible warns against?

What’s interesting is that people claim to know the Bible better than the Christian and can’t even sort out stuff like this example. They're lumping every one that reads the Bible as Christian. That word is used to loosely, Christian is more than reading the Bible and going to church. A Christian understands that.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> That's funny I never named a church or said all my experiences even happed in a church. Again speculation on your part.



You said people were speaking in tongues. Tells me all I need to know. Tell me people don't cry in your church at the alter.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Apparently the number of christians who don't know the difference is massive. I'm not just cherry picking some oddball back woods preacher with a tiny congregation that nobody ever heard of here. Kenneth Hagin was a very prominent man in the evangelical churches. That man on the front row at the 1:30 mark in case you didn't know is Kenneth Copeland. He has a huge church and a ministry that employs about 500 people. His net worth is estimated at $300 million.
> 
> I'm curious what you think is going on in that video with all of those people laughing and dancing. Are they faking? Are they genuine? Are they under some kind of influence of the preacher?
> 
> You may not act in the same way. I'm sure you probably don't. But the point is many people are susceptible to this kind of manipulation often times in more subtly expressed ways.



Now for the other part of your post, this was sort of two part question.

It doesn’t matter who these “minister” are or how much wealth they have.....I’m not sure what they’re doing in this video, it’s nothing that I have seen anywhere other than a “show”

Without being there, it looks to me nothing more than mockery for one, and to grab attention of the weak that are willing to donate thinking that they’ve found something powerful that will help them.

Either way, it’s a shame that people act this way thinking that they’re being “Christian” and it’s misguided to think that they are. 

I’ve been in church since I was 2 years old, that was 44 years ago. I’ve never seen anything such as this in person and if you gave me a ticket to go, id burn it.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Im certain that tons of folks pray to the same God that Richie and I pray to. I can’t speak for Richie, but i would be one of those that got up and went to Burger King if I was in that service. You are aware of Matthew 7 starting somewhere around verse 20??
> 
> Regardless if you’re a believer or not, anyone that can read should obviously see that there are those that you speak of and it is acknowledged and pointed out that just because they claim it........doesn’t make it fact.
> 
> Why should anyone find it surprising that these type folks actually live up to what the Bible warns against?
> 
> What’s interesting is that people claim to know the Bible better than the Christian and can’t even sort out stuff like this example. They're lumping every one that reads the Bible as Christian. That word is used to loosely, Christian is more than reading the Bible and going to church. A Christian understands that.



Again we aren't talking about some tiny minority of Christians. This is just a more pronounced manifestation of the manipulation that takes place. You may not be one of those jumping up and dancing but don't kid yourself thinking you can't be manipulated.

Yes just because something is claimed that doesn't make it fact. There are many claims made by the Bible that don't comport with the facts. Yet you still believe it. Why? It must serve some purpose either for you or for someone else. Maybe the more pertinent question is are those people being honest with themselves? Are you and Richie being honest with yourselves?


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> You said people were speaking in tongues. Tells me all I need to know. Tell me people don't cry in your church at the alter.



Yes and it happened at my Grandmothers house not a church. Sure people cry at the alter. What does that prove? By the way it tells you all you want to know not need to know.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Tell me people don't cry in your church at the alter.



A person crying with a repented heart is not the same as what you were referring to as those sad crying services.

The emotional affects that you were eluding to is similar to what happens at a funeral. A few people repenting or shedding tears at the alter has never had a sad affect on anything that I’ve ever witnessed.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Again we aren't talking about some tiny minority of Christians.
> 
> Yes just because something is claimed that doesn't make it fact.



This is the key, and as I said before, The Christian knows the difference.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Now for the other part of your post, this was sort of two part question.
> 
> It doesn’t matter who these “minister” are or how much wealth they have.....I’m not sure what they’re doing in this video, it’s nothing that I have seen anywhere other than a “show”
> 
> Without being there, it looks to me nothing more than mockery for one, and to grab attention of the weak that are willing to donate thinking that they’ve found something powerful that will help them.
> 
> Either way, it’s a shame that people act this way thinking that they’re being “Christian” and it’s misguided to think that they are.
> 
> I’ve been in church since I was 2 years old, that was 44 years ago. I’ve never seen anything such as this in person and if you gave a ticket to go, if burn it.



That speaks to the intent of the preacher but not to the mindset of the participants in the audience. What did they get out of behaving that way?

If challenged about how genuine they were how do you think they would react?


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> There are many claims made by the Bible that don't comport with the facts. Yet you still believe it. Why? It must serve some purpose either for you or for someone else. Maybe the more pertinent question is are those people being honest with themselves?



Facts based on.......?????? the perspective from non believers? Without a personal experience of their own, they don’t  even understand what they’re saying doesn’t exist.

The purpose it serves is it works, over and over. What you consider “happen stance” or “probability” just seems to be happening to me more than the odds of probability, especially when I pray for it to happen. 

Don’t know if these folks are honest wih their selves or brain washed. If brain washed, I believe they honestly think that they’re doing what they’re supposed to.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> That speaks to the intent of the preacher but not to the mindset of the participants in the audience. What did they get out of behaving that way?
> 
> If challenged about how genuine they were how do you think they would react?



I wouldn’t have a clue on what they got out of behaving the way they did. 

If they really felt that they were right, I’m sure they could explain.


----------



## j_seph

Us as Christians are usually found having to defend ourselves, other Christians, out religion, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God.

What are Atheist defending in these type discussions?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Us as Christians are usually found having to defend ourselves, other Christians, out religion, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God.
> 
> What are Atheist defending in these type discussions?


Logic


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Us as Christians are usually found having to defend ourselves, other Christians, out religion, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God.
> 
> What are Atheist defending in these type discussions?


"You" make the claims, shouldn't you be able to defend them?


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Yes and it happened at my Grandmothers house not a church. Sure people cry at the alter. What does that prove? By the way it tells you all you want to know not need to know.



Uh huh. You saw people speaking in tongues at your grandmothers house but not at church. Right...


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I wouldn’t have a clue on what they got out of behaving the way they did.
> 
> If they really felt that they were right, I’m sure they could explain.



I think you do.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Facts based on.......?????? the perspective from non believers? Without a personal experience of their own, they don’t  even understand what they’re saying doesn’t exist.
> 
> The purpose it serves is it works, over and over. What you consider “happen stance” or “probability” just seems to be happening to me more than the odds of probability, especially when I pray for it to happen.
> 
> Don’t know if these folks are honest wih their selves or brain washed. If brain washed, I believe they honestly think that they’re doing what they’re supposed to.



The claim that it works by improving the probability of a desireable outcome is a testable hypothesis. What impact does it have on the probability of amputees getting their limbs back? You say it works. Why doesn't it work for them?


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I think you do.


Please elaborate.


atlashunter said:


> The claim that it works by improving the probability of a desireable outcome is a testable hypothesis. What impact does it have on the probability of amputees getting their limbs back? You say it works. Why doesn't it work for them?


Maybe, to a certain extent, but the probability of me missing a red light every time after Ive gotten it timed is pretty good. That’s actually a result from planning based on experience. 

The prayer and instant healing many times is a probability of what?? What is the basis of the probability of tumors that are gone, fractures not there anymore, etc., that are instantly gone and the common denominator is prayer? Is it the prayer or just something that the body does instantly during prayer? If it’s the latter, where is the research to prove this, Of course we can rely on the body healing itself but you have a medical team standing there with zero explanation? Why can’t they explain how the body did that instantly? Why can’t they explain that probability? They should know by now. 

As far as amputees.....
Turn it around, “according to your faith” 

Where’s their faith? Where’s yours? Where’s mine? What’s the outcome going to be? To lift God up? Lift man up? Prove it to you? 

I don’t have all the answers, I admit that. But that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen. If it never happens, it doesn’t lessen the things that have happened.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> Logic





bullethead said:


> "You" make the claims, shouldn't you be able to defend them?


LOGIC
*1*. 
*reasoning conducted *or *assessed **according *to *strict **principles *of *validity*.


*the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way*

*organize and carry out.*
*
*
*evaluate or estimate the nature, ability, or quality of.*

*as stated by or in.*

*demanding that rules concerning behavior are obeyed and observed.*
*
*
*a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning*

*the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency*
*
*
*
*
I have thought about my salvation in a logical sensible way. Should have made the choice 2 to 3 years prior than I did. I realized there were two options and in the state I was in I was headed to H3LL if I didn't accept when I did. See it was pretty logical that I had an option here and the sensible way was to accept him when he called my name. When I got saved I did not go with intent of it happening, I went to a church with some friends on a Sunday evening. Can assure you I did not plan for it to and had been in a lot stronger sermons than there was that night. It happened in a huge church with a huge congregation of who I only knew the other 4 or 5 I was with. The word was preached and to carry out what was to be done I had to make that move. I assessed my options with an open heart as I knew I couldn't live a perfect life and would still mess up daily but it had to be better than how I had been living. It was in according to when the Lord made himself known to me. I can go back 2 to 3 years prior when I was going to church fairly regular and felt the conviction but would not move and accept him. The Bible gives us rules on our behavior and tells us to observe and obey. So logic was used, it was not forced nor directed by someone else. When I can drive down the highway, have a little talk with my Lord and feel his presence I have all the Logic that I need. May sound crazy, stupid and dumb. Might if make us seem as though we are from another planet or flipped our rocker down the stairs but it is all good. I have my salvation, my hope, and enough faith that mans Logic cannot begin to come close to the Logic of the Gospel. You want something proven to yourself, get your heart right and let the Lord prove it you himself.*
*
*
*
*
*


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Please elaborate.
> 
> Maybe, to a certain extent, but the probability of me missing a red light every time after Ive gotten it timed is pretty good. That’s actually a result from planning based on experience.
> 
> The prayer and instant healing many times is a probability of what?? What is the basis of the probability of tumors that are gone, fractures not there anymore, etc., that are instantly gone and the common denominator is prayer? Is it the prayer or just something that the body does instantly during prayer? If it’s the latter, where is the research to prove this, Of course we can rely on the body healing itself but you have a medical team standing there with zero explanation? Why can’t they explain how the body did that instantly? Why can’t they explain that probability? They should know by now.
> 
> As far as amputees.....
> Turn it around, “according to your faith”
> 
> Where’s their faith? Where’s yours? Where’s mine? What’s the outcome going to be? To lift God up? Lift man up? Prove it to you?
> 
> I don’t have all the answers, I admit that. But that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen. If it never happens, it doesn’t lessen the things that have happened.



Read these testimonies.

http://voodoo3.com/testemony


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> LOGIC
> *1*.
> *reasoning conducted *or *assessed **according *to *strict **principles *of *validity*.
> 
> 
> *the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way*
> 
> *organize and carry out.*
> *
> *
> *evaluate or estimate the nature, ability, or quality of.*
> 
> *as stated by or in.*
> 
> *demanding that rules concerning behavior are obeyed and observed.*
> *
> *
> *a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning*
> 
> *the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> I have thought about my salvation in a logical sensible way. Should have made the choice 2 to 3 years prior than I did. I realized there were two options and in the state I was in I was headed to H3LL if I didn't accept when I did. See it was pretty logical that I had an option here and the sensible way was to accept him when he called my name. When I got saved I did not go with intent of it happening, I went to a church with some friends on a Sunday evening. Can assure you I did not plan for it to and had been in a lot stronger sermons than there was that night. It happened in a huge church with a huge congregation of who I only knew the other 4 or 5 I was with. The word was preached and to carry out what was to be done I had to make that move. I assessed my options with an open heart as I knew I couldn't live a perfect life and would still mess up daily but it had to be better than how I had been living. It was in according to when the Lord made himself known to me. I can go back 2 to 3 years prior when I was going to church fairly regular and felt the conviction but would not move and accept him. The Bible gives us rules on our behavior and tells us to observe and obey. So logic was used, it was not forced nor directed by someone else. When I can drive down the highway, have a little talk with my Lord and feel his presence I have all the Logic that I need. May sound crazy, stupid and dumb. Might if make us seem as though we are from another planet or flipped our rocker down the stairs but it is all good. I have my salvation, my hope, and enough faith that mans Logic cannot begin to come close to the Logic of the Gospel. You want something proven to yourself, get your heart right and let the Lord prove it you himself.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *


We can have a logical discussion about Zombies on The Walking Dead or find logic within Looney Tunes episodes, but logic applied in that way doesn't make them true or real. 

First you have to logically establish your god exists.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Please elaborate.
> 
> Maybe, to a certain extent, but the probability of me missing a red light every time after Ive gotten it timed is pretty good. That’s actually a result from planning based on experience.
> 
> The prayer and instant healing many times is a probability of what?? What is the basis of the probability of tumors that are gone, fractures not there anymore, etc., that are instantly gone and the common denominator is prayer? Is it the prayer or just something that the body does instantly during prayer? If it’s the latter, where is the research to prove this, Of course we can rely on the body healing itself but you have a medical team standing there with zero explanation? Why can’t they explain how the body did that instantly? Why can’t they explain that probability? They should know by now.
> 
> As far as amputees.....
> Turn it around, “according to your faith”
> 
> Where’s their faith? Where’s yours? Where’s mine? What’s the outcome going to be? To lift God up? Lift man up? Prove it to you?
> 
> I don’t have all the answers, I admit that. But that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen. If it never happens, it doesn’t lessen the things that have happened.



People do recover from all of those ailments naturally. People don't regrow limbs naturally. If you prayed for that to happen and it consistently worked but only when your god was prayed to then you would have something. The fact that it doesn't demands explanation. My explanation is that prayer to your deity is no more effective than prayer to a lucky rabbits foot. What is your explanation?

If these claims of yours were true then why do we not see a statistically significant advantage for health metrics among Christians than over their non Christian peers? How do you explain that? You claim improved odds. Where is the evidence that is the case? And the claim of instantly healed fractures is simply bull. Put a faith healer in a hospital and let them pray over fracture patients who just had an X-ray of their fracture and then run the X-ray again. You can even do it on only the Christian patients to get around the lack of faith excuse. Out of a hundred prayers how many do you think would be confirmed instant healing? My money says not a single one. And where is the interest on the part of Christians to run such tests and prove their claims true to the world? They have none because they know it's a waste of time. Benny Hinn and the other charlatains aren't lined up at the children's cancer hospital to show prayer will give them improved outcomes over the normally expected survival rates or at Walter Reed to restore the limbs of wounded veterans. and how is it that certain recoveries from ailments which happen anyway supposedly glorify God but the healing of an amputee wouldn't?


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> People do recover from all of those ailments naturally. People don't regrow limbs naturally. If you prayed for that to happen and it consistently worked but only when your god was prayed to then you would have something. The fact that it doesn't demands explanation. My explanation is that prayer to your deity is no more effective than prayer to a lucky rabbits foot. What is your explanation?
> 
> If these claims of yours were true then why do we not see a statistically significant advantage for health metrics among Christians than over their non Christian peers? How do you explain that? You claim improved odds. Where is the evidence that is the case? And the claim of instantly healed fractures is simply bull. Put a faith healer in a hospital and let them pray over fracture patients who just had an X-ray of their fracture and then run the X-ray again. You can even do it on only the Christian patients to get around the lack of faith excuse. Out of a hundred prayers how many do you think would be confirmed instant healing? My money says not a single one. And where is the interest on the part of Christians to run such tests and prove their claims true to the world? They have none because they know it's a waste of time. Benny Hinn and the other charlatains aren't lined up at the children's cancer hospital to show prayer will give them improved outcomes over the normally expected survival rates or at Walter Reed to restore the limbs of wounded veterans. and how is it that certain recoveries from ailments which happen anyway supposedly glorify God but the healing of an amputee wouldn't?



There’s not a single thing that I can do for you on this, other than remind you that you don’t know personally of the things that have happened in my own life that you cannot even create any explanations for. You have superb knowledge, even greater than a medical team. 

There’s probability in everything, but when you have probabilities, nothing is for certain. I will give you a percentage of things happening based on probability, but not all.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Read these testimonies.
> 
> http://voodoo3.com/testemony



Not sure if you believe that witch craft is considered satanic or not or even if Satan exist or or not. The Christian views voo doo as satanic and acknowledges that satan is real. Hence the “spiritual warfare”.

It goes back to Matthew 7: 21 and 22. A good indicator would be are they following scripture for healing, and especially if they’re charging for anything, as prices were given on the home page of this link.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> I understand the concern that a loved one might get sent to the hot place if they haven't crossed the right T's and dotted the right I's in this life. If someone really believes that then of course they would want to help. What I can't wrap my mind around is why the believer can't step back from that situation and ask the question "Does my loved one really deserve to be cast in an eternal fire?". Never seems to cross their mind that anyone who might do that to their loved one is unworthy of their love and admiration.



The heart of the matter is everyone is loved by someone ...or once was, and everyone is better/more deserving than someone else.  Even the most vile of humanity have a moral hierarchy.  Good thing that’s not the standard to get into heaven because it would mirror earth.  The standard is to be Holy and it’s a free gift to everyone who will receive it.  Those who don’t have no one to blame but themselves.  They “cast” themselves despite pleas from loved ones.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> The heart of the matter is everyone is loved by someone ...or once was, and everyone is better/more deserving than someone else.  Even the most vile of humanity have a moral hierarchy.  Good thing that’s not the standard to get into heaven because it would mirror earth.  The standard is to be Holy and it’s a free gift to everyone who will receive it.  Those who don’t have no one to blame but themselves.


Are you saying that the standard to get into heaven is to be holy?


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> We can have a logical discussion about Zombies on The Walking Dead or find logic within Looney Tunes episodes, but logic applied in that way doesn't make them true or real.
> 
> First you have to logically establish your god exists.


This ^.
It seems most every time a Christian lays out the "logic" of their belief, they always start their logic trail under the assumption that God exists and then goes from there.

They don't seem to get that their logic trail is sunk before it even begins.
Just stick with the word belief and leave the word logic out of it.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> This ^.
> It seems most every time a Christian lays out the "logic" of their belief, they always start their logic trail under the assumption that God exists and then goes from there.
> 
> They don't seem to get that their logic trail is sunk before it even begins.
> Just stick with the word belief and leave the word logic out of it.


Absolutely true Walt.
They will not accept the same logic used by believers in other gods because even they know that those other believers have failed to establish the existence of a god in the first place. 
Then in the very next breath they bypass the same basic yet most essential criteria when talking about their own god.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> There’s not a single thing that I can do for you on this, other than remind you that you don’t know personally of the things that have happened in my own life that you cannot even create any explanations for. You have superb knowledge, even greater than a medical team.
> 
> There’s probability in everything, but when you have probabilities, nothing is for certain. I will give you a percentage of things happening based on probability, but not all.



It has nothing to do with your anecdotes. If what you are saying was actually true it would be statistically verifiable. Yet Christians have no better odds than anyone else of beating cancer, recovering from bypass surgery, etc. If I tell you my lucky rabbits foot improves my odds on a coin flip and we each flip 100 times and I don't have any better outcome than you do what is the most rational conclusion to make then? That my unaided odds were for some unknown reason worse than yours and the rabbits foot helped me even them up such that it appeared to have no effect at all? Or that the rabbits foot had no effect?


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> Are you saying that the standard to get into heaven is to be holy?



That doesn't help him. If being holy means living by Yahwehs standards it's no less horrific. Hitler was more moral than the Christian god. At least he was selective in who he murdered.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> It has nothing to do with your anecdotes. If what you are saying was actually true it would be statistically verifiable. Yet Christians have no better odds than anyone else of beating cancer, recovering from bypass surgery, etc. If I tell you my lucky rabbits foot improves my odds on a coin flip and we each flip 100 times and I don't have any better outcome than you do what is the most rational conclusion to make then? That my unaided odds were for some unknown reason worse than yours and the rabbits foot helped me even them up such that it appeared to have no effect at all? Or that the rabbits foot had no effect?



Ok I see what you’re saying. But unless you have something concrete about my anecdotes......you can’t rule them out. Just because the coin lands on heads 99 out of 100 times doesn’t mean a coin lands on heads.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> That doesn't help him. If being holy means living by Yahwehs standards it's no less horrific. Hitler was more moral than the Christian god. At least he was selective in who he murdered.



I feel that he at least has the chance to justify his claim.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ok I see what you’re saying. But unless you have something concrete about my anecdotes......you can’t rule them out. Just because the coin lands on heads 99 out of 100 times doesn’t mean a coin lands on heads.
> 
> As I said before, the Hughston Clinic didn’t have a single explanation when my surgery was cancelled. You and the rest of the world may be able to rule out a lot of things, but that’s one that you can’t. Had that medical team given me any type of logical reasoning to what my body did to itself to basically instant healing that just so happened to have occurred while I was receiving prayer for back, I would have considered it and stil given God credit for allowing it to happen. But the fact is, the answer that I got is we have no explanation whatsoever. If you have one, I’d love to hear it.


Judging by the testimonials in the link, voodoo is equally as powerful in the healing and good fortune department as your god.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Judging by the testimonials in the link, voodoo is equally as powerful in the healing and good fortune department as your god.



And I’m not denying that voodoo is real, and no doubt that people receive something in it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> And I’m not denying that voodoo is real, and no doubt that people receive something in it.



So would you agree then that voodoo, other gods, pyramid power, rabbits feet etc etc are all just as capable of mending bones, curing ailments and diseases, bringing good fortune and saving people from certain death as well as your god?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Judging by the testimonials in the link, voodoo is equally as powerful in the healing and good fortune department as your god.



I personally know a Haitian missionary. He has built a school down there that also provides food, fresh water and clothing. The streets down there are lined with trash. It is a very poor country. My Dad went down there on a mission trip. I have seen first hand photos. Anyways voodoo is very prevalent down there. In fact there is a place called prayer mountain there where different religions gather to pray. The missionary met a voodoo princess on the mountain and was able to lead her to Christ.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Are you saying that the standard to get into heaven is to be holy?



Yes.  When one accepts Christ one's sins are forgiven.  Righteousness/Holiness is imparted onto the believer.  Christ achieved this reward from his atoning death.  The believer (I/ME) have done absolutely nothing to deserve this and hence cannot boast about it.  It's a gift given from Christ DESPITE my being underserving of it.  

In fact it's what Christmas is all about.  Loving people despite them not deserving it.  That's what Christ did for us.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I personally know a Haitian missionary. He has built a school down there that also provides food, fresh water and clothing. The streets down there are lined with trash. It is a very poor country. My Dad went down there on a mission trip. I have seen first hand photos. Anyways voodoo is very prevalent down there. In fact there is a place called prayer mountain there where different religions gather to pray. The missionary met a voodoo princess on the mountain and was able to lead her to Christ.


Sorry if this sounds bad,but, aaannnndddd.....?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  When one accepts Christ one's sins are forgiven.  Righteousness/Holiness is imparted onto the believer.  Christ achieved this reward from his atoning death.  The believer (I/ME) have done absolutely nothing to deserve this and hence cannot boast about it.  It's a gift given from Christ DESPITE my being underserving of it.
> 
> In fact it's what Christmas is all about.  Loving people despite them not deserving it.  That's what Christ did for us.



So holy or holiness is exclusive to Christ and Christianity?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> In fact it's what Christmas is all about.  Loving people despite them not deserving it.  That's what Christ did for us.



*with an asterix 

Christ supposedly loved us all.
He supposedly died for the sins of all mankind

But in the fine print
*only if you believe in him, accept him as your saviour,and worship his dad.


And again, not to painfully redundant, but the Jesus as worshiped in current form was not even a real person.

I do think there was a charismatic man or men that the figure Jesus Christ was modeled after, but there are no records of his birth. The figure that you worship was created.
300+bishops and clergy had to vote on who was going to be the figure of the new religion.
Does that sound like something that would be necessary if the Son of God lived and walked among us?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Sorry if this sounds bad,but, aaannnndddd.....?


It doesn't sound bad at all. I guess I just don't understand what your trying to get at with the whole voodoo reference. Especially when you don't believe in any of it. What are you trying to establish? That others believe different thing? That would be stating the obvious.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> So would you agree then that voodoo, other gods, pyramid power, rabbits feet etc etc are all just as capable of mending bones, curing ailments and diseases, bringing good fortune and saving people from certain death as well as your god?



I’m a firm believer that Satan will and does “copy cat” God in order “wow” and deceive followers.

I have no idea if this story is true or made up, but a few years ago I met a guy at the store and he asked me if I wanted to be rich. Of course my answer was YES. He said if you turn your life over to Satan and worship him, you can be rich. Invited me to their service. 

Said that’s what he did, went from rags to riches in one month. True or not in his case, there are people with that mentality. 

My answer was “have a good day” and I walked away from him.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> That doesn't help him. If being holy means living by Yahwehs standards it's no less horrific. Hitler was more moral than the Christian god. At least he was selective in who he murdered.



If you're trying to come across as vitriolic to the degree of absolute absurdity, you passed that mark splendidly.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> It doesn't sound bad at all. I guess I just don't understand what your trying to get at with the whole voodoo reference. Especially when you don't believe in any of it. What are you trying to establish? That others believe different thing? That would be stating the obvious.


What I am saying is there are people who give testimonials saying that they were healed by voodoo.
There are people who give testimonials saying that they were healed by Jesus/God.
There are people who give testimonials that they were healed by Buddah.
Etc, etc.
In each case regarding a different source for the healing the people say that their cancer disappeared, sickness went away, disease was cured, etc. 

Why or how can all of these people have the same results even though their sources differ?

Is it more likely that many gods exist along with spells, voodoo, magic and all these sources are capable of healing?
Or
For every couple dozen thousand people who die daily from disease, a few heal with explanation and it MIGHT be because the conditions in their body are just as needed to fight off the problem?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’m a firm believer that Satan will and does “copy cat” God in order “wow” and deceive followers.
> 
> I have no idea if this story is true or made up, but a few years ago I met a guy at the store and he asked me if I wanted to be rich. Of course my answer was YES. He said if you turn your life over to Satan and worship him, you can be rich. Invited me to their service.
> 
> Said that’s what he did, went from rags to riches in one month. True or not in his case, there are people with that mentality.
> 
> My answer was “have a good day” and I walked away from him.


So the Dali Lama is just a minion of Satan, voodoo is Satans work, Hindus and buddhists that have medical miracles happen to them and a non believer in any hocus pocus that has a tumor shrink and never return is because of a "devil" that god wants to save us from but does nothing to eliminate despite being all.powerful?

Really spotlite?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’m a firm believer that Satan will and does “copy cat” God in order “wow” and deceive followers.
> 
> I have no idea if this story is true or made up, but a few years ago I met a guy at the store and he asked me if I wanted to be rich. Of course my answer was YES. He said if you turn your life over to Satan and worship him, you can be rich. Invited me to their service.
> 
> Said that’s what he did, went from rags to riches in one month. True or not in his case, there are people with that mentality.
> 
> My answer was “have a good day” and I walked away from him.


How can you not know if the story was true or not if you say it happened to you?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> So the Dali Lama is just a minion of Satan, voodoo is Satans work, Hindus and buddhists that have medical miracles happen to them and a non believer in any hocus pocus that has a tumor shrink and never return is because of a "devil" that god wants to save us from but does nothing to eliminate despite being all.powerful?
> 
> Really spotlite?



The Bible is clear that we fight a spiritual warfare. I’m not saying that everything that someone else experienced is of the devil or of God. I’m recognizing the fact that both good and evil exist and I have the free will to choose one.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> How can you not know if the story was true or not if you say it happened to you?



The part I don’t know was truth or not was the part of him going from rags to riches in one month like he said. Never met him before. 

The rest, I have no doubt that he prays to the devil as he said.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Ok I see what you’re saying. But unless you have something concrete about my anecdotes......you can’t rule them out. Just because the coin lands on heads 99 out of 100 times doesn’t mean a coin lands on heads.



Just like you can't rule out the 50 times I called heads and my lucky rabbit foot made it heads. Again, people pray by the tens of millions in this country alone. Where is the hard numbers that show it improves their odds?


----------



## atlashunter

You say prayer works yet a study that shows that not to be true would not sway your belief. Your belief precedes any evidence and is immune from any evidence that might change your mind. That is confirmation bias. My mind could be changed on sufficient evidence. Don't think the same is true for you.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> The Bible is clear that we fight a spiritual warfare. I’m not saying that everything that someone else experienced is of the devil or of God. I’m recognizing the fact that both good and evil exist and I have the free will to choose one.



It's those that you refuse to recognize which are the ones that show neither a god or a devil is necessary.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> What I am saying is there are people who give testimonials saying that they were healed by voodoo.
> There are people who give testimonials saying that they were healed by Jesus/God.
> There are people who give testimonials that they were healed by Buddah.
> Etc, etc.
> In each case regarding a different source for the healing the people say that their cancer disappeared, sickness went away, disease was cured, etc.
> 
> Why or how can all of these people have the same results even though their sources differ?
> 
> Is it more likely that many gods exist along with spells, voodoo, magic and all these sources are capable of healing?
> Or
> For every couple dozen thousand people who die daily from disease, a few heal with explanation and it MIGHT be because the conditions in their body are just as needed to fight off the problem?



But you don't believe in any God. You believe in science. So I find it non productive when you use something like voodoo you don't believe exists as an example of something else that you don't believe exists. I think it is more productive conversation when you stick to what you believe to be factual. Like your last statements on conditions.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> But you don't believe in any God. You believe in science. So I find it non productive when you use something like voodoo you don't believe exists as an example of something else that you don't believe exists. I think it is more productive conversation when you stick to what you believe to be factual. Like your last statements on conditions.



What I believe or not believe in is irrelevant in order to have this conversation.
I am using your (and others) examples that god/prayer heals and comparing them to other believers in religions where they credit their god or ways for healing and I am including testimonials from followers of voodoo and testiomonials from followers of nothing that also had healing happen.

I am doing this in order to show that there is no exclusivity in unexplainable healing. Atlas has mentioned examples where Christians have no more of a greater rate of being cured than any other group.

Now, I bring up this information to show you that in my opinion all the results are the same and are attributed to nothing exclusive other than the body is capable of healing on it's own with no matter who or what an individual gives credit to.

I get the feeling that you can see where all that was leading and instead of facing it, you would rather try to play a get out of jail free card and pretend what I'm saying somehow doesn't count.

But it does.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> It's those that you refuse to recognize which are the ones that show neither a god or a devil is necessary.



Understood. But I’m not refusing to recognize that “no other gods exist” Never have. But their existence doesn’t lessen the one true God. And I understand that they think theirs is the one true god. And I’m not one to argue with them on who’s daddy is bigger 

Edited: I misread I think. I do recognize that things happen when credit is not given to anything good or evil. It just happens....The question is, does it really just happen? Is there a happen stance to try deal with a soul? One thing that always stands out to me is the non believer that states that he cannot 100% positively rule out the existence of God, but stands firm on not acknowledging that God “may” have healed something.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> You say prayer works yet a study that shows that not to be true would not sway your belief. Your belief precedes any evidence and is immune from any evidence that might change your mind. That is confirmation bias. My mind could be changed on sufficient evidence. Don't think the same is true for you.


Consider the substance / source of the evidence. 


atlashunter said:


> Just like you can't rule out the 50 times I called heads and my lucky rabbit foot made it heads. Again, people pray by the tens of millions in this country alone. Where is the hard numbers that show it improves their odds?


Where can you prove them wrong?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Understood. But I’m not refusing to recognize that “no other gods exist” Never have. But their existence doesn’t lessen the one true God. And I understand that they think theirs is the one true god. And I’m not one to argue with them on who’s daddy is bigger


Then voodoo is as powerful.
Positive thinking is as powerful. 
Rabbits feet are as powerful.

Things stay the same when no gods are involved


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Then voodoo is as powerful.
> Positive thinking is as powerful.
> Rabbits feet are as powerful.
> 
> Things stay the same when no gods are involved



But how do know what’s behind the voodoo, powerful thinking or a rabbits foot? Do you believe that Satan exist? If not, then I fully understand your questions.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Consider the substance / source of the evidence.
> 
> Where can you prove them wrong?



There is nothing to prove wrong when we are talking about confirmation bias where you count the hits and ignore the misses. If you seriously believe prayer works why are you not making the rounds at every children's cancer hospital you can find praying for every one of those kids and expecting them to be cured with just as much certainty of the efficacy as you are claiming here? And you still haven't explained why there are no statistics showing the efficacy of prayer. Just how confident are you that prayer works? John indicates that prayer should be 100%. Whatever you ask in his name WILL be done. How confident are you?


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> There is nothing to prove wrong when we are talking about confirmation bias where you count the hits and ignore the misses. If you seriously believe prayer works why are you not making the rounds at every children's cancer hospital you can find praying for every one of those kids and expecting them to be cured with just as much certainty of the efficacy as you are claiming here? And you still haven't explained why there are no statistics showing the efficacy of prayer. Just how confident are you that prayer works? John indicates that prayer should be 100%. Whatever you ask in his name WILL be done. How confident are you?



Well.....yea shame on me for not being out there doing more. But that doesn’t lessen Gods ability. It just means I failed to do everything that I know to do.

If you put all of the scriptures together instead of just one, according to his will and your faith has a lot to do with it, too.

The statistics are testimonies that millions have out there. You say they’re wrong but do not provide any proof. No one is asking you to believe them, but if you’re going to call a man liar or tell him he’s wrong, have something to stand on besides statistics and probability research from someone else, either stand on being 100% positive that  God isn’t real, or stop claiming he isn’t there if you’re not 100% positive.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Well.....yea shame on me for not being out there doing more. But that doesn’t lessen Gods ability. It just means I failed to do everything that I know to do.
> 
> If you put all of the scriptures together instead of just one, according to his will and your faith has a lot to do with it, too.
> 
> The statistics are testimonies that millions have out there. You say they’re wrong but do not provide any proof. No one is asking you to believe them, but if you’re going to call a man liar or tell him he’s wrong, have something to stand on besides statistics and probability research from someone else, either stand on being 100% positive that  God isn’t real, or stop claiming he isn’t there if you’re not 100% positive.



I'm not interested in testimonies. They don't tell you anything useful. Again my rabbits foot did x, y and z for me. Trust me or else prove me wrong. If what you claim is true then the evidence would be there in raw data. Testimonies would not be needed. Anybody can engage in confirmation bias. But the data would weed that out. Are you aware of the Harvard prayer study of bypass patients? Prayer was not found to have any improved outcome at all across hundreds of cases. I'm sure there was some believers in that study who had a positive outcome that gave god the glory but the numbers simply don't bare out that their odds were any better than those who didn't get prayer. In fact the most complications came from those who knew they were being prayed for. Why didn't prayer work there?

How confident are you in the effectiveness of prayer? Willing to bet your life on it? The life of a loved one?


----------



## atlashunter

And please don't tell me about gods ability. Show me. Lives are at stake and you claim miracle working power. If I bring you someone that is terminally ill can we count on your faith with a high degree of certainty that they will be healed?


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I'm not interested in testimonies. They don't tell you anything useful. Again my rabbits foot did x, y and z for me. Trust me or else prove me wrong.
> 
> How confident are you in the effectiveness of prayer? Willing to bet your life on it? The life of a loved one?


Interesting that we are at “trust me or prove me wrong” when it comes to your rabbits foot, but I have to prove God to you????

If you say the rabbits foot did that for you, I’m perfectly with that answer. I know that wickedness works also and most likely.......in that rabbits foot for you. 

And I’m confident enough that I will pray before I stand there and say “statistics say you’re a goner”


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> And please don't tell me about gods ability. Show me. Lives are at stake and you claim miracle working power. If I bring you someone that is terminally ill can we count on your faith with a high degree of certainty that they will be healed?



Your whole attitude towards “showing you”  is the problem. God is not going to do anything to “show” or “prove”  anything to you for the sake of proving. 

If you’re looking for power in man, you’re looking in the wrong places. I don’t heal no one. 

You bring someone terminally ill and we will follow scripture, but if you’re there for proof and your doubt, stay in the car. I don’t guarantee anything except that God will do according to faith and his will. The person being prayed for has to have faith also. PM your info and get some directions.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Your whole attitude towards “showing you”  is the problem. God is not going to do anything to “show” or “prove”  anything to you for the sake of proving.
> 
> If you’re looking for power in man, you’re looking in the wrong places. I don’t heal no one.
> 
> You bring someone terminally ill and we will follow scripture, but if you’re there for proof and your doubt, stay in the car. I don’t guarantee anything except that God will do according to faith and his will. The person being prayed for has to have faith also. PM your info and get some directions.



I'll gladly stay in the car if that's what it takes for your god to do his thing. Not sure why he would hold out on healing a terminal illness just because someone there doubted it. Seems like a jerk thing to do. Also quite irrational if he is really healing millions of Christians which would create undeniable evidence in the form of survival rates and recovery rates. My still unanswered question is how confident are you on this? Let's say for instance we go to the children's hospital and you pray over 100 terminally ill kids. How many of those hundred can we realistically expect to be instantly healed by prayer? Are you confident enough to risk anything of value?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Interesting that we are at “trust me or prove me wrong” when it comes to your rabbits foot, but I have to prove God to you????
> 
> If you say the rabbits foot did that for you, I’m perfectly with that answer. I know that wickedness works also and most likely.......in that rabbits foot for you.
> 
> And I’m confident enough that I will pray before I stand there and say “statistics say you’re a goner”



I'm not the one with the rabbits foot. You are. You just give your superstition a different name.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I'm not the one with the rabbits foot. You are. You just give your superstition a different name.



If it’s such a superstition, what about it is driving you? 

I don’t believe in Bigfoot but I haven’t spent 3 seconds asking anyone to prove it or tell them how ridiculous it sounds or even providing any type of research against it. It has absolutely zero affect on me and I will say I’m 100% positive that he doesn’t exist. I don’t leave the door open. For those out there looking for him, I hope they find him, I won’t get in their way and I won’t support it. 

Shouldn’t you be in the same boat with your disbelief in God?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> But how do know what’s behind the voodoo, powerful thinking or a rabbits foot? Do you believe that Satan exist? If not, then I fully understand your questions.



If I am convinced gods are unlikely, I feel the same about the Satan excuse. Satan is a man made excuse for everything that doesn't fit their god narrative.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Interesting that we are at “trust me or prove me wrong” when it comes to your rabbits foot, but I have to prove God to you????
> 
> If you say the rabbits foot did that for you, I’m perfectly with that answer. I know that wickedness works also and most likely.......in that rabbits foot for you.
> 
> And I’m confident enough that I will pray before I stand there and say “statistics say you’re a goner”



He is using the rabbits foot as a foolish example to show you how foolish your example (prayer/god) is.

He is not talking about whatever is getting the credit, he is talking abiut the results  or better yet LACK of results. 

If in fact a christians prayed to their god for healing and it worked there would be a phenominal number of christians without illness, disease, health problems that would be disproportionatley more healthy compared to the rest of the non christians. 
But in fact, the numbers are the same.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> If it’s such a superstition, what about it is driving you?
> 
> I don’t believe in Bigfoot but I haven’t spent 3 seconds asking anyone to prove it or tell them how ridiculous it sounds or even providing any type of research against it. It has absolutely zero affect on me and I will say I’m 100% positive that he doesn’t exist. I don’t leave the door open. For those out there looking for him, I hope they find him, I won’t get in their way and I won’t support it.
> 
> Shouldn’t you be in the same boat with your disbelief in God?



If we lived in a world where tens of millions of Americans went to church every week to worship Bigfoot, insisted on putting "In Bigfoot We Trust" on government property, and otherwise tried inserting Bigfoot into every facet of public life then we would be discussing Bigfoot. A superstition by any other name is still a superstition. You continue to ignore my questions about your confidence level.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> If I am convinced gods are unlikely, I feel the same about the Satan excuse. Satan is a man made excuse for everything that doesn't fit their god narrative.



Even if someone believes in Satan he can't be used as a scapegoat for god because god chose to create him knowing everything he would do. Plus where did satans character come from if not from god? When you are all knowing and all powerful the buck really does stop with you.


----------



## j_seph

Spotlite said:


> Your whole attitude towards “showing you”  is the problem. God is not going to do anything to “show” or “prove”  anything to you for the sake of proving.
> 
> If you’re looking for power in man, you’re looking in the wrong places. I don’t heal no one.
> 
> You bring someone terminally ill and we will follow scripture, but if you’re there for proof and your doubt, stay in the car. I don’t guarantee anything except that God will do according to faith and his will. The person being prayed for has to have faith also. *PM your info and get some directions.*





atlashunter said:


> If we lived in a world where tens of millions of Americans went to church every week to worship Bigfoot, insisted on putting "In Bigfoot We Trust" on government property, and otherwise tried inserting Bigfoot into every facet of public life then we would be discussing Bigfoot. A superstition by any other name is still a superstition. You continue to ignore my questions about your confidence level.


Seems fairly confident to me.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> Seems fairly confident to me.



Not confident enough to answer the questions so far. Anyone can pray and let the chips fall where they may. I want to know how much skin he is willing to put in the game. How much is he personally willing to put on the line based on this confidence in prayer.


----------



## atlashunter

Another question spotlite, why are you praying for his will to be done? Is there some obstacle to him making sure things go according to his will unless he gets your invocation? And if his will is for a kid with cancer to be healed why did they have cancer in the first place? Was that his will too? There sure are a lot of distraught Christian parents out there begging and pleading with him to cure their sick child to no avail. If that is his will and you are praying for his will to be done then you're actually praying for people to suffer and die. Ever thought of that?


----------



## drippin' rock

Spotlite said:


> Im certain that tons of folks pray to the same God that Richie and I pray to. I can’t speak for Richie, but i would be one of those that got up and went to Burger King if I was in that service. You are aware of Matthew 7 starting somewhere around verse 20??
> 
> Regardless if you’re a believer or not, anyone that can read should obviously see that there are those that you speak of and it is acknowledged and pointed out that just because they claim it........doesn’t make it fact.
> 
> Why should anyone find it surprising that these type folks actually live up to what the Bible warns against?
> 
> What’s interesting is that people claim to know the Bible better than the Christian and can’t even sort out stuff like this example. They're lumping every one that reads the Bible as Christian. That word is used to loosely, Christian is more than reading the Bible and going to church. A Christian understands that.



I wonder out of the 2 billion professed Christians on the planet, how many really "GOT it" vs. the posers?


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> Logic



really wanted a "like" button for this one.


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> This ^.
> It seems most every time a Christian lays out the "logic" of their belief, they always start their logic trail under the assumption that God exists and then goes from there.
> 
> They don't seem to get that their logic trail is sunk before it even begins.
> Just stick with the word belief and leave the word logic out of it.



Like the Titanic.


----------



## drippin' rock

atlashunter said:


> Another question spotlite, why are you praying for his will to be done? Is there some obstacle to him making sure things go according to his will unless he gets your invocation? And if his will is for a kid with cancer to be healed why did they have cancer in the first place? Was that his will too? There sure are a lot of distraught Christian parents out there begging and pleading with him to cure their sick child to no avail. If that is his will and you are praying for his will to be done then you're actually praying for people to suffer and die. Ever thought of that?



Atlas, You are forgetting about original sin....


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> If we lived in a world where tens of millions of Americans went to church every week to worship Bigfoot, insisted on putting "In Bigfoot We Trust" on government property, and otherwise tried inserting Bigfoot into every facet of public life then we would be discussing Bigfoot. A superstition by any other name is still a superstition. You continue to ignore my questions about your confidence level.



I will get back to you when I’m off the road. I didn’t ignore your question, I said I’m confident enough to follow scripture and have faith. I did ignore your question about risking something of value against it, that doesn’t deserve a reply.


----------



## Spotlite

drippin' rock said:


> I wonder out of the 2 billion professed Christians on the planet, how many really "GOT it" vs. the posers?



Only God knows


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I will get back to you when I’m off the road. I didn’t ignore your question, I said I’m confident enough to follow scripture and have faith. I did ignore your question about risking something of value against it, that doesn’t deserve a reply.



That's not much confidence.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> That's not much confidence.



I understand your position on this. But I’m not looking for or need numbers and statistics for me to act on what I believe. 

If I chose to give credit to what you consider “superstition”......what does that do to you?

The day that scientists can be 100% positive on something will be the day that I take another review of their work. 

If I’m going to hang my hat on science that hangs their hat on evidence, I want 100%......not most likely.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> He is using the rabbits foot as a foolish example to show you how foolish your example (prayer/god) is.
> 
> He is not talking about whatever is getting the credit, he is talking abiut the results  or better yet LACK of results.
> 
> If in fact a christians prayed to their god for healing and it worked there would be a phenominal number of christians without illness, disease, health problems that would be disproportionatley more healthy compared to the rest of the non christians.
> But in fact, the numbers are the same.



Not denying that it looks foolish to the non believer. But Christians don’t really care because they’re going to practice their faith even when made fun of. 

I’m not sure where and why anyone would get the idea that just because a Christian believes in faith healing that they’ll never get sick.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> You say prayer works yet a study that shows that not to be true would not sway your belief. Your belief precedes any evidence and is immune from any evidence that might change your mind. That is confirmation bias. My mind could be changed on sufficient evidence. Don't think the same is true for you.


You keep saying you have studies and evidence to prove that prayer doesn’t work........why are you not linking it? 


But it does seem that science acknowledges a positive difference of believing patients verses non believers.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/07/science-behind-faith-healing.amp.html


----------



## ky55

Spotlite said:


> You keep saying you have studies and evidence to prove that prayer doesn’t work........why are you not linking it?



Could be this one from Harvard:


http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Harvard_prayer_experiment


----------



## atlashunter

ky55 said:


> Could be this one from Harvard:
> 
> 
> http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Harvard_prayer_experiment



Yes I already mentioned that one although I didn't link to it. Spotlite ignored it and I suspect will ignore the link too.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I understand your position on this. But I’m not looking for or need numbers and statistics for me to act on what I believe.
> 
> If I chose to give credit to what you consider “superstition”......what does that do to you?
> 
> The day that scientists can be 100% positive on something will be the day that I take another review of their work.
> 
> If I’m going to hang my hat on science that hangs their hat on evidence, I want 100%......not most likely.



I realize you aren't basing your belief on the numbahs. We already know the numbahs don't support your claims. The point is, they would if your claims about the effectiveness of prayer were true.

One hundred percent certainty is a pretty high bar but look at it this way. People bet their lives on science every day. You bet your life on science every time you set foot on an aircraft. But it appears your faith in prayer isn't nearly as strong. You say it works. Yet you won't set any expectations as to the efficacy in a test nor will you risk losing anything if those expectations come up short. That speaks volumes. So basically that leaves us with a claim that carries with it no predictive value, sets no expectations that could be verified as impacting normal probability, and no consequences or admission of being false if the expectations aren't met. Sounds more like wishful thinking than a claim that comports with reality.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> I realize you aren't basing your belief on the numbahs. We already know the numbahs don't support your claims. The point is, they would if your claims about the effectiveness of prayer were true.
> 
> One hundred percent certainty is a pretty high bar but look at it this way. People bet their lives on science every day. You bet your life on science every time you set foot on an aircraft. But it appears your faith in prayer isn't nearly as strong. You say it works. Yet you won't set any expectations as to the efficacy in a test nor will you risk losing anything if those expectations come up short. That speaks volumes. So basically that leaves us with a claim that carries with it no predictive value, sets no expectations that could be verified as impacting normal probability, and no consequences or admission of being false if the expectations aren't met. Sounds more like wishful thinking than a claim that comports with reality.



To do what you’re describing eliminates faith. What is a Christian without faith?


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> Could be this one from Harvard:
> 
> 
> http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Harvard_prayer_experiment



Or this one 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/07/science-behind-faith-healing.amp.html

Could either or both be biased? 

I’m just saying that y’all are basing your stance on a percentage, most likely, etc. 

I’m saying if there’s .00000001%, I will take it.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> To do what you’re describing eliminates faith. What is a Christian without faith?



I call it confidence. You call it faith. In either case it isn't strong enough to stake anything of value on or make any predictions concerning the efficacy.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I’m just saying that y’all are basing your stance on a percentage, most likely, etc.
> 
> I’m saying if there’s .00000001%, I will take it.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


>



Glad I could make your day 

but the reality is, you’re banking on non believers statistics that most likely, God isn’t real. If I did that, I have to consider the probability that he is. You say you’re not 100% positive that he exist, what is the percentage?


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> I call it confidence. You call it faith. In either case it isn't strong enough to stake anything of value on or make any predictions concerning the efficacy.



He ("it")_ is_ the _only_ value.

I know you are speaking here particularly of prayer. Of word and words.

My faith (and the faith of man, many others) assures me this ("He") has been in every way _substantiated_. _The word_, has been made flesh. 

As irrefutable as rock. As stone. Even to this point in that analogy..."the stone which the builders rejected..." 

"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, _it will grind him to powder."   _

Some may say (and have, and do) this is too tall a claim, too preposterous to assert unless there be a "proof".
Yes, if there is no proof of this stone, this entrance into the temporal by that word, God's _own_ word of _truth_ then those asserting so are indeed, all liars.

But, we who believe know this stone has already been _tried_ been _proved_ in every way to the satisfaction of God. Enduring under this proving, this trying, He has accomplished all set for Him. God (yes _the God_ above all gods) setting His own seal by the resurrection...even to the manifest proclamation that_ this son's_ word alone _is true_ and worthy of hearing and acceptance.

Some, have many words. I have surely stood as one having too many. God knows. And it is to God, and by God alone word is tried, and proved. Men will give answer for every word. 

Are any ready? 

Don't mistake patience for a slowness. The proof _is here_. Because _the_ Prover, is here.

"I have written what I have written" said one. I agree.

We shall see, even now, Who is at the door. None, myself surely included, can lie in His presence. In whose presence...we all are. Now.


Unless the Lord Himself wake a man, he easily chokes on his own vomit.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Not denying that it looks foolish to the non believer. But Christians don’t really care because they’re going to practice their faith even when made fun of.
> 
> I’m not sure where and why anyone would get the idea that just because a Christian believes in faith healing that they’ll never get sick.



It has nothing to do with Christians not getting sick, it has everything to do with Christians having a much higher rate of being cured in miraculous ways than a non believer or someone believibg in something else. The bottom line is that they do not. If prayer worked or if the Christian god stepped in and helped out Christians there would be a disproportionate amount of evidence to show for it.


----------



## atlashunter

atlashunter said:


> Another question spotlite, why are you praying for his will to be done? Is there some obstacle to him making sure things go according to his will unless he gets your invocation? And if his will is for a kid with cancer to be healed why did they have cancer in the first place? Was that his will too? There sure are a lot of distraught Christian parents out there begging and pleading with him to cure their sick child to no avail. If that is his will and you are praying for his will to be done then you're actually praying for people to suffer and die. Ever thought of that?


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


>



If you knew the Bible the way that you claim, you know the answer already. Everything is according to his will.  

Now, can you prove these folks are Christian, can you prove they`re following scripture? Or are you just assuming?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Glad I could make your day
> 
> but the reality is, you’re banking on non believers statistics that most likely, God isn’t real. If I did that, I have to consider the probability that he is. You say you’re not 100% positive that he exist, what is the percentage?



What is non believer statistics? Do believers have their own statistics? Based on what exactly? I'm betting on the facts. You also are betting on the facts. That's why you don't have the certainty in prayer to risk anything on the results. I will get on an airplane with you and bet a thousand dollars that it will get airborne as claimed it will. I'll also get on the prayer train with you to put it to the test. How much are you willing to bet that it will instantly heal people? Let's do this. You pray over 100 terminally ill. I'll stay in the car if you want. For every one that is instantly cured I will donate $1,000 to your church or nonprofit of your choice. For every one that isn't cured you donate $1,000 to the nonprofit of my choice. John 14 says whatever you ask will be done. That is the truth right? So what have you got to lose?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> If you knew the Bible the way that you claim, you know the answer already. Everything is according to his will.
> 
> Now, can you prove these folks are Christian, can you prove they`re following scripture? Or are you just assuming?



So when a kid has cancer that is his will and when you pray for his will you're praying for them to have cancer? That's pretty sick. If everything is according to his will then why are you praying?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> It has nothing to do with Christians not getting sick, it has everything to do with Christians having a much higher rate of being cured in miraculous ways than a non believer or someone believibg in something else. The bottom line is that they do not. If prayer worked or if the Christian god stepped in and helped out Christians there would be a disproportionate amount of evidence to show for it.



Good point, but science does not have any answers for those that claim healing. They are not certain of what is happening, but they seem to be certain of what is not.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing/


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> So when a kid has cancer that is his will and when you pray for his will you're praying for them to have cancer? That's pretty sick. If everything is according to his will then why are you praying?



atlas I dont think you know as much about Christianity as you profess.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> atlas I dont think you know as much about Christianity as you profess.



So answer the questions and explain it to me.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Yes I already mentioned that one although I didn't link to it. Spotlite ignored it and I suspect will ignore the link too.



You are aware that the Harvard study has numerous elements that can be poked full of holes, right?? I perform and evaluate study samples on public opinion and reaction. For a sampling to be representative of a population, it has to have certain required elements. if not, it is nothing but random assumption and definitely not a valid representation.

1. A valid statistical sample size - not just randomly select 1800 people. 
2. A benchmark
3. Margin of error
4. Confidence level

Samples are evaluated according to the procedures by which they were selected instead of their final composition - it is impossible to rule out that biased data was not used because there are no benchmarks for any of the participants on either side.


----------



## atlashunter

So your theory is what? That those who were prayed for really did have better outcomes but the study somehow skewed the results to make it look like they didn't?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Good point, but science does not have any answers for those that claim healing. They are not certain of what is happening, but they seem to be certain of what is not.
> 
> https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing/


Does science then go to the default  that the most popular god of the region is responsible?
No

They just do not know and let it at that. 
If they find out why later, they share the findings.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> You are aware that the Harvard study has numerous elements that can be poked full of holes, right?? I perform and evaluate study samples on public opinion and reaction. For a sampling to be representative of a population, it has to have certain required elements. if not, it is nothing but random assumption and definitely not a valid representation.
> 
> 1. A valid statistical sample size - not just randomly select 1800 people.
> 2. A benchmark
> 3. Margin of error
> 4. Confidence level
> 
> Samples are evaluated according to the procedures by which they were selected instead of their final composition - it is impossible to rule out that biased data was not used because there are no benchmarks for any of the participants on either side.


Why not?
Wouldn't a proven faith healing be a bench mark to compare other claims of faith healings against?


----------



## j_seph

Was a good little read
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-christs-blood-both-there-and-sudarium-oviedo


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Was a good little read
> http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-christs-blood-both-there-and-sudarium-oviedo


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Was a good little read
> http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-christs-blood-both-there-and-sudarium-oviedo



Jesus had some really long arms for a 5'7" guy.
Hippie hair too when it was frowned upon to have long hair.

Authentic, yep, sure, uh-huh


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Why not?
> Wouldn't a proven faith healing be a bench mark to compare other claims of faith healings against?



Yes you’re right, it would be. But no one from either side has really done that to a point to prove anything to one another.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> So your theory is what? That those who were prayed for really did have better outcomes but the study somehow skewed the results to make it look like they didn't?


I don’t really have a theory. I’m just saying their results left everything open for questions. If it were me performing the survey, at the very minimum I would have ensured through a questionnaire that at least those receiving prayer acknowledged belief in faith healing, and those praying acknowledged belief in it. There are “Christians” that believe that a lot of that went away. 


bullethead said:


> Does science then go to the default  that the most popular god of the region is responsible?
> No
> 
> They just do not know and let it at that.
> If they find out why later, they share the findings.



Agreed. They’ll stay with the No god in it.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> I don’t really have a theory. I’m just saying their results left everything open for questions. If it were me performing the survey, at the very minimum I would have ensured through a questionnaire that at least those receiving prayer acknowledged belief in faith healing, and those praying acknowledged belief in it. There are “Christians” that believe that a lot of that went away.
> 
> 
> Agreed. They’ll stay with the No god in it.



Their results showed no improved outcome for those who received prayer without knowing they were being prayed for and a slightly worse outcome for those who did know. That's a big goose egg for team Jesus in light of John 14.



> 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
> 
> 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
> 
> 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
> 
> 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.



So... where's the beef?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Yes you’re right, it would be. But no one from either side has really done that to a point to prove anything to one another.


If you were compiling evidence that would support one side or the other, which side does the lack of a bench mark support?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Their results showed no improved outcome for those who received prayer without knowing they were being prayed for and a slightly worse outcome for those who did know. That's a big goose egg for team Jesus in light of John 14.
> 
> 
> 
> So... where's the beef?


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> Was a good little read
> http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-christs-blood-both-there-and-sudarium-oviedo


j_seph, I'm really curious -
I assume you know that the Shroud of Turin has never been authenticated. That not even the Church claims its a fact that the Shroud of Turin is "real".
So does it bother you that right off the bat, the title of the article, before you even read what follows..... is meant to deceive you? To tell you what you want to hear?


> The Shroud of Turin, Authenticated Again


The Shroud of Turin has never been authenticated ONCE, never mind AGAIN.
Considering you are being deceived from the get go, you figure the rest of the article is trust worthy?


----------



## j_seph

WaltL1 said:


> j_seph, I'm really curious -
> I assume you know that the Shroud of Turin has never been authenticated. That not even the Church claims its a fact that the Shroud of Turin is "real".
> So does it bother you that right off the bat, the title of the article, before you even read what follows..... is meant to deceive you? To tell you what you want to hear?
> 
> The Shroud of Turin has never been authenticated ONCE, never mind AGAIN.
> Considering you are being deceived from the get go, you figure the rest of the article is trust worthy?



What do you mean by "That not even the Church claims its a fact that the Shroud of Turin is "real"
My thoughts are it could be, never said that it "WAS" the one Jesus wore. I do not need a piece of cloth to confirm my beliefs!

"First among the major mysteries is how the image was made. Second,  what is the substance constituting the image, which can be scraped away  with a razor blade? The substance is undetermined — all man-made  materials have been ruled out — and only rests on top of the cloth; it  does not penetrate the cloth’s linen fibers. The third mystery is  related to the second: Blood from the crucified man penetrated the  cloth, as one would expect, but also preceded the impression of the  man’s image."
However so far your science has not explained this


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> What do you mean by "That not even the Church claims its a fact that the Shroud of Turin is "real"
> My thoughts are it could be, never said that it "WAS" the one Jesus wore. I do not need a piece of cloth to confirm my beliefs!
> 
> "First among the major mysteries is how the image was made. Second,  what is the substance constituting the image, which can be scraped away  with a razor blade? The substance is undetermined — all man-made  materials have been ruled out — and only rests on top of the cloth; it  does not penetrate the cloth’s linen fibers. The third mystery is  related to the second: Blood from the crucified man penetrated the  cloth, as one would expect, but also preceded the impression of the  man’s image."
> However so far your science has not explained this


If you have any free time over the holidays, you may want to re-research your statements some more.


----------



## bullethead

'Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.' [Jn 19:40]
'So Peter... reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter... went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.' [Jn 20:3-7]
'Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves...' [Lk 24:12]

'The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."' [Jn 11:44]

If you use your own bible, the cloth does not fit the claims. Seperate strips around the body, a seperate cloth over the head.
And, Jewish custom is to cover the body with spices. Pounds upon pounds. No spices were ever detected in testing.
The weave pattern is from Europe in the 1300s.


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> 'Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.' [Jn 19:40]
> 'So Peter... reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter... went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.' [Jn 20:3-7]
> 'Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves...' [Lk 24:12]
> 
> 'The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."' [Jn 11:44]
> 
> If you use your own bible, the cloth does not fit the claims. Seperate strips around the body, a seperate cloth over the head.
> And, *Jewish custom is to cover the body with spices. Pounds upon pounds. No spices were ever detected in testing.*
> The weave pattern is from Europe in the 1300s.



Yup, no spices were found, you are a winner
Luke 24
1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, *bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.*

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Yup, no spices were found, you are a winner
> Luke 24
> 1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, *bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.*
> 
> 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
> 
> 3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus


So, if the body is covered in spices, and no spices have been detected in the shroud of turin, what does that tell you?
Not to mention.....that Jesus was wrapped in strips of cloth not one large cloth, and his head was covered with a seperate cloth not the same strips that covered his body.

Are you ignoring John 19:40 where it specifically says that they wrapped the body in strips of linen and spices??

So what are you thinking about that shroud now?


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> So, if the body is covered in spices, and no spices have been detected in the shroud of turin, what does that tell you?
> Not to mention.....that Jesus was wrapped in strips of cloth not one large cloth, and his head was covered with a seperate cloth not the same strips that covered his body.
> 
> Are you ignoring John 19:40 where it specifically says that they wrapped the body in strips of linen and spices??
> 
> So what are you thinking about that shroud now?



Again, I never said it was "That of Jesus"
I believe I said "was a good little read"
Could it be the one? I really don't know and again I do not need it to be proven that it is.


----------



## WaltL1

j_seph said:


> What do you mean by "That not even the Church claims its a fact that the Shroud of Turin is "real"
> My thoughts are it could be, never said that it "WAS" the one Jesus wore. I do not need a piece of cloth to confirm my beliefs!
> 
> "First among the major mysteries is how the image was made. Second,  what is the substance constituting the image, which can be scraped away  with a razor blade? The substance is undetermined — all man-made  materials have been ruled out — and only rests on top of the cloth; it  does not penetrate the cloth’s linen fibers. The third mystery is  related to the second: Blood from the crucified man penetrated the  cloth, as one would expect, but also preceded the impression of the  man’s image."
> However so far your science has not explained this





> What do you mean by "That not even the Church claims its a fact that the Shroud of Turin is "real"


I mean exactly that but you are right, I should clarify.
Even the Church does not claim that in fact the textile called The Shroud of Turin was Jesus' "death shroud".
If anybody could want and afford to authenticate it, it would be the Church.


> Again, I never said it was "That of Jesus"
> I believe I said "was a good little read"


That's true.
And my question to you was about the title of the article and if it bothered you that it was false and misleading and if that effects how you view the rest of the article?


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> Again, I never said it was "That of Jesus"
> I believe I said "was a good little read"
> Could it be the one? I really don't know and again I do not need it to be proven that it is.



Then why post it as if it is?

What I am sure that you do not realize is that although "Jewish Customs" are referred to in scripture, many times the customs described are a mix of Jewish and Pagan customs because the "authors"  were not familiar with the actual customs so they fudged them. 
A Jew of those times wouldn't screw it up had they been the actual authors.

History is a very wonderful tool.


----------



## Spotlite

atlashunter said:


> Their results showed no improved outcome for those who received prayer without knowing they were being prayed for and a slightly worse outcome for those who did know. That's a big goose egg for team Jesus in light of John 14.
> 
> 
> 
> So... where's the beef?



Not so fast. Remember we talked about cherry picking?............pulling just one scripture out is cherry picking and makes it out of context.

 A few things will hinder your prayers...Isaiah 59, Proverbs 21, 1 Peter 3, etc...........

Sure John 14 is correct, but what a few more for "line upon line, precept upon precept"? James 5, John 15, 1 John 3, 1 Thessalonians 5, Hebrews 11, James 1, etc.

Now, did Harvard prove that every praying person met all of the biblical requirements? Did they prove that everyone receiving prayer had the faith for their healing?

No, they did not prove anything. Their results do not represent anything at all because they had no standard of measurement.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> If you were compiling evidence that would support one side or the other, which side does the lack of a bench mark support?



For this study, there is no evidence to support either side, nothing was proved or disproved because there was no standard to bench mark against. 

You cannot prove that these praying were sincere, had any real faith, or was just volunteering for a study. You cannot prove that those receiving prayer even believed in it or had faith. Some seek attention and a drowning man will reach for a straw. Who was who here?


----------



## Spotlite

:d:d





waltl1 said:


>



:d:d


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> For this study, there is no evidence to support either side, nothing was proved or disproved because there was no standard to bench mark against.
> 
> You cannot prove that these praying were sincere, had any real faith, or was just volunteering for a study. You cannot prove that those receiving prayer even believed in it or had faith. Some seek attention and a drowning man will reach for a straw. Who was who here?


Is it safe to say that you meet the requirements for having prayers answered?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> For this study, there is no evidence to support either side, nothing was proved or disproved because there was no standard to bench mark against.
> 
> You cannot prove that these praying were sincere, had any real faith, or was just volunteering for a study. You cannot prove that those receiving prayer even believed in it or had faith. Some seek attention and a drowning man will reach for a straw. Who was who here?





> For this study, there is no evidence to support either side, nothing was proved or disproved because there was no standard to bench mark against.


I would disagree.
One side, Christians, pray because the feel it/might/does accomplish something. Cant count how many times Ive heard "Our prayers were answered" or "that (whatever it was) happened because I prayed about it".
The other side, us, say there is no evidence that prayer, in fact, changed the outcome of anything.
The fact that there is no benchmark is not a 50/50 draw or a wash as you are claiming.
The fact that there is no benchmark means that there is no example of prayer in fact accomplishing anything.
If there was .... it would be a benchmark.
That there is no benchmark does not support the Christian claim.
It supports the "us" claim.
Does it "prove" anything? No.
But its a piece of evidence. And it only supports one side. Put enough pieces of evidence together and you have a preponderance of evidence.


----------



## ambush80

They pray because they are instructed to and all prayer works whether or not the outcome is what you wanted because God is sovereign.  

Trust and obey.  

I get it.  I really do.


----------



## bullethead

Yeah, EVERY prayer is answered.
Yes
No
Maybe
Wait


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I would disagree.
> One side, Christians, pray because the feel it/might/does accomplish something. Cant count how many times Ive heard "Our prayers were answered" or "that (whatever it was) happened because I prayed about it".
> The other side, us, say there is no evidence that prayer, in fact, changed the outcome of anything.
> The fact that there is no benchmark is not a 50/50 draw or a wash as you are claiming.
> The fact that there is no benchmark means that there is no example of prayer in fact accomplishing anything.
> If there was .... it would be a benchmark.
> That there is no benchmark does not support the Christian claim.
> It supports the "us" claim.
> Does it "prove" anything? No.
> But its a piece of evidence. And it only supports one side. Put enough pieces of evidence together and you have a preponderance of evidence.



There’s no benchmark because noone has been able to disprove healing by prayer, and the Christian hasn’t been able to prove healing by prayer. So you’re correct, we are both left with claims, for now.

Harvard should have ensured that they sampled participants that claim faith in prayer by healing according to scriptures.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Yeah, EVERY prayer is answered.
> Yes
> No
> Maybe
> Wait



https://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html

What if God is using the above app to reveal His will?  Silly me, of COURSE He's using the magic 8ball app to reveal His will.  Everything is to His glory.

I asked it "Will I be saved?" and it answered "Without a doubt". 

<p>via GIPHY</p> 

<p>via GIPHY</p>

Do you dare to ask the Magic 8ball?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Is it safe to say that you meet the requirements for having prayers answered?



I can honestly say that I have had them answered. It’s safe to say that I do have faith that they will be answered.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I can honestly say that I have had them answered. It’s safe to say that I do have faith that they will be answered.



Would  you be willing to test it in a children's hospital like atlas suggested?
I mean really, you would be doing those children a great service and you can prove to us that someone of great faith is capable of getting God's attention and god does in fact grant prayers.
Plus you would make a fantastic case that god is in fact real.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I would disagree.
> One side, Christians, pray because the feel it/might/does accomplish something. Cant count how many times Ive heard "Our prayers were answered" or "that (whatever it was) happened because I prayed about it".
> The other side, us, say there is no evidence that prayer, in fact, changed the outcome of anything.
> The fact that there is no benchmark is not a 50/50 draw or a wash as you are claiming.
> The fact that there is no benchmark means that there is no example of prayer in fact accomplishing anything.
> If there was .... it would be a benchmark.
> That there is no benchmark does not support the Christian claim.
> It supports the "us" claim.
> Does it "prove" anything? No.
> But its a piece of evidence. And it only supports one side. Put enough pieces of evidence together and you have a preponderance of evidence.



Walt,

How far can a man go in pride? 

I often wonder this myself, in myself...even every time a new leaf seems turned. It has such a nature as to be endemic to such a depth as it often appears past finding out. And regardless of my (and I believe any man's) desire, will, or efforts spurred by its taste to be rid of it, it always seems a thing that to a man, in himself, can never be rightly discerned, of himself. 

In other words it never presents itself plainly (at the very least, to me) in all its hideous nature that I might finally (perhaps figuratively?) wrap my hands around it and root it out. Allow me almost anything, from deepest sorrows ever suffered to a recovery, or standing upon what seems a pinnacle of vision...and sooner or later, something appears, but (can you hear me?) never of itself naked, only and always of a contrast. (But in truth I cannot accurately measure anything "I have suffered..." nor can I rightly or accurately ever know any attaining...of myself)

In this it surely seems a resident thing, but always in hiding, like a virus or what is called medically, normal flora. Waiting always...to take some advantage and break out...and flourish. 

But this is where my analogy falls apart, for in that scenario the man is considered "healthy" till such breach that allows for breakout manifests what is already resident (kept in check by a healthy constitution, immune system, intact skin or membrane). An ignorant but healthy man might even be surprised to learn how much of pathogens (till disclosed in the right environment) he is resident to. He would ask "Doctor, where did my earache originate from?" only to be told "Oh, the normal things in your throat, made it to your ear"...or "the spores of a fungus always floating around settled for that moist break in your skin caused by that Q tip you vigorously inserted to start a mushroom garden". (and you always fare better when the e coli in your bowel, even found "of a use" there, do not somehow find their way outside, roaming freely in your belly parts.) 

By sheer number, a man might be shocked to learn he is host to such amounts of bacteria as he is to "his own" cells. (yet what man, when bumped into does not think "hey buddy, be careful, you just bumped into me" and not "hey buddy, be careful, you just bumped into me and the trillions of other organisms living on and in me"?)

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/your-body-is-a-planet

So, even here the analogy seems weak. For there can still be a clear discerning of what is microbe...and what is "of the man".

Nevertheless sick man/healthy man, no matter how he may see himself, may never come to the succinct phrasing "_I am_ the infection". Not "I have my diseases in check" nor "my diseases are overcoming me"...but "_I am_ the disease". To his own experience the man may experience periods of better health, or relative dis-ease, but again, he always and only can discern these by contrast. "Yesterday I did not even think of my little toe, at all, yet today after stubbing it in the night, it is all I am aware of".

What's the point? Pride. Though always hidden from our own selves (by ourselves) as the pernicious thing, (as much part and parcel to us in that sense as "normal flora") it is readily identifiable in another. This in fact...is its hallmark of work. Hidden in carrier (if the carrier is himself) but so easily seen and provoked...in others. Judging pride is the very root of it unless somehow that work can be turned inward to its discovery. Simply, when I hate my "own" pride to the measure I hate its ugly head seen in another, a fair balance is achieved. But how can this be done? Do you, any find it a worthy exercise? 

Will we say "sometimes pride is good?" hoping to note some proud scientist's achievements on mankind's behalf as proof? While forgetting all the myriad woes to mankind in numbers and griefs that have sprung from it? What of woe hasn't had in some form, pride as it source...hiding, blinding to outcomes till they "break through and flourish?" What if all the "I will do this because I can" were somehow replaced by "Is it right to do this...even though I can?" 

No, I don't think we can even imagine that. I don't think pride...will allow it. It is pride that even turns that to "I did this, so it must be right...because really...I did consider the rightness of it beforehand" And who can _prove_ that? That they started from a clean slate...with no thought of self satisfaction? We might all agree that to see complete rightness uncontaminated at all...we would at least need that "clean slate" of origin.

Who "has" this? Is there nothing anywhere untouched by the pride of personal vantage point? Personal perspective? Personal experience extrapolated from? You? Me?


I am the infection. What is remedy...?

Remember, "be humbler" is not sound advice, for as the doctor said, "unless I kill _every spore_ by the introduction of this antifungal and fail in spotty application, by tomorrow, your ear will be overgrown again". 

Is there remedy? If not then we will just always be speaking at one another.

It's clean slate...or nothing.

Better just means "less worse".


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> https://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html
> 
> What if God is using the above app to reveal His will?  Silly me, of COURSE He's using the magic 8ball app to reveal His will.  Everything is to His glory.
> 
> I asked it "Will I be saved?" and it answered "Without a doubt".
> 
> Do you dare to ask the Magic 8ball?


So your use of the Magic 8 Ball spurred some disjointed thoughts that I'm counting on you to put together and make some sense out of  
I think the long lasting (we all had them as kids and now we are doing the computerized version) and world wide popularity of the 8 Ball reveals something about basic human nature that in some ways can be relatable to belief in (G)gods.
Its a game that does nothing but answer questions. You KNOW its just a plastic ball with liquid inside and a little thing floating around in there with random answers.
Yet getting an answer that you like creates feelings of joy, satisfaction, for some hope, etc.
And of course the opposite is true also.
But whats the "worst" or most disappointing answer floating around in there?
"I don't know".
Its a let down. Its not an answer good or bad. Its just not acceptable.
We see that same thing in our discussions with Christians here.
"Well I KNOW where I'm going when I die"
"Science cant prove it wrong"
"You/Science doesn't have the answer.
Etc Etc.
"I don't know" is not acceptable.
Just like the 8 Ball we want a dang answer whether good or bad and we want it now.
"Belief" provides those answers. Getting the answer you like provides those exact same feelings as getting the answer you like on the 8 Ball.
So if you can figure that out I think I have  point in there somewhere


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> So your use of the Magic 8 Ball spurred some disjointed thoughts that I'm counting on you to put together and make some sense out of
> I think the long lasting (we all had them as kids and now we are doing the computerized version) and world wide popularity of the 8 Ball reveals something about basic human nature that in some ways can be relatable to belief in (G)gods.
> Its a game that does nothing but answer questions. You KNOW its just a plastic ball with liquid inside and a little thing floating around in there with random answers.
> Yet getting an answer that you like creates feelings of joy, satisfaction, for some hope, etc.
> And of course the opposite is true also.
> But whats the "worst" or most disappointing answer floating around in there?
> "I don't know".
> Its a let down. Its not an answer good or bad. Its just not acceptable.
> We see that same thing in our discussions with Christians here.
> "Well I KNOW where I'm going when I die"
> "Science cant prove it wrong"
> "You/Science doesn't have the answer.
> Etc Etc.
> "I don't know" is not acceptable.
> Just like the 8 Ball we want a dang answer whether good or bad and we want it now.
> "Belief" provides those answers. Getting the answer you like provides those exact same feelings as getting the answer you like on the 8 Ball.
> So if you can figure that out I think I have  point in there somewhere



Because the Magic 8ball is under the sovereignty of God, it answers as God would.  These are also some of the answers God (through the Magic 8ball) gives:


    ● Reply hazy try again
    ● Ask again later
    ● Better not tell you now
    ● Cannot predict now
    ● Concentrate and ask again 

Believers are fine with not knowing.  They will tell you themselves about all the things they can't explain and don't understand.  What they like is believing that the Magic 8ball (God's will) has everything under control.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Walt,
> 
> How far can a man go in pride?
> 
> I often wonder this myself, in myself...even every time a new leaf seems turned. It has such a nature as to be endemic to such a depth as it often appears past finding out. And regardless of my (and I believe any man's) desire, will, or efforts spurred by its taste to be rid of it, it always seems a thing that to a man, in himself, can never be rightly discerned, of himself.
> 
> In other words it never presents itself plainly (at the very least, to me) in all its hideous nature that I might finally (perhaps figuratively?) wrap my hands around it and root it out. Allow me almost anything, from deepest sorrows ever suffered to a recovery, or standing upon what seems a pinnacle of vision...and sooner or later, something appears, but (can you hear me?) never of itself naked, only and always of a contrast. (But in truth I cannot accurately measure anything "I have suffered..." nor can I rightly or accurately ever know any attaining...of myself)
> 
> In this it surely seems a resident thing, but always in hiding, like a virus or what is called medically, normal flora. Waiting always...to take some advantage and break out...and flourish.
> 
> But this is where my analogy falls apart, for in that scenario the man is considered "healthy" till such breach that allows for breakout manifests what is already resident (kept in check by a healthy constitution, immune system, intact skin or membrane). An ignorant but healthy man might even be surprised to learn how much of pathogens (till disclosed in the right environment) he is resident to. He would ask "Doctor, where did my earache originate from?" only to be told "Oh, the normal things in your throat, made it to your ear"...or "the spores of a fungus always floating around settled for that moist break in your skin caused by that Q tip you vigorously inserted to start a mushroom garden". (and you always fare better when the e coli in your bowel, even found "of a use" there, do not somehow find their way outside, roaming freely in your belly parts.)
> 
> By sheer number, a man might be shocked to learn he is host to such amounts of bacteria as he is to "his own" cells. (yet what man, when bumped into does not think "hey buddy, be careful, you just bumped into me" and not "hey buddy, be careful, you just bumped into me and the trillions of other organisms living on and in me"?)
> 
> http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/your-body-is-a-planet
> 
> So, even here the analogy seems weak. For there can still be a clear discerning of what is microbe...and what is "of the man".
> 
> Nevertheless sick man/healthy man, no matter how he may see himself, may never come to the succinct phrasing "_I am_ the infection". Not "I have my diseases in check" nor "my diseases are overcoming me"...but "_I am_ the disease". To his own experience the man may experience periods of better health, or relative dis-ease, but again, he always and only can discern these by contrast. "Yesterday I did not even think of my little toe, at all, yet today after stubbing it in the night, it is all I am aware of".
> 
> What's the point? Pride. Though always hidden from our own selves (by ourselves) as the pernicious thing, (as much part and parcel to us in that sense as "normal flora") it is readily identifiable in another. This in fact...is its hallmark of work. Hidden in carrier (if the carrier is himself) but so easily seen and provoked...in others. Judging pride is the very root of it unless somehow that work can be turned inward to its discovery. Simply, when I hate my "own" pride to the measure I hate its ugly head seen in another, a fair balance is achieved. But how can this be done? Do you, any find it a worthy exercise?
> 
> Will we say "sometimes pride is good?" hoping to note some proud scientist's achievements on mankind's behalf as proof? While forgetting all the myriad woes to mankind in numbers and griefs that have sprung from it? What of woe hasn't had in some form, pride as it source...hiding, blinding to outcomes till they "break through and flourish?" What if all the "I will do this because I can" were somehow replaced by "Is it right to do this...even though I can?"
> 
> No, I don't think we can even imagine that. I don't think pride...will allow it. It is pride that even turns that to "I did this, so it must be right...because really...I did consider the rightness of it beforehand" And who can _prove_ that? That they started from a clean slate...with no thought of self satisfaction? We might all agree that to see complete rightness uncontaminated at all...we would at least need that "clean slate" of origin.
> 
> Who "has" this? Is there nothing anywhere untouched by the pride of personal vantage point? Personal perspective? Personal experience extrapolated from? You? Me?
> 
> 
> I am the infection. What is remedy...?
> 
> Remember, "be humbler" is not sound advice, for as the doctor said, "unless I kill _every spore_ by the introduction of this antifungal and fail in spotty application, by tomorrow, your ear will be overgrown again".
> 
> Is there remedy? If not then we will just always be speaking at one another.
> 
> It's clean slate...or nothing.
> 
> Better just means "less worse".



Not everyone is filled with self loathing like you.   How's that working out, by the way?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Not everyone is filled with self loathing like you.   How's that working out, by the way?



It's interesting to say the least.

Yes, it's all interesting.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> So holy or holiness is exclusive to Christ and Christianity?



Unsure exactly what you’re asking but I will give it a shot.  Christ is the only one who is Holy.  He clothes the saved with his holiness, the individual themselves are not Holy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> *with an asterix
> 
> Christ supposedly loved us all.
> He supposedly died for the sins of all mankind
> 
> But in the fine print
> *only if you believe in him, accept him as your saviour,and worship his dad.



What except pride would keep one from seeing this as nothing but the greatest blessing imaginable?




bullethead said:


> And again, not to painfully redundant, but the Jesus as worshiped in current form was not even a real person.
> 
> I do think there was a charismatic man or men that the figure Jesus Christ was modeled after, but there are no records of his birth. The figure that you worship was created.
> 300+bishops and clergy had to vote on who was going to be the figure of the new religion.



Not going there to address absurdities.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> What except pride would keep one from seeing this as nothing but the greatest blessing imaginable?


The Truth






SemperFiDawg said:


> Not going there to address absurdities.



You can put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes but it doesn't make anything that I say less accurate.


----------



## ambush80

"Magic 8 Ball, is Bullethead saved?"

"Yes. It is certain."

<p>via GIPHY</p>

Winner, winner chikums dinner!


----------



## ambush80

"Magic 8 Ball, will atlashunter go to Heaven?"

"Cannot predict now."

<p>via GIPHY</p>


----------



## ambush80

Walt, care to give it a try?


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> Not so fast. Remember we talked about cherry picking?............pulling just one scripture out is cherry picking and makes it out of context.
> 
> A few things will hinder your prayers...Isaiah 59, Proverbs 21, 1 Peter 3, etc...........
> 
> Sure John 14 is correct, but what a few more for "line upon line, precept upon precept"? James 5, John 15, 1 John 3, 1 Thessalonians 5, Hebrews 11, James 1, etc.
> 
> Now, did Harvard prove that every praying person met all of the biblical requirements? Did they prove that everyone receiving prayer had the faith for their healing?
> 
> No, they did not prove anything. Their results do not represent anything at all because they had no standard of measurement.



Which part of whatsoever you ask, do you not understand. If you interject other parts of the Bible written by other authors to create provisions which the author of John did not stipulate then it is you who are taking it out of context.


----------



## atlashunter

Spotlite said:


> For this study, there is no evidence to support either side, nothing was proved or disproved because there was no standard to bench mark against.
> 
> You cannot prove that these praying were sincere, had any real faith, or was just volunteering for a study. You cannot prove that those receiving prayer even believed in it or had faith. Some seek attention and a drowning man will reach for a straw. Who was who here?



Prayers were made by two catholic groups and one protestant group. The 1800 patients included both Catholics and protestants of various denominations.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> The Truth




The Truth?  Isn't it ironic that the same people that say 'Truth' is relative, wave it as a standard they expect to be universally recognized when it fit's their needs.  Now that's a special kind of hypocrisy right there.  One day you will bow to THE TRUTH, and may He have mercy on you when you do.





bullethead said:


> You can put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes but it doesn't make anything that I say less accurate.



That's actually quite an understatement.  I can think of absolutely NOTHING that makes anything you say LESS ACCURATE.  When you state that Jesus didn't exists, you've pretty much reached the pinnacle of the nadir of absurdity.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Jesus life on earth is the most documented event in history.  We have more ancient manuscripts that speak of him and his life than you can imagine.

Why is it no one questions if Homer was a real person, but there is only one manuscript that mentioned him, IIRC.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Prayers were made by two catholic groups and one protestant group. The 1800 patients included both Catholics and protestants of various denominations.



CS Lewis makes excellent commentary and distinction about such.

There is a great difference between "saying prayers"...and praying. But such would be too painfully hard for the intelligent to grasp. A machine can be made to "say prayers"...something entirely not mere machine, prays. Prayer can no more be measured as it can be rightly observed and discerned except by the One to whom they are offered.

Prayer...just ain't for your poking with a stick to test their substance.

And that's what all has come down to...men still very upset at being faced with the un-manipulable.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> Jesus life on earth is the most documented event in history.  We have more ancient manuscripts that speak of him and his life than you can imagine.



Pappy, I never cease to be amazed at the energy expenditure and self debasement one has to engage in to deny God.  It's truly a heart matter.  Nothing else explains why a blind man would revel in his blindness and mock not only those who CAN see but also the physician who restores sight.


----------



## atlashunter

NE GA Pappy said:


> Jesus life on earth is the most documented event in history.  We have more ancient manuscripts that speak of him and his life than you can imagine.
> 
> Why is it no one questions if Homer was a real person, but there is only one manuscript that mentioned him, IIRC.



Wrong. Not a single contemporary attestation and even the gospels that come decades later are not independent corroborating accounts.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> CS Lewis makes excellent commentary and distinction about such.
> 
> There is a great difference between "saying prayers"...and praying. But such would be too painfully hard for the intelligent to grasp. A machine can be made to "say prayers"...something entirely not mere machine, prays. Prayer can no more be measured as it can be rightly observed and discerned except by the One to whom they are offered.
> 
> Prayer...just ain't for your poking with a stick to test their substance.
> 
> And that's what all has come down to...men still very upset at being faced with the un-manipulable.



Yes I'm sure that explains why the prayers didn't work. They just weren't doing it right.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> The Truth?  Isn't it ironic that the same people that say 'Truth' is relative, wave it as a standard they expect to be universally recognized when it fit's their needs.  Now that's a special kind of hypocrisy right there.  One day you will bow to THE TRUTH, and may He have mercy on you when you do.


I didn't mention universal anything. I am talking about this particular subject and what is the truth.







SemperFiDawg said:


> That's actually quite an understatement.  I can think of absolutely NOTHING that makes anything you say LESS ACCURATE.  When you state that Jesus didn't exists, you've pretty much reached the pinnacle of the nadir of absurdity.



The Jesus in the NT isn't the same guy that actually walked the earth. You are worshiping a loose similarity that has been embellished and was never known by anyone of that time as "Jesus Christ". 
Joshua or Yeshua was an apocalyptic jewish preacher that preached about following the OT. He created enough trouble in the process to get himself killed.
All that extra nonsense which was added later is the blown up enhanced version. Not the real guy.


----------



## bullethead

NE GA Pappy said:


> Jesus life on earth is the most documented event in history.  We have more ancient manuscripts that speak of him and his life than you can imagine.
> 
> Why is it no one questions if Homer was a real person, but there is only one manuscript that mentioned him, IIRC.



It should be easy for you to list those ancient manuscripts since his life was so well documented. I can imagine a pretty high number so you list what you see fit and we'll go from there.(Don't forget the ones that talk badly about Yeshua not being divine in any way)

Homer was born before recorded history took place. He lived as recorded history started. His works are evidence that he lived. His works, while scrutinized, have been shown to be accurate through archeological finds.

Now, if you want to compare evidence for The Supposed Son of God to say Julius Caesar who was born about 100 years before Jesus so roughly about the same time but CLEARLY couldn't have been as popular as the Son of God..that would be interesting.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pappy, I never cease to be amazed at the energy expenditure and self debasement one has to engage in to deny God.  It's truly a heart matter.  Nothing else explains why a blind man would revel in his blindness and mock not only those who CAN see but also the physician who restores sight.


That energy pales in comparison to those which not only make themselves see what is clearly not there, but make up excuses to fill in the gaps.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Yes I'm sure that explains why the prayers didn't work. They just weren't doing it right.



yes, that's correct.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> It should be easy for you to list those ancient manuscripts since his life was so well documented. I can imagine a pretty high number so you list what you see fit and we'll go from there.(Don't forget the ones that talk badly about Yeshua not being divine in any way)
> 
> Homer was born before recorded history took place. He lived as recorded history started. His works are evidence that he lived. His works, while scrutinized, have been shown to be accurate through archeological finds.
> 
> Now, if you want to compare evidence for The Supposed Son of God to say Julius Caesar who was born about 100 years before Jesus so roughly about the same time but CLEARLY couldn't have been as popular as the Son of God..that would be interesting.




In the earth, Caesar was, and is, way more popular.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I didn't mention universal anything. I am talking about this particular subject and what is the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jesus in the NT isn't the same guy that actually walked the earth. You are worshiping a loose similarity that has been embellished and was never known by anyone of that time as "Jesus Christ".
> Joshua or Yeshua was an apocalyptic jewish preacher that preached about following the OT. He created enough trouble in the process to get himself killed.
> All that extra nonsense which was added later is the blown up enhanced version. Not the real guy.



sad


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> It should be easy for you to list those ancient manuscripts since his life was so well documented. I can imagine a pretty high number so you list what you see fit and we'll go from there.(Don't forget the ones that talk badly about Yeshua not being divine in any way)
> 
> Homer was born before recorded history took place. He lived as recorded history started. His works are evidence that he lived. His works, while scrutinized, have been shown to be accurate through archeological finds.
> 
> Now, if you want to compare evidence for The Supposed Son of God to say Julius Caesar who was born about 100 years before Jesus so roughly about the same time but CLEARLY couldn't have been as popular as the Son of God..that would be interesting.



sad


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> That energy pales in comparison to those which not only make themselves see what is clearly not there, but make up excuses to fill in the gaps.



sad


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> sad



Cheer up, today is the Eve of day where Yeshua was assigned a birthday. Being unsure when he was actually born (despite being so well documented ) a council decided to make his birthday on the Pagan winter solstice so the Pagans would be on board with the new "official" god.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> sad



You should be sad.
But you are quite lucky that I am in the Winter Solstice spirit and won't point out that you are unable to defend your claims.
Ooops, I guess I did point it out.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> sad



Three intellectuall blockbusters in a row SFD.
Great job.
Merry Solstice


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> In the earth, Caesar was, and is, way more popular.



More popular than the Son of God? But Josh is "well documented"!?!? 
I mean from the day he was assigned a birthday to coincide with a pagan holiday, (then skip 30 years)to the four anonymous authors who never met him or even saw him decided to write about his last 3 years 40 to 100 years later, and literally no mention of him by any contemporary source....are you SURE??



(Sfd, you think it's sad, or have to post that you are sad, or are sad that you didn't post it....but most likely sad that you are unable to refute it...we get it)


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Three intellectuall blockbusters in a row SFD.
> Great job.
> Merry Solstice



Sad, feeling or showing sorrow. I find that more intellectual than magic 8 ball conversation. I'm just saying. Merry Christmas to all. Perhaps its not the exact date of Christmas that's so important but the meaning.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> More popular than the Son of God? But Josh is "well documented"!?!?
> I mean from the day he was assigned a birthday to coincide with a pagan holiday, (then skip 30 years)to the four anonymous authors who never met him or even saw him decided to write about his last 3 years 40 to 100 years later, and literally no mention of him by any contemporary source....are you SURE??
> 
> 
> 
> (Sfd, you think it's sad, or have to post that you are sad, or are sad that you didn't post it....we get it)



No where in the scriptures is the time of Jesus' birth made date specific.

I have little doubt much of your intercourse amongst those you see as believers have some, if not quite a bit of involvement with the thing called christmas, crosses, crucifixes as wall hangings (and perhaps jewelry), maybe even some painted or graphic likenesses in the image of a man.

Not all do. Or care about those things at all. I see far more spoken in His _unpopularity_ or, if you prefer...lack of popularity, than could ever be attested to by the other things that seem to attest to a _grand reception_ in the earth.

In the days he walked the earth, as did once Caesar, His being known among men, attended to by men, regarded at all by men...well, I simply do not see any comparison.

I don't think the name of Jesus Christ/Yehoshua HaMashiach was as widely known across the empire, as was that of Caesar. I find nothing to indicate He was well known (at the time) outside of a very local area.

What came later (of festivals, holidays, assignations of days and times) may not have any particular saliency.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> yes, that's correct.



Would the results have been any better with you saying the prayers?


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> Sad, feeling or showing sorrow. I find that more intellectual than magic 8 ball conversation. I'm just saying. Merry Christmas to all. Perhaps its not the exact date of Christmas that's so important but the meaning.



So you don't think that God is using the Magic 8 Ball for His glory?  You don't think that God Almighty can speak His truth through a Magic 8 Ball?  You don't think that the Lord of All Creation is sovereign over the workings of the Magic 8 Ball?

Shall I implore the Magic 8 ball for you or would you like to do it yourself?


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Would the results have been any better with you saying the prayers?



That's not it, at all. That's not even in the ballpark...and I don't mean this to deride you...but to make plain the thing I am speaking of has no relationship to "who would be more effective".


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> That's not it, at all. That's not even in the ballpark...and I don't mean this to deride you...but to make plain the thing I am speaking of has no relationship to "who would be more effective".



If you know well enough that others aren't doing it right then you should be able to do better. According to your own scriptures you believers should be doing the same and greater miracles as Jesus. So again, where's the beef?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> No where in the scriptures is the time of Jesus' birth made date specific.
> 
> I have little doubt much of your intercourse amongst those you see as believers have some, if not quite a bit of involvement with the thing called christmas, crosses, crucifixes as wall hangings (and perhaps jewelry), maybe even some painted or graphic likenesses in the image of a man.
> 
> Not all do. Or care about those things at all. I see far more spoken in His _unpopularity_ or, if you prefer...lack of popularity, than could ever be attested to by the other things that seem to attest to a _grand reception_ in the earth.
> 
> In the days he walked the earth, as did once Caesar, His being known among men, attended to by men, regarded at all by men...well, I simply do not see any comparison.
> 
> I don't think the name of Jesus Christ/Yehoshua HaMashiach was as widely known across the empire, as was that of Caesar. I find nothing to indicate He was well known (at the time) outside of a very local area.
> 
> What came later (of festivals, holidays, assignations of days and times) may not have any particular saliency.


Scripture doesn't say much about the supposed Son of God for almost 30 years of his life.

Yes, his popularity arose when an official religion was needed and he got the new name and votes. Non Unanimously.
Seems very ungodlike.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> More popular than the Son of God? But Josh is "well documented"!?!?
> I mean from the day he was assigned a birthday to coincide with a pagan holiday, (then skip 30 years)to the four anonymous authors who never met him or even saw him decided to write about his last 3 years 40 to 100 years later, and literally no mention of him by any contemporary source....are you SURE??
> 
> 
> 
> (Sfd, you think it's sad, or have to post that you are sad, or are sad that you didn't post it....but most likely sad that you are unable to refute it...we get it)



No Bullethead.  I find it sad that anyone goes to such great lengths to avoid salvation.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Scripture doesn't say much about the supposed Son of God for almost 30 years of his life.
> 
> Yes, his popularity arose when an official religion was needed and he got the new name and votes. Non Unanimously.
> Seems very ungodlike.



Correct, till around the time Jesus began to preach the Kingdom of God, not much is addressed beyond His birth and the account of His exchange with the elders.


Since few of the disciples I have met have ever took their stand on Jesus' popularity among men, glorying in that sense like those who marvelled at the greatness of the earthy temple, for me the matters of_ votes_ and _unanimity_ become moot.

I now see the instructions of Jesus, especially in regard to disciples_ loving one another_ particularly, as a necessity to fulfilling that love of God.

Children of a household do not always have  (or at least, do not _seem_ to have) the _exact_ same experiences of growth in that household. But it is their birth into that household, that is overarching of all, that makes them one. 

The experience of the firstborn may _seem_ unlike those who follow, in that then, there may seem no _unanimity_ of agreement. Some are always "elder"...some younger. 

And, although it is in the natural that the many jealousies and petty disputes that may be seen around the table that could erupt from those causing an outsider to say "the such and such household is not a discrete a thing as it appears...even among them, within them, there are strifes"...the One who sits at the head of the table knows they are all of one, his own children. It is to this view we are commended.

It is because the Father ministers through the eldest son His instructions to each, not checking with them first if they find such ministry acceptable, whether it seems fair, or at all times pleasing, or even equal; there, that particular instruction to love one another takes on its primacy. Yes, what may seem to have no unanimity of agreement is to be overridden by such instruction/command. 

It is precisely because we all seem different at times, even to one another in experiences, understandings, what appear attainments or gifts that such an instruction to the supremacy over all of that, is both necessary, and because necessary, given. 

I know you have read the scriptures, read by God's grace and find yourself in finding Jesus Christ/Yehoshua HaMashiach. Brothers may seem not to be so at times, for we all know that sibling rivalry may rear its head, manifesting even in what appears the bitterest of strivings. 

But it is not to remain or persist, there's a growth ordained for all to a perfect maturity. And the deepest revelation may not be of what first appeared the highest and loftiest and most profound acquisition of some arcane mystery, but learning to abide in love, especially when one either finds themselves, or their brother in some _seemingly_ different position.

Even if one considers themselves enemy, of that brother. Or seems to be being made such, by him.

That _may be_ the deepest mystery of all, how that love flows from One to what appears for a time, so unlike Him.

This love has touched me, and in that I am not ashamed to say I seek the further and continual _touch_ of it.


Look, for a moment at yourself, take stock, if you can, at how much you have, how very rich you are in having those to love, and that love you in return. Think, if you can, of even those things given you_ to do_, that you love. I know you have a deep affection "for the hunt", and the adventures and pleasures found there. Go hunting.


I too, know its pleasures. Of seeing, of finding, of being amazed.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> No Bullethead.  I find it sad that anyone goes to such great lengths to avoid salvation.



Sorry but I just do not believe that what you constantly claim is any way to salvation.

You really need to stop thinking that I and others believe what you do and purposely ignore it or deny it. That is not the case. I couldn't buy what you are selling any more than you jumping on the Allah train because a Muslim is making the same unprovable claims that you make.

I am doing just fine in my beliefs. If there is something beyond death where a judgement is given I am going to be alright. I hope nothing is for an eternity.

Merry Christmas to you and your family. We can pick this up another day.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Correct, till around the time Jesus began to preach the Kingdom of God, not much is addressed beyond His birth and the account of His exchange with the elders.
> 
> 
> Since few of the disciples I have met have ever took their stand on Jesus' popularity among men, glorying in that sense like those who marvelled at the greatness of the earthy temple, for me the matters of_ votes_ and _unanimity_ become moot.
> 
> I now see the instructions of Jesus, especially in regard to disciples_ loving one another_ particularly, as a necessity to fulfilling that love of God.
> 
> Children of a household do not always have  (or at least, do not _seem_ to have) the _exact_ same experiences of growth in that household. But it is their birth into that household, that is overarching of all, that makes them one.
> 
> The experience of the firstborn may _seem_ unlike those who follow, in that then, there may seem no _unanimity_ of agreement. Some are always "elder"...some younger.
> 
> And, although it is in the natural that the many jealousies and petty disputes that may be seen around the table that could erupt from those causing an outsider to say "the such and such household is not a discrete a thing as it appears...even among them, within them, there are strifes"...the One who sits at the head of the table knows they are all of one, his own children. It is to this view we are commended.
> 
> It is because the Father ministers through the eldest son His instructions to each, not checking with them first if they find such ministry acceptable, whether it seems fair, or at all times pleasing, or even equal; there, that particular instruction to love one another takes on its primacy. Yes, what may seem to have no unanimity of agreement is to be overridden by such instruction/command.
> 
> It is precisely because we all seem different at times, even to one another in experiences, understandings, what appear attainments or gifts that such an instruction to the supremacy over all of that, is both necessary, and because necessary, given.
> 
> I know you have read the scriptures, read by God's grace and find yourself in finding Jesus Christ/Yehoshua HaMashiach. Brothers may seem not to be so at times, for we all know that sibling rivalry may rear its head, manifesting even in what appears the bitterest of strivings.
> 
> But it is not to remain or persist, there's a growth ordained for all to a perfect maturity. And the deepest revelation may not be of what first appeared the highest and loftiest and most profound acquisition of some arcane mystery, but learning to abide in love, especially when one either finds themselves, or their brother in some _seemingly_ different position.
> 
> Even if one considers themselves enemy, of that brother. Or seems to be being made such, by him.
> 
> That _may be_ the deepest mystery of all, how that love flows from One to what appears for a time, so unlike Him.
> 
> This love has touched me, and in that I am not ashamed to say I seek the further and continual _touch_ of it.
> 
> 
> Look, for a moment at yourself, take stock, if you can, at how much you have, how very rich you are in having those to love, and that love you in return. Think, if you can, of even those things given you_ to do_, that you love. I know you have a deep affection "for the hunt", and the adventures and pleasures found there. Go hunting.
> 
> 
> I too, know its pleasures. Of seeing, of finding, of being amazed.



I hear what you are saying EVERY time. I honestly do. I just do not believe that you have it correct and cannot agree and get on board with what you are saying.

Merry Christmas to you and your family Israel.

This discussion can wait


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> If you know well enough that others aren't doing it right then you should be able to do better. According to your own scriptures you believers should be doing the same and greater miracles as Jesus. So again, where's the beef?



The frame is wrong, not that any _in particular_ are, or that I am more right.

Prayer is not for "supervision" of another, the testing of such by _another_ to its efficacy. Prayer is solely to the one, all else totally excluded, to whom it is offered. It is for Him alone to find pleasure in them, not to be measured by some intermediary as to their potency or benefit...or rightness.

This call to the disciple he hears, to be locked up so to speak, to God alone. And he may learn much of the profound nature of that call, in prayer. He may even learn of a battle he finds there in which he is called to a victory found only through the persistent nature of that call. He may mistake it for his own persistence, his own will, his own piety, but these things must all be swept away.

Do you understand this, at all? May I tell you of some things? Am I allowed to speak to you as brother?

You sound as though you have some familiarity with the scriptures. I believe you have even said you have knowledge "of them". Have you ever sought out in your secret place (your _closet_) for the builder and maker of man? Have you ever considered the _why_ of Jesus' particular _instruction_ in that, of that?

No answer is even necessary to me at all.

But you may see, as because of that instruction, why it is so. No "other" man is either allowed nor invited to judge of that secret place, no man can even rightly disclose it, even should he want to. It is that _secret_.


But this is all _from where_ a man lives. The man who finds peace there, with God, and the man who is yet in turmoil there, with God. Still fighting to see that reconciliation. It's a good fight. Simply not one of which others are given audience unless the Lord alone chooses to reveal it. And since I can no more "judge" even myself in that good fight, and where I appear in it, I am surely too ignorant to judge another. But I do know...there's a fight. And, it's good. The only _good_ fight there is.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I hear what you are saying EVERY time. I honestly do. I just do not believe that you have it correct and cannot agree and get on board with what you are saying.



You're absolutely right! 

I am one who is always _being_ corrected. I confess 

I have not always loved you. How much "different" I have wanted to see you. How much "unlike" me it pleased me to consider you...in a comparison to myself.

But, I am being corrected. It's so much easier on my heart...this correction...that seemed once so very very awful to hear, impossible to receive.

There's no way I can escape facing myself in this mystery, in my struggles to _seem_ unique, set apart...even _better_.

Yes, you've been a help in that, to see just how common a man I am. But the blessing of it! 

Salvation is for the common man.
And bless you and yours this day to all joy. 
And I hope, to even more than I can imagine...and perhaps...even more than you might think could fit on your plate!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Sorry but I just do not believe that what you constantly claim is any way to salvation.
> 
> I am doing just fine in my beliefs. If there is something beyond death where a judgement is given I am going to be alright. I hope nothing is for an eternity.
> 
> Merry Christmas to you and your family. We can pick this up another day.



Merry Christmas to you and your's too.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> The frame is wrong, not that any _in particular_ are, or that I am more right.
> 
> Prayer is not for "supervision" of another, the testing of such by _another_ to its efficacy. Prayer is solely to the one, all else totally excluded, to whom it is offered. It is for Him alone to find pleasure in them, not to be measured by some intermediary as to their potency or benefit...or rightness.
> 
> This call to the disciple he hears, to be locked up so to speak, to God alone. And he may learn much of the profound nature of that call, in prayer. He may even learn of a battle he finds there in which he is called to a victory found only through the persistent nature of that call. He may mistake it for his own persistence, his own will, his own piety, but these things must all be swept away.
> 
> Do you understand this, at all? May I tell you of some things? Am I allowed to speak to you as brother?
> 
> You sound as though you have some familiarity with the scriptures. I believe you have even said you have knowledge "of them". Have you ever sought out in your secret place (your _closet_) for the builder and maker of man? Have you ever considered the _why_ of Jesus' particular _instruction_ in that, of that?
> 
> No answer is even necessary to me at all.
> 
> But you may see, as because of that instruction, why it is so. No "other" man is either allowed nor invited to judge of that secret place, no man can even rightly disclose it, even should he want to. It is that _secret_.
> 
> 
> But this is all _from where_ a man lives. The man who finds peace there, with God, and the man who is yet in turmoil there, with God. Still fighting to see that reconciliation. It's a good fight. Simply not one of which others are given audience unless the Lord alone chooses to reveal it. And since I can no more "judge" even myself in that good fight, and where I appear in it, I am surely too ignorant to judge another. But I do know...there's a fight. And, it's good. The only _good_ fight there is.



I don't blame you for trying to use that excuse but it directly contradicts what Jesus says in John 14 which was, if nothing else then at least believe in me based on the works (miracles) I do. We could go with convoluted logic that says prayer works only when it's done under unverifiable circumstances outside of controlled experiments. Or we could go with the simpler more likely explanation that it doesn't work. Every time a Christian goes to a doctor that tells us how much they really believe in the power of prayer.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> I don't blame you for trying to use that excuse but it directly contradicts what Jesus says in John 14 which was, if nothing else then at least believe in me based on the works (miracles) I do. We could go with convoluted logic that says prayer works only when it's done under unverifiable circumstances outside of controlled experiments. Or we could go with the simpler more likely explanation that it doesn't work. Every time a Christian goes to a doctor that tells us how much they really believe in the power of prayer.



Do you imagine that anything said in John 14 is for the purpose of experimentation?


----------



## Jack Ryan

Did any one ever think may be they were being kind of a "bag" hounding and taking advantage of a suffering dying person at their weakest most inopportune moment with your own prejudices and dogma?


----------



## Israel

Hey, Atlas...I think I see your post in a different light. Maybe the one you intended?

Are you asking /saying that since it appears Jesus makes His appeal to those around to more or less, "at least believe because of the miracles I do" and uses that as a sort of benchmark/hallmark to convert the unbelieving soul, therefore anyone suffering in unbelief should at least be accorded access to seeing the same?

Even if one is not persuaded by Jesus' word, the minimal performance of, and witness to, signs and wonders (as granted to those to see) is at the very least a thing to which a believer should (in silly words) _have access to_ to convert a present unbelieving soul?

Let's walk through this then.

You know that almost...to a man (can I use the silly idea of "us and them? Or us, and you?) the "y'all" of this forum claim to have "once been a believer"...and for whatever reasons, (as many have been presented)...now say or describe themselves as "ex-believers".

This presents a very particular matter. If one indeed _once was_ a believer, but claims now to have fallen away (though few use that term of _fallen away_...it seems most prefer a description that tends toward "I saw through the sham...")...upon what was (what may be called) that _former faith_...based?

Wouldn't it be right for the "present believer" whoever that may be (not necessarily saying I am its representative) to ask: 
Am I among those who have never believed, but adopted some form of _cultural christianity_ not to true faith, but of an expediency (usually assigned to their household) of just "falling into line". "My dad was a pastor...my family were christians, we were all raised ____________ (fill in the blank).

But few seem to concede to this thing. (do any?) Again, in almost every conversation where this is raised there is a staunch resistance as in "don't assume I wasn't a believer...(like you...or whomever is being addressed)...I held the faith just as any other there could possibly be".

If this is indeed so, then the believer must accept that testimony, that regardless of reason given for such...what one is dealing with is indeed a "fallen away" brother. You do know, must know, should know (if you read the scriptures) what is said in seeking to renew such a one to a repentance. It's impossible...at least for a man.

Who has been partaker of the heavenly gift? Who has tasted the powers of the age to come? Or...are you, or any willing to concede, at the very least in heart "I may not have been a believer...at all"?

This is rarely encountered, I would say...as coming forth in confession. I have never heard any say..."you know, my account of being formerly being of the faith...is not true at all, I see now that I was simply an unbeliever...mimicking what I thought were those things that made one "of the faith"."


I think you have seen when any have of "the other side" have implied this "then you were not a believer, at all"...it is met with such resistance that the one who imputes this being spoken to him says, "no, I was just as much a believer...as any of you all".

None of us declares _we want_ anything but honest brokerage. That's at least made...in declaration. But then some of us...may not be really telling the truth...even though we so very firmly declare "we want it!!!"

If as it is, all are here as true, and former believers (those fallen away)...then it is far better I concede to this, and make myself absent. I can do nothing here, and just weary myself, and others (other believers and non) with fruitless words. This is first, a gift to me. Whether I have found some here to some affection, of some even pleasure in hearing (of what may, indeed, remain of faith), or just the simple enjoyment in communication, it is ultimately shown for what it is (at least to me)...a pleasure better avoided for all our soul's sake.

But if there be one...(or some) who may...after some form of an honesty say "I don't think now I ever was a believer"  this is an entirely different exchange. (God knows...I could even be the one found saying that)

It matters not whether one views my expression here as "you will not play with us unless you believe you have scalps here to accumulate". But, I know, that's how it could easily be viewed when I say "I have nothing here to do". No, I must examine myself. If there is a pleasure here to be found, as I have, and perhaps some others..."what is it...of?"

"Is it true exchange...or just masturbation?"  

I don't expect any man's answer to this. As said, it's a self examination thing as to my position in the swim of things.

For it's never far from mind that in the all and all, I cannot rule out myself being revealed as the poser, the mimic, the one most in need of conversion, and salvation.
For if one believes to see anything of truth, and truth is manifestly self evident, such a thing cannot long remain hidden.

And I do believe Jesus manifests Himself.

There can be no faith, apart from that.


----------



## atlashunter

The point is there is no indication in John that he withheld performing miracles lest his power be revealed. To the contrary he invited those with doubt to observe his works and believe on that basis. On what scriptural basis then does one make the assumption that faith healing was withheld in the Harvard study because the patients were part of a controlled experiment? And what would that say about a deity who supposedly desires to be glorified but refrains from any activity that would confirm his power and allows greater suffering to that end?

The problem for Christians is when they make claims about faith healing they have stepped dangerously into the realm of science. They have made a testable hypothesis and in so doing rendered their claims falsifiable. That wouldn't be a problem if the claims were true. The evidence tells us it is not.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> The point is there is no indication in John that he withheld performing miracles lest his power be revealed. To the contrary he invited those with doubt to observe his works and believe on that basis. On what scriptural basis then does one make the assumption that faith healing was withheld in the Harvard study because the patients were part of a controlled experiment? And what would that say about a deity who supposedly desires to be glorified but refrains from any activity that would confirm his power and allows greater suffering to that end?
> 
> The problem for Christians is when they make claims about faith healing they have stepped dangerously into the realm of science. They have made a testable hypothesis and in so doing rendered their claims falsifiable. That wouldn't be a problem if the claims were true. The evidence tells us it is not.



Help me here, then, if you will or can. I just lightly scanned one reference to it as to results...said even that some who knew they were being prayed for, fared seemingly worse. By whatever metric was established on the continuum of "good outcome/bad outcome")

And to be honest, I don't want to read a lengthy article that outlines every single matter to a several page tome.

What I would in particular want to know is this, were the pray-ers (those _assigned_ to pray...or volunteered to pray...or whatever mechanism assured that someone, somewhere would be praying for such and such an individual or individuals) aware of being, or told they were being...included in a _study_?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Hey, Atlas...I think I see your post in a different light. Maybe the one you intended?
> 
> Are you asking /saying that since it appears Jesus makes His appeal to those around to more or less, "at least believe because of the miracles I do" and uses that as a sort of benchmark/hallmark to convert the unbelieving soul, therefore anyone suffering in unbelief should at least be accorded access to seeing the same?
> 
> Even if one is not persuaded by Jesus' word, the minimal performance of, and witness to, signs and wonders (as granted to those to see) is at the very least a thing to which a believer should (in silly words) _have access to_ to convert a present unbelieving soul?
> 
> Let's walk through this then.
> 
> You know that almost...to a man (can I use the silly idea of "us and them? Or us, and you?) the "y'all" of this forum claim to have "once been a believer"...and for whatever reasons, (as many have been presented)...now say or describe themselves as "ex-believers".
> 
> This presents a very particular matter. If one indeed _once was_ a believer, but claims now to have fallen away (though few use that term of _fallen away_...it seems most prefer a description that tends toward "I saw through the sham...")...upon what was (what may be called) that _former faith_...based?
> 
> Wouldn't it be right for the "present believer" whoever that may be (not necessarily saying I am its representative) to ask:
> Am I among those who have never believed, but adopted some form of _cultural christianity_ not to true faith, but of an expediency (usually assigned to their household) of just "falling into line". "My dad was a pastor...my family were christians, we were all raised ____________ (fill in the blank).
> 
> But few seem to concede to this thing. (do any?) Again, in almost every conversation where this is raised there is a staunch resistance as in "don't assume I wasn't a believer...(like you...or whomever is being addressed)...I held the faith just as any other there could possibly be".
> 
> If this is indeed so, then the believer must accept that testimony, that regardless of reason given for such...what one is dealing with is indeed a "fallen away" brother. You do know, must know, should know (if you read the scriptures) what is said in seeking to renew such a one to a repentance. It's impossible...at least for a man.
> 
> Who has been partaker of the heavenly gift? Who has tasted the powers of the age to come? Or...are you, or any willing to concede, at the very least in heart "I may not have been a believer...at all"?
> 
> This is rarely encountered, I would say...as coming forth in confession. I have never heard any say..."you know, my account of being formerly being of the faith...is not true at all, I see now that I was simply an unbeliever...mimicking what I thought were those things that made one "of the faith"."
> 
> 
> I think you have seen when any have of "the other side" have implied this "then you were not a believer, at all"...it is met with such resistance that the one who imputes this being spoken to him says, "no, I was just as much a believer...as any of you all".
> 
> None of us declares _we want_ anything but honest brokerage. That's at least made...in declaration. But then some of us...may not be really telling the truth...even though we so very firmly declare "we want it!!!"
> 
> If as it is, all are here as true, and former believers (those fallen away)...then it is far better I concede to this, and make myself absent. I can do nothing here, and just weary myself, and others (other believers and non) with fruitless words. This is first, a gift to me. Whether I have found some here to some affection, of some even pleasure in hearing (of what may, indeed, remain of faith), or just the simple enjoyment in communication, it is ultimately shown for what it is (at least to me)...a pleasure better avoided for all our soul's sake.
> 
> But if there be one...(or some) who may...after some form of an honesty say "I don't think now I ever was a believer"  this is an entirely different exchange. (God knows...I could even be the one found saying that)
> 
> It matters not whether one views my expression here as "you will not play with us unless you believe you have scalps here to accumulate". But, I know, that's how it could easily be viewed when I say "I have nothing here to do". No, I must examine myself. If there is a pleasure here to be found, as I have, and perhaps some others..."what is it...of?"
> 
> "Is it true exchange...or just masturbation?"
> 
> I don't expect any man's answer to this. As said, it's a self examination thing as to my position in the swim of things.
> 
> For it's never far from mind that in the all and all, I cannot rule out myself being revealed as the poser, the mimic, the one most in need of conversion, and salvation.
> For if one believes to see anything of truth, and truth is manifestly self evident, such a thing cannot long remain hidden.
> 
> And I do believe Jesus manifests Himself.
> 
> There can be no faith, apart from that.



It's all cultural Christianity, some just take it to further extremes out of personal need. It is rampant in every religion.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> It's all cultural Christianity, some just take it to further extremes out of personal need. It is rampant in every religion.



Final answer?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> And to be honest, I don't want to read a lengthy article that outlines every single matter to a several page tome.



 
Almost painful having to sift through a bunch anecdotal ramblings to get to a simple point huh?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Final answer?



Optimistically Hopeful.

Realistically, No.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Almost painful having to sift through a bunch anecdotal ramblings to get to a simple point huh?



LOL

I am not implying all the info in the study doesn't add up to whatever some might find of interest in it...only that the salient point for me, is perhaps not the salient point for all.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Optimistically Hopeful.
> 
> Realistically, No.



Is that you "leaving room" that there could be something _real in faith_, and that _that faith _found in Jesus Christ is not simply a cultural phenomena of sorts? 

Do I misunderstand?


----------



## welderguy

Is physical death ultimately a bad thing or a good thing?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> LOL
> 
> I am not implying all the info in the study doesn't add up to whatever some might find of interest in it...only that the salient point for me, is perhaps not the salient point for all.



Keep that in mind


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Help me here, then, if you will or can. I just lightly scanned one reference to it as to results...said even that some who knew they were being prayed for, fared seemingly worse. By whatever metric was established on the continuum of "good outcome/bad outcome")
> 
> And to be honest, I don't want to read a lengthy article that outlines every single matter to a several page tome.
> 
> What I would in particular want to know is this, were the pray-ers (those _assigned_ to pray...or volunteered to pray...or whatever mechanism assured that someone, somewhere would be praying for such and such an individual or individuals) aware of being, or told they were being...included in a _study_?



I believe they were aware.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Is that you "leaving room" that there could be something _real in faith_, and that _that faith _found in Jesus Christ is not simply a cultural phenomena of sorts?
> 
> Do I misunderstand?



It meant that I hoped that i would not have to say the same thing 5 different ways, but I know I will.

My stance, based off of the amount of research that I have done into Christianity becoming mainstream and the official religion of Rome, shows that Jesus Christ is a built up reinvention based off of a similar person who (like hundreds if not thousands before and after) had local followers while preaching for the Torah and against the powers that be who were taking religion away from the Torah. He, like others, got himself killed for his troubles.

He, like others, had followers who embellished his life with stories of miraculous deeds.

All gods are cultural phenomenon. There is as much written about Greek Gods by people who were willing to die for their beliefs too. They all fade away eventually when the promise and hope for a better god comes along.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Is physical death ultimately a bad thing or a good thing?



Physical death just IS.
Anything more is a way to cope with that reality while alive. Otherwise the majority of the population would be inconsolable while waiting for their inevitable demise.

Think of the chaos and breakdown of society and morals if people positively found out there was no afterlife. The restraint of being good here because of judgement later is very strong. And even with those thoughts, people act immorally all week and ask forgiveness on sunday, then back to adultery,  cheating, , stealing, and every other act that is devious all week because they think that simply believing in an old fable is somehow going to have them in an eternity of happy happy joy joy covers thier actions. 
Religion is another obedience tool to control the masses.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> It meant that I hoped that i would not have to say the same thing 5 different ways, but I know I will.
> 
> My stance, based off of the amount of research that I have done into Christianity becoming mainstream and the official religion of Rome, shows that Jesus Christ is a built up reinvention based off of a similar person who (like hundreds if not thousands before and after) had local followers while preaching for the Torah and against the powers that be who were taking religion away from the Torah. He, like others, got himself killed for his troubles.
> 
> He, like others, had followers who embellished his life with stories of miraculous deeds.
> 
> All gods are cultural phenomenon. There is as much written about Greek Gods by people who were willing to die for their beliefs too. They all fade away eventually when the promise and hope for a better god comes along.



Any others reading these exchanges in agreement?

Nothing more to Jesus Christ than an inflated (for whatever purpose) icon to be foisted upon a society that is to be _enculturated_ solely to the benefit  of the devious nature of those "foisters"?

Is it a fair question for me (or any) to ask?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Any others reading these exchanges in agreement?
> 
> Nothing more to Jesus Christ than an inflated (for whatever purpose) icon to be foisted upon a society that is to be _enculturated_ solely to the benefit  of the devious nature of those "foisters"?
> 
> Is it a fair question for me (or any) to ask?


My description and your summation are VERY general tips of the iceberg descriptions that leave out the hows, whys and history that took place over a few hundred years to get to that point and and 1500 more years to tweak it to where it is today.

Today Jesus is a 6ft caucasian with flowing hair and piercing blue eyes.

The guy he is based off of...not even close.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Almost painful having to sift through a bunch anecdotal ramblings to get to a simple point huh?



OK.  You win.  Best post EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Sticky it, bronze it and put it on the Home Page.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> I believe they were aware.



Then for them, in their prayers, stood this knowledge: These will be tested for validity/efficacy.



No?

To live before God is altogether _not that_.

Faith is altogether...not that..."Let's see if this works!"

Their prayers are _being mediated _by a something other than the spirit of Christ. Something they have submitted to.



Once the question is not "am I being true?"... but "am I being true _enough_?" all is lost.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Then for them, in their prayers, stood this knowledge: These will be tested for validity/efficacy.
> 
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> To live before God is altogether _not that_.
> 
> Faith is altogether...not that..."Let's see if this works!"
> 
> Their prayers are _being mediated _by a something other than the spirit of Christ. Something they have submitted to.
> 
> 
> 
> Once the question is not "am I being true?"... but "am I being true _enough_?" all is lost.



I see your point.  If they were praying extra hard so that they could show the stupid scientists how great God is then God would obviously not allow Himself to be made a toy of in that way. But then again I can't really imagine how God works.  It would be foolish of me to assume He would be so vain or petty.  Then again, he knew how the experiment would go from the beginning of time.....so there's that.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Any others reading these exchanges in agreement?
> 
> Nothing more to Jesus Christ than an inflated (for whatever purpose) icon to be foisted upon a society that is to be _enculturated_ solely to the benefit  of the devious nature of those "foisters"?
> 
> Is it a fair question for me (or any) to ask?



Israel, please be honest and to the point.

Do you think the millions of people who worshiped Zeus actually saw Zeus? Do you think that the earliest people saw Zeus, wrote about him, and then passed those oral and written stories down so others can also worship Zeus?

Or in your opinion was Zeus an inflated (for whatever purpose) icon that was foisted upon society that is to be enculturated  soley to benefit the devious nature of those foisters?

I mean literally insert any or all other deities in the place of JC and ask yourself the same question. 
How exactly DID all of those people, for hundreds and thousands of years fall for such ruses?

Were/are all those other gods real and their time on earth along with their interaction with people garner the respect to be worshiped?
Or
Was someone or a group of people able to convince other people and small groups to believe similarly and have it snowball for a variety of reasons....ONE of them being to benefit other people who were in positions of power?

I mean look hard into past and current history(especially religious history of all the gods) and give me your opinion if it is possible to get masses of people to believe in things that might not be true. 

Lets for conversation sake (after you answer above) say that Jesus is absolutely positively THE one, only and true god.
Explain to me how millions upon millions and even billions of people worldwide over tens of thousands of years have been led to worship anything else.
Somebody, at some point, had to convince someone else, to worship those other deities......Right?

Is it possible, even remotely, that the god that you worship came to be, or could have,  in a similar way?


----------



## Israel

Jesus appeared before two men.
The Centurion with a sick slave he loved, and Herod.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Jesus appeared before two men.
> The Centurion with a sick slave he loved, and Herod.



And outside of the bible that is recorded where?

Ancient Greek writings are full of gods that not only appeared to men but slept with women, and the women gave birth to their children. 
That and a dollar will get you any sized soft drink at Micky Ds.


It is clear that you just cannot be honest in text on here. Millions of people have believed in thousands of gods. By using your criteria your god is a real or as fake as theirs, and for the same reasons. If gods appearing to people is proof, get in line.


I asked you direct questions and all you have in reply is to point out even more unprovable claims that address nothing of which I asked you.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Jesus appeared before two men.
> The Centurion with a sick slave he loved, and Herod.



And to be clear, I am not asking you or anyone to deny your faith or beliefs. 

I am just trying to use logical examples to show you why I believe as I do. I hoped to get some good conversation out of it.

Replying that Jesus appeared to two people means and proves what? How does that answer anything that I asked you above?

It seems like it is a default go to your happy place reply instead of answering questions that you do not want to answer honestly. Answers like that let me know that what I've asked made sense.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Then for them, in their prayers, stood this knowledge: These will be tested for validity/efficacy.
> 
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> To live before God is altogether _not that_.
> 
> Faith is altogether...not that..."Let's see if this works!"
> 
> Their prayers are _being mediated _by a something other than the spirit of Christ. Something they have submitted to.
> 
> 
> 
> Once the question is not "am I being true?"... but "am I being true _enough_?" all is lost.



So we should disqualify three different groups of Christians because they were willing to pray for patients who were part of a prayer study and that somehow invalidates their faith and the faith of those being prayed for?  Looks to me like you're really grasping at straws to avoid the results we should expect from prayer to a deity that doesn't exist.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> I see your point.  If they were praying extra hard so that they could show the stupid scientists how great God is then God would obviously not allow Himself to be made a toy of in that way. But then again I can't really imagine how God works.  It would be foolish of me to assume He would be so vain or petty.  Then again, he knew how the experiment would go from the beginning of time.....so there's that.



I'm open to a god that is determined to avoid detection. If there really is such a god then us mortals have no hope of winning that game of hide and seek so there is no point in worrying about it. That isn't the god that Christians claim. It's a bit late once we have put their claims to the test for them to try moving the goal posts.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> I'm open to a god that is determined to avoid detection. If there really is such a god then us mortals have no hope of winning that game of hide and seek so there is no point in worrying about it. That isn't the god that Christians claim. It's a bit late once we have put their claims to the test for them to try moving the goal posts.



My God chooses whom He reveals Himself to. Most people hate that concept, but it's scriptural. 

So don't lump everyone into that "Christian group".


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> My God chooses whom He reveals Himself to. Most people hate that concept, but it's scriptural.
> 
> So don't lump everyone into that "Christian group".



John 14 doesn't say prayers may or may not be answered. It says they will be. That's an easily falsifiable claim. Little kids claim invisible friends too. Absent any evidence to the contrary the presumption should be they do not exist.


----------



## Israel

John 14:26

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.



Matt. 6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard ...

We are given to know that Jesus very rarely prayed openly and in the hearing of his disciples. We do know He often separated himself.

And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.

A thorough reading again of John 14 is not without merit.

It starts with instruction and address.

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me."

And the rest...follows.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> John 14:26
> 
> But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Matt. 6
> 
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard ...
> 
> We are given to know that Jesus very rarely prayed openly and in the hearing of his disciples. We do know He often separated himself.
> 
> And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.
> 
> A thorough reading again of John 14 is not without merit.
> 
> It starts with instruction and address.
> 
> “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me.
> 
> And the rest...follows.


When Jesus was alone praying, or when it was just Jesus and one other person, or demon overlord....
How do anonymous authors who wrote stories that were 30 to 70 years(by generous estimates) later know what Jesus said at all? I mean if his disciples were not around to hear it, how did these authors get what was said correct?

And if you are back to answering questions, please let me know how people who believe in other gods came to believe in those gods if devious foisters who inflate stories cannot be considered a legitimate possibility.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> John 14:26
> 
> But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Matt. 6
> 
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard ...
> 
> We are given to know that Jesus very rarely prayed openly and in the hearing of his disciples. We do know He often separated himself.
> 
> And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.
> 
> A thorough reading again of John 14 is not without merit.
> 
> It starts with instruction and address.
> 
> “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me."
> 
> And the rest...follows.



Didn't Jesus also tell a child or man not to call him good, that only God is good?

That is an odd thing to say if he IS God. 
It seems more like something a mortal would say.

And then in his next breath he mentions about them knowing the commandments but mentions "do  not defraud, honor thy father and mother.."
I don't remember defraud in that commandment.


----------



## Israel

There are many things about the humility of Christ all are just learning.

"The Father is greater than I..."

also in John 14.

John 16:15

Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take from what is Mine _and disclose it to you_.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> There are many things about the humility of Christ all are just learning.
> 
> "The Father is greater than I..."
> 
> also in John 14



Yeah, many are learning that the preacher and God are two completely non related different characters in those stories too.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> There are many things about the humility of Christ all are just learning.
> 
> "The Father is greater than I..."
> 
> also in John 14



What can we learn about the questions I asked you a few posts ago and last night?


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> John 14:26
> 
> But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Matt. 6
> 
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard ...
> 
> We are given to know that Jesus very rarely prayed openly and in the hearing of his disciples. We do know He often separated himself.
> 
> And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.
> 
> A thorough reading again of John 14 is not without merit.
> 
> It starts with instruction and address.
> 
> “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me."
> 
> And the rest...follows.



Matthew 6 he is talking about not praying in order to bring glory to oneself by making a false portrayal of piety. Don't think that is an issue for groups of Christians in this study whose names were not even publicized. It also says nothing about the effectiveness one can expect from prayer. John 14 does.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> When Jesus was alone praying, or when it was just Jesus and one other person, or demon overlord....
> How do anonymous authors who wrote stories that were 30 to 70 years(by generous estimates) later know what Jesus said at all? I mean if his disciples were not around to hear it, how did these authors get what was said correct?
> 
> And if you are back to answering questions, please let me know how people who believe in other gods came to believe in those gods if devious foisters who inflate stories cannot be considered a legitimate possibility.



The Bible also cites numerous instances of Jesus praying and performing miracles in public.


----------



## Israel

I commend you to that One who made Himself of _no reputation_.

When we _all_ know the why He didn't bother with such futility and silliness, I also hope to be among those _all_.

For in Him is all and the only hope this windbag has ever seen.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> The Bible also cites numerous instances of Jesus praying and performing miracles in public.



Yeah. It must have been So impressive that it took 4 guys who never witnessed it,  to write about it decades upon decades later.
That is, unless Eusebius didn't take it upon himself to have those stories written a few hundred years later.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Yeah. It must have been So impressive that it took 4 guys who never witnessed it,  to write about it decades upon decades later.
> That is, unless Eusebius didn't take it upon himself to have those stories written a few hundred years later.



You present your case for the devious and cunning manipulations of _homo_ _religialis_ in a persistence that makes me _almost_ envious of your devotions.

In outward appearance only, we may appear as two men standing in some opposition. Yet I am not wholly convinced at all that this is so. I am ever more being convinced we are too alike than we yet know.

And that, for the most part what is seen, _almost assuredly_ outwardly, and I will also presume _even_ in a measure inwardly, is a work of labors _toward distinction._

But brother, how much we mutually share.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> You present your case for the devious and cunning manipulations of _homo_ _religialis_ in a persistence that makes me _almost_ envious of your devotions.
> 
> In outward appearance only, we may appear as two men standing in some opposition. Yet I am not wholly convinced at all that this is so. I am ever more being convinced we are too alike than we yet know.
> 
> And that, for the most part what is seen, _almost assuredly_ outwardly, and I will also presume _even_ in a measure inwardly, is a work of labors _toward distinction._
> 
> But brother, how much we mutually share.



Good to know you also have doubts on the inside.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> You present your case for the devious and cunning manipulations of _homo_ _religialis_ in a persistence that makes me _almost_ envious of your devotions.
> 
> In outward appearance only, we may appear as two men standing in some opposition. Yet I am not wholly convinced at all that this is so. I am ever more being convinced we are too alike than we yet know.
> 
> And that, for the most part what is seen, _almost assuredly_ outwardly, and I will also presume _even_ in a measure inwardly, is a work of labors _toward distinction._
> 
> But brother, how much we mutually share.



Save the hallmark replies and sermons. 
You blatantly ignore everything that I've specifically asked you to answer without so much as a single word, but you can't stay away from the keyboard to include some anecdotal response that not only has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is false. 

If you in fact were like me, as you claim, you would answer with a reply on point when asked a question regarding the topic.
Yet Again, your claims do not equal the facts.


----------



## Israel

What is false?

That we are merely both men demanding answers?
That to _my own mind _such demand may _seem_ softened as entreaty in accord to such an instruction that has inextricably grasped me? Yet all the while that instruction is of eternal magnitude, and therefore on that continuum we are each no nearer nor farther from the perfection of its execution.

How soft..._is_ soft? How _true_, is true? 

What _endows_ both you and I with what we claim so inalienably, so fundamentally, so axiomatically, that we may never know its source to the fullness of what we claim as right?

What do we find if we dare examine this compelling thing, begin to move to its margins to peer beneath (or above, if better said?), moving away from center in hopes of better glimpse of its edges, and grasping them as lion might in netted trap, find them, curl them to a firmness, leap...and be free?

I must have the truth! 

I will demand it of all, and in all, we may tell ourselves, even thinking such enobles us. This is no less true of the religious man than the so called irreligious one, each thinking he is nearer that edge of true sight. 

What each imagines collected in struggles in the trap are verifiable to himself and neither dare surrender his efforts as vain, fruitless, he simply must believe he has come nearer the edge than those he believes simply wallow in a benightned-ness
of what _we prefer to see_ as mute surrender.

_I_ must have! _I_ must see! _I_ must know! How we hate the villain that would settle! We know the deal made there. Let me have such towering pleasure in the trap that it might erase the truth of its being. 



Let me but go back to sleep and dream such marvelous uninterrupted dreams that I will not feel the terrifying grasp of what truly holds me. It will be enough for me to sleep...and dream. And be rid of this Sisyphus. I am overcome by all my own efforts.  

But there is One asleep in the storm tossed vessel. The only One, awake.  "Master, Don't you care that we perish?"!!!!!



Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

Don't accuse God of being both arsonist and fireman before you see how much of fires have been started by ones own frictions of self effort. Those very conflagrations of which we once flattered ourselves _saying_ "I was just trying to be like you!". Or, "I was just struggling to know the truth." Or "I was just _trying_ to be free"

Oh, the laughter.

When all accusation is gone.

Nailed to the tree.


----------



## bullethead

Israel, after your usual 6am-ish 3 flusher you again miss the bowl, err...point entirely.

When you ask me something I take the time to read it through(usually 5 times) and answer it honestly. You get an answer that is on topic and to the point.

If and when you reply, you answer with a lengthy(see above) reply where you turn it into a self question and answer session to somehow lead the conversation into a thought that you had overnight but that has nothing to do with what was initially asked. You are the only one in the conversation at that point.  More specifically when the question is directed at you and puts you in a position that an honest answer is required, you literally ignore it instead of being honest. After 2nd and 3rd direct requests to answer the questions you suddenly gets writers cramp.

Do us all a favor and nock off this two similar peas in a pod shtick. Yet again your assertions and claims to not match your actions.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Israel, after your usual 6am-ish 3 flusher you again miss the bowl, err...point entirely.
> 
> When you ask me something I take the time to read it through(usually 5 times) and answer it honestly. You get an answer that is on topic and to the point.
> 
> If and when you reply, you answer with a lengthy(see above) reply where you turn it into a self question and answer session to somehow lead the conversation into a thought that you had overnight but that has nothing to do with what was initially asked. You are the only one in the conversation at that point.  More specifically when the question is directed at you and puts you in a position that an honest answer is required, you literally ignore it instead of being honest. After 2nd and 3rd direct requests to answer the questions you suddenly gets writers cramp.
> 
> _Do us all a favor and nock off this two similar peas in a pod shtick. _Yet again your assertions and claims to not match your actions.



How soft _is_ soft?

Rightly, perhaps I stand accused. But in this you would be I think very misled; that I do not take our conversation seriously. But do you see, even there, that presumption? For I am not sure that you do. 

Do you believe I take you...less than seriously?

Do you think (will I have to soon ask you to forgive this analogy?) I am frivolous skater on ice, dashing off to twirl freely unhindered when _any_ particular one may think my greater need is to be captured still...in conversation?

You say I am dishonest, and I know it would be a lie for me to resist in any form by seeking to prove I am not. But, that does not make me honest. I have simply learned _the tell_ of the liar...and even liars may learn how to subdue their more outward signs (for their own advantage at the gaming table) that have previously given themselves away to a loss when being "called". So, what then?

I wondered recently if this was all mere game. Is it as it may appear? But, then, I hear things. See things. The conversation around the table_ is_ to be paid attention. I can't say I am taking this more seriously than any other, because in the conversations another seriousness is plainly presented. Maybe I am indeed the gamer, but you can see where it would be fruitless to ask any other at the table, for we all sit...at the same table.

You don't like the _shtick_. You claim to see through it. To see through...me. What are the _odds_...that is true? If it is a game, that would be very important where loss and win are all that matters. How many cards did he take on the draw? Does he stand pat because he really has something...or is it all bluff? If he drew three, what does that mean? One...is is to a flush, a straight? What will be shown when all are finally...called? Who has folded? Did they indeed have nothing? Or will they be the one who, at end sees his lone pair of deuces would have swept the table against all the other poseurs? 

And for now, it _appears_ only you and I are at it, but we would be silly to think, to assume, there are "no other witnesses". That we are always and only...locked up to ourselves. For I have heard at the table...oft mention of an "us". Who represents the "house" here where we know labels are so easily forged and worn to a duplicity?
Or, do we not yet know this? Whose house is this...truly? And, if there be any...what are the _house_ rules?

Are any free to wander the halls, search the rooms for clue? Or, is the house so structured, and rules so structured that all are prevented from seeing anything other than what may be visible to them from their seat at the table? Then, I am indeed...cheat. For on my rest breaks I looked other places and no one I found then, forbad me. So, am I cheat?

Indeed, one said "why not talk like we are just two guys in a boat?" This seems counter to two peas in a pod _shtick_. One _seems_ to say "be more _like me_ when we are together, (as though being so) more plain spoken that some substance of understanding can accrue to it." While another seems to say "make no assumption that we are at all, alike". Who bends in such a case...and to what? How much bending is being asked, in either direction toward, or away from a commonality? Be more "this way" or that? Is understanding really the end? Or just manipulation?

I confess, one of the doors I opened on my breaks was all of complete void. Empty of anything I could see. As far as I could see. No one forbad me opening it. Is this a house rule though? No opening of doors? Did I miss the memo?

I came away from that door. I know what I saw in all my not seeing, anything. What was the terror of it remained for some time. The experience "told" me something. The vastness of it can only mean one thing, it is far greater than the house I see in walls, and doors and rooms...it must encompass it. The things in which my eye finds a stop...an end...in perception. The reflection_ back_ of things...did not happen there. No form perceived, nothing upon which my eye could fix and say "this is...there". No answer, no echo. And the thing I learned there, even in the midst of its terror was this: the things I seem to know are always in contrast _of exclusion_ to what is unknown, so that even things seemingly known owe their shape _against_ this. But the unknown is infinite. It is not dependent upon the known, for its shape. For, it has none. Yet, it contains all the shapes. By which a man might navigate...even to that "room". And in that, I was comforted. Even in terror. There is _an allowance_ for shapes of things. Even out from that infinite unknowable. This is what I believe I would call, as I believe have many, many others...grace. "Allowance for"...shapes of things given to shapes of things, till in some form of understanding "shapes" are not perceived as the all and only, and what was formerly of _mere shape_...may become as "real" as that infinite.

So, when at this table in which _shape of game seems_ to take place I hear a man say a thing like (for I will not peruse the posts, or search to find verbatim, but trust instead my memory may be reliable to an end of understanding) this:

"The God I can believe in is the God I am not able in any way to comprehend" (would it be right to say "capture with my understanding?")

I must ask...do I remember correctly? Have I been paying attention? Do I take this speaker...seriously? Are his accusations of my frivolity sound? Or has he too, opened a door in his wanderings...and at least come away...even a little bit...like me?


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> How soft _is_ soft?
> 
> Rightly, perhaps I stand accused. But in this you would be I think very misled; that I do not take our conversation seriously. But do you see, even there, that presumption? For I am not sure that you do.
> 
> Do you believe I take you...less than seriously?
> 
> Do you think (will I have to soon ask you to forgive this analogy?) I am frivolous skater on ice, dashing off to twirl freely unhindered when _any_ particular one may think my greater need is to be captured still...in conversation?
> 
> You say I am dishonest, and I know it would be a lie for me to resist in any form by seeking to prove I am not. But, that does not make me honest. I have simply learned _the tell_ of the liar...and even liars may learn how to subdue their more outward signs (for their own advantage at the gaming table) that have previously given themselves away to a loss when being "called". So, what then?
> 
> I wondered recently if this was all mere game. Is it as it may appear? But, then, I hear things. See things. The conversation around the table_ is_ to be paid attention. I can't say I am taking this more seriously than any other, because in the conversations another seriousness is plainly presented. Maybe I am indeed the gamer, but you can see where it would be fruitless to ask any other at the table, for we all sit...at the same table.
> 
> You don't like the _shtick_. You claim to see through it. To see through...me. What are the _odds_...that is true? If it is a game, that would be very important where loss and win are all that matters. How many cards did he take on the draw? Does he stand pat because he really has something...or is it all bluff? If he drew three, what does that mean? One...is is to a flush, a straight? What will be shown when all are finally...called? Who has folded? Did they indeed have nothing? Or will they be the one who, at end sees his lone pair of deuces would have swept the table against all the other poseurs?
> 
> And for now, it _appears_ only you and I are at it, but we would be silly to think, to assume, there are "no other witnesses". That we are always and only...locked up to ourselves. For I have heard at the table...oft mention of an "us". Who represents the "house" here where we know labels are so easily forged and worn to a duplicity?
> Or, do we not yet know this? Whose house is this...truly? And, if there be any...what are the _house_ rules?
> 
> Are any free to wander the halls, search the rooms for clue? Or, is the house so structured, and rules so structured that all are prevented from seeing anything other than what may be visible to them from their seat at the table? Then, I am indeed...cheat. For on my rest breaks I looked other places and no one I found then, forbad me. So, am I cheat?
> 
> Indeed, one said "why not talk like we are just two guys in a boat?" This seems counter to two peas in a pod _shtick_. One _seems_ to say "be more _like me_ when we are together, (as though being so) more plain spoken that some substance of understanding can accrue to it." While another seems to say "make no assumption that we are at all, alike". Who bends in such a case...and to what? How much bending is being asked, in either direction toward, or away from a commonality? Be more "this way" or that? Is understanding really the end? Or just manipulation?
> 
> I confess, one of the doors I opened on my breaks was all of complete void. Empty of anything I could see. As far as I could see. No one forbad me opening it. Is this a house rule though? No opening of doors? Did I miss the memo?
> 
> I came away from that door. I know what I saw in all my not seeing, anything. What was the terror of it remained for some time. The experience "told" me something. The vastness of it can only mean one thing, it is far greater than the house I see in walls, and doors and rooms...it must encompass it. The things in which my eye finds a stop...an end...in perception. The reflection_ back_ of things...did not happen there. No form perceived, nothing upon which my eye could fix and say "this is...there". No answer, no echo. And the thing I learned there, even in the midst of its terror was this: the things I seem to know are always in contrast _of exclusion_ to what is unknown, so that even things seemingly known owe their shape _against_ this. But the unknown is infinite. It is not dependent upon the known, for its shape. For, it has none. Yet, it contains all the shapes. By which a man might navigate...even to that "room". And in that, I was comforted. Even in terror. There is _an allowance_ for shapes of things. Even out from that infinite unknowable. This is what I believe I would call, as I believe have many, many others...grace. "Allowance for"...shapes of things given to shapes of things, till in some form of understanding "shapes" are not perceived as the all and only, and what was formerly of _mere shape_...may become as "real" as that infinite.
> 
> So, when at this table in which _shape of game seems_ to take place I hear a man say a thing like (for I will not peruse the posts, or search to find verbatim, but trust instead my memory may be reliable to an end of understanding) this:
> 
> "The God I can believe in is the God I am not able in any way to comprehend" (would it be right to say "capture with my understanding?")
> 
> I must ask...do I remember correctly? Have I been paying attention? Do I take this speaker...seriously? Are his accusations of my frivolity sound? Or has he too, opened a door in his wanderings...and at least come away...even a little bit...like me?


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


>


----------

