# Adam's rib - quick question for Biblical literalists



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

Okay - here is an intriguing question: in the Garden of Eden God took one of Adam's ribs and used it to make Eve. Wouldn't that make Eve an exact* CLONE *of Adam since the DNA/genetic material is an* exact match?* How could Adam reproduce with an exact copy of himself - who would be a* MALE?* 

If you take the Bible literally this story would be a tough situation to explain in the face of modern science. Of course, if you consider the story to be allegory, symbolism, metaphor, or just plain myth like countless other myths created by societies all over the world, there is much to be examined & interpreted.
IMHO many (not all) Biblical "young earth" literalists are afraid to give an inch to scientific facts. Because if some parts of the Bible are incorrect, other parts may also be incorrect. How do they know what's literal/true and what is just a story to teach us humans life lessons? 

I'll give believers the benefit of the doubt here: maybe God uses these (never meant to be taken literally) stories because human brains aren't capable of understanding complex God-level thinking.   What say you believers & non-believers?


----------



## Baroque Brass (Sep 27, 2022)

Wasn’t the creation of Adam the result of god spitting in the dirt? Can’t help but wonder about that too.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

To put it literally, when you can create matter wheeling around chromosomes isn’t a stretch.


----------



## RamblinWreck88 (Sep 27, 2022)

I do not intend to attack you, but I think your post makes a lot of presuppositions about how Biblical literalists think and makes the stretching assumption that rib-to-person = "Clone in the modern scientific definition", all under a thin guise of an open discussion. My concern is that these are detrimental to having an informative conversation.

The above comment undercuts the "rib = CLONE" assumption, and that is valid. If one believes in such a creator, surely it is no jump of the mind to think that they could create a man from spitting in the clay or a woman from the man's rib.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

Baroque Brass said:


> Wasn’t the creation of Adam the result of god spitting in the dirt? Can’t help but wonder about that too.



Adam was made from clay/dirt and God breathed life into him. Back in the day some cultures thought that life existed in your breath. Thus when you are dying, your life goes out of your body with your last breath.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> To put it literally, when you can create matter wheeling around chromosomes isn’t a stretch.



I'm not quite sure of what you said. Are you saying if God can create "matter wheeling around chromosomes" then he can do anything? I don't want to put words in your mouth.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

RamblinWreck88 said:


> I do not intend to attack you, but I think your post makes a lot of presuppositions about how Biblical literalists think and makes the stretching assumption that rib-to-person = "Clone in the modern scientific definition", all under a thin guise of an open discussion. My concern is that these are detrimental to having an informative conversation.
> 
> The above comment undercuts the "rib = CLONE" assumption, and that is valid. If one believes in such a creator, surely it is no jump of the mind to think that they could create a man from spitting in the clay or a woman from the man's rib.



Very true! If you are taking everything in the Bible "on faith" then no matter how outrageous the stories are it doesn't really matter. I think it's very interesting how we can compare how the world really works in the year 2022 (and can be proven) with how people lived & thought back in the bronze/iron age.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm not quite sure of what you said. Are you saying if God can create "matter wheeling around chromosomes" then he can do anything? I don't want to put words in your mouth.



That’s a fair summary, if he can create matter then altering chromosomes isn’t big stretch.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> That’s a fair summary, if he can create matter then altering chromosomes isn’t big stretch.
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.



Oh I see.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

Technically God's Spirit should be hovering over everything, everywhere, at all times. It should be hovering over the waters right now, hovering over our keyboards and hovering over a child as her "uncle" enters her room and locks the door behind him.
If God can make matter he can alter DNA but for some reason he either can't or won't stop an "uncle".
Mysterious Ways....


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Technically God's Spirit should be hovering over everything, everywhere, at all times. It should be hovering over the waters right now, hovering over our keyboards and hovering over a child as her "uncle" enters her room and locks the door behind him.
> If God can make matter he can alter DNA but for some reason he either can't or won't stop an "uncle".
> Mysterious Ways....



I wish there was not evil but other forces are at work as well.

“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I wish there was not evil but other forces are at work as well.
> 
> “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”


Wouldn't an All Knowing and All Powerful God be able to thwart any and every "evil" force?
Or
Does God allow it?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Technically God's Spirit should be hovering over everything, everywhere, at all times. It should be hovering over the waters right now, hovering over our keyboards and hovering over a child as her "uncle" enters her room and locks the door behind him.
> If God can make matter he can alter DNA but for some reason he either can't or won't stop an "uncle".
> Mysterious Ways....



Good point! I'm not so amazed at the wondrous things that god can do as much as disappointed by what he won't do.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Good point! I'm not so amazed at the wondrous things that god can do as much as disappointed by what he won't do.


There really is no defending it.
"Evil" is a cop out excuse that is meant to deflect away the capabilities and responsibility of a God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I wish there was not evil but other forces are at work as well.
> 
> “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”


I think one of the issues most nonbelievers have the most is if this is true -


> The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”


and this is true -


> The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.



Sure seems to go against God/Jesus being omni-everything , all powerful etc.
The only other plausibe explanation is God/Jesus allows it and/or doesnt consider it evil.
Some would say thats not worthy of their worship.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

I am far from an evangelist Walt but the Bible is full stories of folks enduring evil. It clearly says we are to expect it.

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.


Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I am far from an evangelist Walt but the Bible is full stories of folks enduring evil. It clearly says we are to expect it.
> 
> “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
> 
> ...


So then there is no free will if he hardens whomever he wills?

I guess what I am saying is that things are exactly as God wills them to be.
Why pray then? To change a God's mind?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> So then there is no free will if he hardens whomever he wills?
> 
> I guess what I am saying is that things are exactly as God wills them to be.
> Why pray then? To change a God's mind?



Not to be callous but sounds like your looking for God to do everything for you, make the path easy. The path is clearly defined, you make a choice to believe. My prayers are more often for forgiveness of my failures and for strength to do better in the future. The prayer itself is an effort to get closer to God and communicate. Prayer was encouraged through out scripture.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Not to be callous but sounds like your looking for God to do everything for you, make the path easy. The path is clearly defined, you make a choice to believe. My prayers are more often for forgiveness of my failures and for strength to do better in the future. The prayer itself is an effort to get closer to God and communicate. Prayer was encouraged through out scripture.


I actually don't want or expect any sort of diety to do anything for me. I am curious to the contradictory verses which the beleivers are left to defend or deflect.

In you're opinion since you mentioned that your God hardens hearts at and by his will, do you also think that man has free will?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I am far from an evangelist Walt but the Bible is full stories of folks enduring evil. It clearly says we are to expect it.
> 
> “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
> 
> ...


I'll be honest - I read all that ^ as God picks and chooses who and when he wants to grant his mercy. Ok thats fine.
But on the flip side, through (supposedly) no effort, he could grant his mercy to all these kids in particular who have done nothing to deserve the horrors bestowed upon them.
For example
We feel VERY strongly about the abortion of an innocent child yet God not granting mercy on an innocent child isnt even a speed bump. I cant square that type of thinking in my mind.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I actually don't want or expect any sort of diety to do anything for me. I am curious to the contradictory verses which the beleivers are left to defend or deflect.
> 
> In you're opinion since you mentioned that your God hardens hearts at and by his will, do you also think that man has free will?



I don’t have defend or deflect anything it’s a very personal choice. Your betting your soul.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I don’t have defend or deflect anything it’s a very personal choice. Your betting your soul.


But twice now you have not answered whether or not you think there is Free Will since you also told us that God hardens hearts by his Will.

We are all betting our souls IF in fact our souls actually do go "somewhere" after death. 
With over 10,000 gods I just don't have the time to cater to them all in the hopes I cover all of the bases.
You are putting a dollar down on one scratch off ticket and hoping to win the big prize.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> But twice now you have not answered whether or not you think there is Free Will since you also told us that God hardens hearts by his Will.
> 
> We are all betting our souls IF in fact our souls actually do go "somewhere" after death.
> With over 10,000 gods I just don't have the time to cater to them all in the hopes I cover all of the bases.
> You are putting a dollar down on one scratch off ticket and hoping to win the big prize.



Maybe this will bring clarity to how I believe. I enjoy discussions with the atheist here. Don’t believe it’s my place to brow beat anyone. I fulfill my role by sharing the word and my testimony of why I believe. I pray for them. I fulfill my role in this way. It’s not a legal debate, it’s much more personal.

To respectfully answer you, disrespect God at your peril.

And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Maybe this will bring clarity to how I believe. I enjoy discussions with the atheist here. Don’t believe it’s my place to brow beat anyone. I fulfill my role by sharing the word and my testimony of why I believe. I pray for them. I fulfill my role in this way. It’s not a legal debate, it’s much more personal.
> 
> To respectfully answer you, disrespect God at your peril.
> 
> And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.


Clarity would be a direct answer about Free Will.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Clarity would be a direct answer about Free Will.



No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Clarity would be a direct answer about Free Will.



We have it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Maybe this will bring clarity to how I believe. I enjoy discussions with the atheist here. Don’t believe it’s my place to brow beat anyone. I fulfill my role by sharing the word and my testimony of why I believe. I pray for them. I fulfill my role in this way. It’s not a legal debate, it’s much more personal.
> 
> To respectfully answer you, disrespect God at your peril.
> 
> And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.





> I enjoy discussions with the atheist here. Don’t believe it’s my place to brow beat anyone. I fulfill my role by sharing the word and my testimony of why I believe. I pray for them. I fulfill my role in this way. It’s not a legal debate, it’s much more personal.


^ 
Alot of times we try to nail down believers to a concrete answer. Which sometimes is alot like herding cats.  We do appreciate your honest participation.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.


I honestly appreciate your beliefs and passion.
But statements like the above just do not pan out for everyone in the real world. There are awful awful awful things that happen to people right up until they are dead. There is no way out, no reprieve, no save, not stopping it before it is more than they can bear.
If that was not the case I would be more sympathetic to the sales pitches.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I honestly appreciate your beliefs and passion.
> But statements like the above just do not pan out for everyone in the real world. There are awful awful awful things that happen to people right up until they are dead. There is no way out, no reprieve, no save, not stopping it before it is more than they can bear.
> If that was not the case I would be more sympathetic to the sales pitches.



First, I’m not try to sell you anything, I’m not that guy. Simply answering your questions as best I can.

Christianity is based on faith, there is evidence of God all about but without faith one is blind to it.

”Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”

“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> ^
> Alot of times we try to nail down believers to a concrete answer. Which sometimes is alot like herding cats.  We do appreciate your honest participation.



Walt,  I enjoy our conversations. I’m not salesmen, I’m hopeful messenger.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> First, I’m not try to sell you anything, I’m not that guy. Simply answering your questions as best I can.
> 
> Christianity is based on faith, there is evidence of God all about but without faith one is blind to it.
> 
> ...


I understand that and don't take it personally. I have found that the results often don't match the claims because both pro and con are not always taken into consideration when statements are made.

Almost every religion makes claims about faith, or true believers,  or only the chosen being able to "see" whether it be their God in every day life or truly understand their religion. All others are blind.  I get it. I don't buy it, but I get the need to make believers feel unique. What you see as the results of the Christian God all around you others are just as sure that you are mistaken and blinded to not seeing their God in those very same things. I just cannot see where either is more "right" than the other. All of the followers use their own scripture as a source to back up their scripture because it doesn't hold water anywhere else outside of scripture. If any of it was unique where one set of faithful believers in one religion prospered over all the rest I would be the first to say that there is something to it. But so far all make the same claims and all are playing at the same level on the same field.
I absolutely do not think less of anyone for their beliefs but when the claims of beliefs are truths are made I ask for proof. When scripture contradicts itself I ask for clarity. When someone tells me that a God chooses who will see and who he will blind and then also touts Free Will I ask for their own personal opinion how both can be true. When a person answers that like Biden's Press Secretary with everything but addressing it directly I take it that they don't want to admit that something might not be right and would rather avoid the honest answer.

I do appreciate your input and taking the time to converse. Thanks.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 27, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I understand that and don't take it personally. I have found that the results often don't match the claims because both pro and con are not always taken into consideration when statements are made.
> 
> Almost every religion makes claims about faith, or true believers,  or only the chosen being able to "see" whether it be their God in every day life or truly understand their religion. All others are blind.  I get it. I don't buy it, but I get the need to make believers feel unique. What you see as the results of the Christian God all around you others are just as sure that you are mistaken and blinded to not seeing their God in those very same things. I just cannot see where either is more "right" than the other. All of the followers use their own scripture as a source to back up their scripture because it doesn't hold water anywhere else outside of scripture. If any of it was unique where one set of faithful believers in one religion prospered over all the rest I would be the first to say that there is something to it. But so far all make the same claims and all are playing at the same level on the same field.
> I absolutely do not think less of anyone for their beliefs but when the claims of beliefs are truths are made I ask for proof. When scripture contradicts itself I ask for clarity. When someone tells me that a God chooses who will see and who he will blind and then also touts Free Will I ask for their own personal opinion how both can be true. When a person answers that like Biden's Press Secretary with everything but addressing it directly I take it that they don't want to admit that something might not be right and would rather avoid the honest answer.
> ...



Your welcome.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

"All of the followers use their own scripture as a source to back up their scripture because it doesn't hold water anywhere else outside of scripture. If any of it was unique where one set of faithful believers in one religion prospered over all the rest I would be the first to say that there is something to it. But so far all make the same claims and all are playing at the same level on the same field." - Bullethead

Pretty much my take on religion in general. Most of them (the major established religions for sure) make miraculous/supernatural claims and so far ZERO miracles can be proved (to anybody but the followers of that religion) but many of the claims can be disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don't consider any single religion any better than any other religion. All religions make claims with the only "evidence" to the claims being the religion itself.  There is truly "nothing new under the sun" - as the Bible says - because Christianity uses myths, fables, legends and concepts from earlier religions and secular Greek philosophy. 

As long as any religion doesn't break any laws - or consider their religion above the law - people can believe whatever they want. That said here is something that grinds my gears  That is the *"RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION"* for not getting vaccinations. Sorry but your god's protection does not keep your children from getting sick and infecting my children. Your god's protection does not keep you from infecting me. If you don't understand germ theory and won't get your kids the same vaccinations that my kids have to get, they cannot attend my kid's school. Homeschool them or send them to a religious school with other unvaccinated kids. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT COVID! It applies to any and all mandated health protections. "God will protect me" shouldn't be an excuse for not wearing seatbelts, running with scissors, refusing a blood transfusion for your child, etc. etc.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Sep 27, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> " If you don't understand germ theory and won't get your kids the same vaccinations that my kids have to get, they cannot attend my kid's school. Homeschool them or send them to a religious school with other unvaccinated kids. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT COVID! It applies to any and all mandated health protections. "God will protect me" shouldn't be an excuse for not wearing seatbelts, running with scissors, refusing a blood transfusion for your child, etc. etc.



so, you are for forcing people to go against their personal belief system?  Seems reasonable to me.  Not.

Do you really think that me not wearing a seat belt is endangering you or your child?  That not getting a  blood transfusion somehow is a danger to your health?

Not even the super liberal democrats want to force  blood transfusions on folks


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 27, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> That said here is something that grinds my gears  That is the *"RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION"* for not getting vaccinations. Sorry but your god's protection does not keep your children from getting sick and infecting my children. Your god's protection does not keep you from infecting me. If you don't understand germ theory and won't get your kids the same vaccinations that my kids have to get, they cannot attend my kid's school. Homeschool them or send them to a religious school with other unvaccinated kids. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT COVID! It applies to any and all mandated health protections. "God will protect me" shouldn't be an excuse for not wearing seatbelts, running with scissors, refusing a blood transfusion for your child, etc. etc.



You seem to have as much faith in government and science as many religious people do in their god.  If the last two years has taught us anything, it's that government and science are untrustworthy.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> You seem to have as much faith in government and science as many religious people do in their god.  If the last two years has taught us anything, it's that government and science are untrustworthy.



That's why I said this is not about COVID. Until COVID came along pretty much everyone had no problem with getting their kids (or themselves) vaccinated against various diseases. Your kids could not go to school without getting these vaccinations. Apparently, scientists & doctors figured out that these vaccinations were a cheap & effective way to keep kids healthy. So if your religious beliefs keep you from getting your kids vaccinated - even though germs are just germs and don't respect your religious beliefs - should they be allowed to attend a public school? What makes your kid so special? Now if you can PROVE that your god will keep your kid germ free or at least keep the germs from infecting my kid, show me the proof.

Call me crazy but when religion starts affecting reality in a dangerous way that's infringing on my kid's right to be healthy. That's all I'm saying.

As for the blood transfusion (and other potentially life extending procedures) if your religion forbids them and your sickly kid dies you are evil and/or a mental deficient. You value fantasy & superstition over your own child's life. Fair enough?

Yes, government & science _can_ be untrustworthy but most of the time science is very trustworthy and reliable. Statistically prayer is a coin toss in its chance of effectiveness. Would you rather have the best trained & experienced doctors in your corner or the best trained & experienced preachers? Do you want the best scientists planning a manned space mission, or should we just shoot the rocket up and organize a prayer circle and see how it works out? I guess it all depends on your worldview.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 27, 2022)

NE GA Pappy said:


> so, you are for forcing people to go against their personal belief system?  Seems reasonable to me.  Not.
> 
> Do you really think that me not wearing a seat belt is endangering you or your child?  That not getting a  blood transfusion somehow is a danger to your health?
> 
> Not even the super liberal democrats want to force  blood transfusions on folks



You can follow your belief system all you want if it doesn't negatively affect other people or violate the law. Apparently people smarter than you or me figured out that wearing a seatbelt will benefit everyone on the road, and made it a law. You not letting your kid get a life saving blood transfusion endangers the life of a child. If you don't want to get one that's fine, but why kill your child? That's what I'm saying about religion not staying in its lane.


----------



## Kev (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Wouldn't an All Knowing and All Powerful God be able to thwart any and every "evil" force?
> Or
> Does God allow it?


Are you saying humans shouldn’t have choices?


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> That's why I said this is not about COVID. Until COVID came along pretty much everyone had no problem with getting their kids (or themselves) vaccinated against various diseases. Your kids could not go to school without getting these vaccinations.



I’ve never heard of anyone refusing to get MMR or smallpox vaccines for any reason, COVID or otherwise.  Maybe they’re out there.  If so, they’re nuts.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Would you rather have the best trained & experienced doctors in your corner or the best trained & experienced preachers?



Depends on what’s sick:  my body or my soul.

That said, modern medicine is amazing, but it has limits.  There are many physicians, but there is only one Great Physician.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Depends on what’s sick:  my body or my soul.
> 
> That said, modern medicine is amazing, but it has limits.  There are many physicians, but there is only one Great Physician.


That ^ sounds great and all, but........
Theres lots and lots of folks who pray their brains out over a loved one laying in a hospital bed to no avail.
It appears everything has limits.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> That ^ sounds great and all, but........
> Theres lots and lots of folks who pray their brains out over a loved one laying in a hospital bed to no avail.
> It appears everything has limits.



Exactly right, my wife, RN, deals with it all the time. Try as they might someone is too sick and they go from active care to comfort care. In our Christian world you pray for their comfort in the end of this life and find comfort that there is a spiritual life to follow.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Exactly right, my wife, RN, deals with it all the time. Try as they might someone is too sick and they go from active care to comfort care. In our Christian world you pray for their comfort in the end of this life and find comfort that there is a spiritual life to follow.





> Exactly right, my wife, RN, deals with it all the time. Try as they might someone is too sick and they go from active care to comfort care.


Thats one job I dont think I could take, seeing that kind of thing all the time.
But I sure am glad that there are people who can.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats one job I dont think I could take, seeing that kind of thing all the time.
> But I sure am glad that there are people who can.



Agreed, takes special people.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

Kev said:


> Are you saying humans shouldn’t have choices?


I am not saying that.
I am asking the people who say humans have Free Will about what it means when God says that he hardens humans hearts at his Will.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

Kev said:


> Are you saying humans shouldn’t have choices?



IMHO sane adult humans absolutely should have choices _in many situations _but not all. In some rare situations, human instinct takes over and there is no cognizant input required. But our choices should always consider the risk vs reward factor and our responsibilities & obligations to the other humans in our vicinity & society in general.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I’ve never heard of anyone refusing to get MMR or smallpox vaccines for any reason, COVID or otherwise.  Maybe they’re out there.  If so, they’re nuts.



Yes I agree they are nuts, but within their subculture they are the true believers and everyone else is nuts. This doesn't apply just to "religion" of course. There are nuts out there who have malnourished kids because they don't believe in eating protein, or whatever.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Depends on what’s sick:  my body or my soul.
> 
> That said, modern medicine is amazing, but it has limits.  There are many physicians, but there is only one Great Physician.



That may be your belief, and if praying to the Great Physician helps keep your spirits up (no pun intended) that's okay. I'm just saying medical science will CONSTANTLY improve but statistically intercessory prayer works no more than 50 percent of the time (a coin toss) and controlled studies have proven this - you can research it.
Generally, people who believe that intercessory prayer works are only counting the "hits" and not the "misses" over a significant timespan. Those are just the facts.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> That ^ sounds great and all, but........
> Theres lots and lots of folks who pray their brains out over a loved one laying in a hospital bed to no avail.
> It appears everything has limits.



It's literally a coin toss - and sometimes the prayed over have a less favorable outcome than what probability would predict. Study results vary, but in no case was intercessory prayer significantly better than not praying at all.


----------



## SLY22 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Technically God's Spirit should be hovering over everything, everywhere, at all times. It should be hovering over the waters right now, hovering over our keyboards and hovering over a child as her "uncle" enters her room and locks the door behind him.
> If God can make matter he can alter DNA but for some reason he either can't or won't stop an "uncle".
> Mysterious Ways....



The "uncle" has a choice.


----------



## SLY22 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> That may be your belief, and if praying to the Great Physician helps keep your spirits up (no pun intended) that's okay. I'm just saying medical science will CONSTANTLY improve but statistically intercessory prayer works no more than 50 percent of the time (a coin toss) and controlled studies have proven this - you can research it.
> Generally, people who believe that intercessory prayer works are only counting the "hits" and not the "misses" over a significant timespan. Those are just the facts.



Everyone is going to die. No matter how much prayer or how much medicine one takes , no one is getting out alive.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Exactly right, my wife, RN, deals with it all the time. Try as they might someone is too sick and they go from active care to comfort care. In our Christian world you pray for their comfort in the end of this life and find comfort that there is a spiritual life to follow.



So the prayer "works" every time whether it's in this world or the next? So no matter what the believers can't lose. IMHO a guaranteed "win" situation sounds too good to be true.   As long as the medical professionals are giving 100 percent to their efforts to cure people in this world, they can believe whatever they want to, on or off the job.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

Life and beliefs are odd. When my Mother In Law was sick we prayed for her to get better. When she deteriorated before our eyes we prayed for her to die quickly. When she didn't die quickly we prayed that she wouldn't agonize in the pain. When she agonized in the pain we prayed that her faith would get her where she thought she belonged.
0 fer 3 unanswered.  1 unknowable.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> The "uncle" has a choice.


Not if he was purposely hardened.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> The "uncle" has a choice.



Yep - he chooses to act upon his deviant urges. Sidenote pedos are almost NEVER - EVER - rehabilitated and should be put down like a dog with rabies. The minute the jury says "guilty" the court should get the body bag ready. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Not if he was purposely hardened.


 
No pun intended, I'm sure.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> So the prayer "works" every time whether it's in this world or the next? So no matter what the believers can't lose. IMHO a guaranteed "win" situation sounds too good to be true.   As long as the medical professionals are giving 100 percent to their efforts to cure people in this world, they can believe whatever they want to, on or off the job.



Depends on the definition of “works.” There’s time we don’t have understanding of God’s plan and may not be what we want. Praying for compassion and guidance vs a specific outcome.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> No pun intended, I'm sure.


Correct.
What I am saying is that Scripture clearly states that God wants us all to love him and spend eternity with him and all we have to do is accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
Then scripture clearly states that God by his very Will purposely will harden a person and prevent them from ever being capable of accepting Jesus and spending eternity with God. That also means God has chosen for those people to spend eternity in suffering flames for no other reason than he Wills it. Punishing those people for a choice he has made for them.
If a God will do that there is no telling what he also Wills people to do. Abusing children, murder, etc is nothing compared to condemning someone to Hades or all of eternity just because God decided that he wanted to.
Shrugging it off as "we don't know God's plan" is passing the buck and also admitting again that if God has a plan Free Will is a smoke screen. If God has a plan what happens is meant to happen. If God's Plan can be altered then why call him God?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> The "uncle" has a choice.


I think Bullet's point is -
Does God (the all powerful) have the power to stop the Uncle?
Either He cant or He chooses not to.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> No pun intended, I'm sure.


I'm trying not to laugh at that


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Life and beliefs are odd. When my Mother In Law was sick we prayed for her to get better. When she deteriorated before our eyes we prayed for her to die quickly. When she didn't die quickly we prayed that she wouldn't agonize in the pain. When she agonized in the pain we prayed that her faith would get her where she thought she belonged.
> 0 fer 3 unanswered.  1 unknowable.



This brings up a recent situation with my wife's family. A couple of years ago her dad died from Alzheimers related problems. Great guy, very sad to see him taken out by an unhealthy brain in an otherwise very healthy body. He was not a believer (his wife was) when I knew him, but when his brain went south his wife started going to church constantly and of course dragged him along since he had to be supervised at all times. She claimed he loved going to church but he had no idea where he was or what he was doing there. In his right mind he never would have gone. 

When he died she doubled down on the church going and all she ever talked about was wanting to die, so she could be with her husband - and Jesus of course - in heaven. 


But before all this her eyesight was terrible, and she drove like Mr. Magoo. She claimed she couldn't afford eye surgery, so she drove as little as possible. Nothing was within walking distance, so she felt she had few options other than drive. One day out of the blue she told my wife "I can see good now! Jesus cured my eyes!"   Of course my wife was skeptical and urged her to get her eyesight tested. Her mom said that she didn't need to do that - those doctors don't know what they're talking about! Jesus fixed her eyes, and they are fine now.  

So now she was driving with deteriorating eyesight and still praying for an early death, not taking her diabetes (and other) medications regularly and in general just neglecting her health. Oh, and running up HUGE DEBTS on her credit cards (but couldn't afford eye surgery?) because her dead husband can't keep her in check financially. 

One day she got in a terrible multi-car wreck which included leaving the scene and evading the police!   She knew she was in deep trouble and no doubt the court would revoke her license when they found out she was legally blind or close to it. 

She took an overdose of every medication she had in the house and won that trip to heaven so she could be with Jesus & her husband.  She was so in debt the bank took her house to pay the debts so while she didn't exactly mess her family over, she didn't do them any favors either. Bottom line IMHO when her husband and herself died their consciousness died with them - like with every other living thing on this planet - and I have no problem with that.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I am asking the people who say humans have Free Will about what it means when God says that he hardens humans hearts at his Will.



It means that God has a different effect on different people.

Put a lump of clay and a stick of butter on the hot sidewalk on a sunny day.  What happens?  The clay hardens, and the butter melts.

Did the sun change?  No, it just affected the clay and butter differently.  

The Bible is clear:

God is love.
God wants all to be saved.
God is unchanging.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> It's literally a coin toss - and sometimes the prayed over have a less favorable outcome than what probability would predict. Study results vary, but in no case was intercessory prayer significantly better than not praying at all.


I will say this -
I think praying does help the person doing the praying. They feel as if they are doing something in a situation that is out of their control. So there can be some knowable benefit to prayer.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm trying not to laugh at that



Hey, you set it up! I had no free will in this case - the joke made me do it.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> It means that God has a different effect on different people.
> 
> Put a lump of clay and a stick of butter on the hot sidewalk on a sunny day.  What happens?  The clay hardens, and the butter melts.
> 
> ...



I disagree on all these points specifically "the Bible is clear." But I respect your right to believe what you want - it's a free country.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> It means that God has a different effect on different people.
> 
> Put a lump of clay and a stick of butter on the hot sidewalk on a sunny day.  What happens?  The clay hardens, and the butter melts.
> 
> ...


Lots of things have different effects on different people.
Because people are different.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> That ^ sounds great and all, but........
> Theres lots and lots of folks who pray their brains out over a loved one laying in a hospital bed to no avail.
> It appears everything has limits.



Sometimes, the answer to prayer is “no”.  My mom is a saint and would do anything for me, but she’s told me “no” many, many times.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Lots of things have different affects on different people.
> Because people are different.



True, and God is just one of them.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> It means that God has a different effect on different people.
> 
> Put a lump of clay and a stick of butter on the hot sidewalk on a sunny day.  What happens?  The clay hardens, and the butter melts.
> 
> ...


If humans are the equivalent of butter and clay to you and that excuse is how to console yourself so be it.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I disagree on all these points specifically "the Bible is clear."



The Bible is absolutely clear on those three points.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I will say this -
> I think praying does help the person doing the praying. They feel as if they are doing something in a situation that is out of their control. So there can be some knowable benefit to prayer.



True, the positive psychological effect is beneficial. Then again religion can only affect psychological functioning since it has no basis in tangible reality. Religion/god exists only because the complicated & advanced human imagination enables it to exist. 
I could be wrong, but so far there is ZERO proof of a supernatural or spiritual realm.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> If humans are the equivalent of butter and clay to you and that excuse is how to console yourself so be it.



You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you.  It makes far more sense than believing God created a bunch of people just so He could send them to the hot place for all eternity.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Sometimes, the answer to prayer is “no”.  My mom is a saint and would do anything for me, but she’s told me “no” many, many times.


Again sounds great.... but -
You as a young kid are being abused by the gym teacher at school. You tell your mom and ask her to save you from the abuse.
She gonna say no?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> The Bible is absolutely clear on those three points.


 
I respect your opinion, as I respect the opinions of all believers in all the different religions across the big wide world.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you.  It makes far more sense than believing God created a bunch of people just so He could send them to the hot place for all eternity.


There are a number of Christians who believe exactly that ^ and can back it up with scripture.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you.  It makes far more sense than believing God created a bunch of people just so He could send them to the hot place for all eternity.



Yet statistically the vast majority of people will go to the hot place for all eternity. You could say they had a "choice" and brought it on themselves, but it sounds like an "ultimatum" by all regards: "WORSHIP ME OR SUFFER ETERNAL TORTURE!" sounds a lot like "give me your wallet or I'll blow your brains out!" Technically both are "making a choice" but I don't want to get all hung up in semantics.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> There are a number of Christians who believe exactly that ^ and can back it up with scripture.



The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Again sounds great.... but -
> You as a young kid are being abused by the gym teacher at school. You tell your mom and ask her to save you from the abuse.
> She gonna say no?



Of course not.  But that’s a different question than, “Mom, can I eat chocolate donuts three times a day?”


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> There are a number of Christians who believe exactly that ^ and can back it up with scripture.


 
Interesting note: the hot place as we know it wasn't a part of what would become developing Christian dogma until the strong Greek influence came into play. Many early Christians were Greeks (Jews - like Jesus was born into - already had their own religion which didn't have hot place) so to gain more converts the very early Christian church started to adopt more Greek ideas/mythology into their theology, one of which was a more vivid, descriptive, detailed concept of the hot place. Religions evolve to reflect societal changes - Christianity in 2022 has a different focus than Christianity in 1022 which had a different focus than Christianity in 122.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.


That sure is a slippery slope.
Opens up the possibility of all scripture being potentially "of the devil".
Or some of it. Or most of it. Or....


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Interesting note: the hot place as we know it wasn't a part of what would become developing Christian dogma until the strong Greek influence came into play. Many early Christians were Greeks (Jews - like Jesus was born into - already had their own religion which didn't have hot place) so to gain more converts the very early Christian church started to adopt more Greek ideas/mythology into their theology, one of which was a more vivid, descriptive, detailed concept of the hot place. Religions evolve to reflect societal changes - Christianity in 2022 has a different focus than Christianity in 1022 which had a different focus than Christianity in 122.


Yep.
A number of Christians today dont believe He11 was ever intended and is not intended for "us". They just believe in a "separation from God" as being the big punishment. 
I watched a documentary a few years ago talking about an early priest/preacher who had an attendance issue in his fledgling church. Started preaching the He11 concept and soon the pews were packed. Fear is a powerful weapon.


----------



## SLY22 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Interesting note: the hot place as we know it wasn't a part of what would become developing Christian dogma until the strong Greek influence came into play. Many early Christians were Greeks (Jews - like Jesus was born into - already had their own religion which didn't have hot place) so to gain more converts the very early Christian church started to adopt more Greek ideas/mythology into their theology, one of which was a more vivid, descriptive, detailed concept of the hot place. Religions evolve to reflect societal changes - Christianity in 2022 has a different focus than Christianity in 1022 which had a different focus than Christianity in 122.



You can explain it away all you like but I believe once you take your last breath you will know in an instance whether you were right or wrong.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Of course not.  But that’s a different question than, “Mom, can I eat chocolate donuts three times a day?”


I dont think you are getting the correlation Im making.
You say "of course not" because your Mom loves you and wants to protect you.
Yet sometimes the answer to prayer is No.
See where Im going with this?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> That's why I said this is not about COVID. Until COVID came along pretty much everyone had no problem with getting their kids (or themselves) vaccinated against various diseases. Your kids could not go to school without getting these vaccinations. Apparently, scientists & doctors figured out that these vaccinations were a cheap & effective way to keep kids healthy. So if your religious beliefs keep you from getting your kids vaccinated - even though germs are just germs and don't respect your religious beliefs - should they be allowed to attend a public school? What makes your kid so special? Now if you can PROVE that your god will keep your kid germ free or at least keep the germs from infecting my kid, show me the proof.
> 
> Call me crazy but when religion starts affecting reality in a dangerous way that's infringing on my kid's right to be healthy. That's all I'm saying.
> 
> ...



Science has made many mistakes in the past.  That isn't a weakness, it's its strength.  But science isn't always the right tool.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> You can explain it away all you like but I believe once you take your last breath you will know in an instance whether you were right or wrong.


Thats probably very true.
So all this "that other religion is wrong" and "they are wrong" and "only my religion is right" and "nonbelievers will pay" is really just a bunch of hogwash until you find out for sure.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Okay - here is an intriguing question: in the Garden of Eden God took one of Adam's ribs and used it to make Eve. Wouldn't that make Eve an exact* CLONE *of Adam since the DNA/genetic material is an* exact match?* How could Adam reproduce with an exact copy of himself - who would be a* MALE?*
> 
> If you take the Bible literally this story would be a tough situation to explain in the face of modern science. Of course, if you consider the story to be allegory, symbolism, metaphor, or just plain myth like countless other myths created by societies all over the world, there is much to be examined & interpreted.
> IMHO many (not all) Biblical "young earth" literalists are afraid to give an inch to scientific facts. Because if some parts of the Bible are incorrect, other parts may also be incorrect. How do they know what's literal/true and what is just a story to teach us humans life lessons?
> ...



I've tried to have what I consider aplogetic discussions with believers here.  I once tried to urge believers to make their best explanation, using their understanding of physics, as to how Jesus could walk on water.  Did he reverse the magnetic polarity of the atoms in the soles of his feet?  Did he reverse the polarity of the water?  What I came to realize is that they don't care about those kinds of questions in regard to miracles.  What the miracle stories seem give them i terms of their faith journey is comfort, and the need for comfort is rational, even if it comes at the cost of science.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Technically God's Spirit should be hovering over everything, everywhere, at all times. It should be hovering over the waters right now, hovering over our keyboards and hovering over a child as her "uncle" enters her room and locks the door behind him.
> If God can make matter he can alter DNA but for some reason he either can't or won't stop an "uncle".
> Mysterious Ways....



There are many things men of science will admit that they don't understand and are content to believe that they may never understand.  The best answer I have heard from a believer in regards to "Why does God let evil happen?" is "I don't know".


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I don’t have defend or deflect anything it’s a very personal choice. Your betting your soul.



Assuming a soul, of course.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you.  It makes far more sense than believing God created a bunch of people just so He could send them to the hot place for all eternity.


I did not ask how temperatures effect butter and clay.
I asking what seems to be a complex question and I am expecting a more in depth answer rather than a shrug off that has nothing to do with God specifically saying that he purposely hardens the hearts of some and not others.
If you want to get into why the Sun melts some butter but not all and why the Sun hardens some clay but not all by all means go ahead, I'll wait for for the God/Human explanation.


----------



## kmckinnie (Sep 28, 2022)

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm
Here’s some science for y’all to kick around with the rib of Adam. 
Does this mean all our wife’s are like related sone how all down thru history?
See y’all later.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I understand that and don't take it personally. I have found that the results often don't match the claims because both pro and con are not always taken into consideration when statements are made.
> 
> Almost every religion makes claims about faith, or true believers,  or only the chosen being able to "see" whether it be their God in every day life or truly understand their religion. All others are blind.  I get it. I don't buy it, but I get the need to make believers feel unique. What you see as the results of the Christian God all around you others are just as sure that you are mistaken and blinded to not seeing their God in those very same things. I just cannot see where either is more "right" than the other. All of the followers use their own scripture as a source to back up their scripture because it doesn't hold water anywhere else outside of scripture. If any of it was unique where one set of faithful believers in one religion prospered over all the rest I would be the first to say that there is something to it. But so far all make the same claims and all are playing at the same level on the same field.
> I absolutely do not think less of anyone for their beliefs but when the claims of beliefs are truths are made I ask for proof. When scripture contradicts itself I ask for clarity. When someone tells me that a God chooses who will see and who he will blind and then also touts Free Will I ask for their own personal opinion how both can be true. When a person answers that like Biden's Press Secretary with everything but addressing it directly I take it that they don't want to admit that something might not be right and would rather avoid the honest answer.
> ...



There was a time when in group solidarity and loyalty to the tribe, at the cost of vilifying "the others", meant survival.  Now, those impulses may actually be maladaptive.  So if you believe in evolution, you can predict that those impulses will be un-selected for in the future, which may account for the rise in "inclusive" churches.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> You can follow your belief system all you want if it doesn't negatively affect other people or violate the law. Apparently people smarter than you or me figured out that wearing a seatbelt will benefit everyone on the road, and made it a law. You not letting your kid get a life saving blood transfusion endangers the life of a child. If you don't want to get one that's fine, but why kill your child? That's what I'm saying about religion not staying in its lane.



Do seatbelts benefit everyone on the road?  My understanding of the rationale behind seatbelt laws is that wearing a seatbelt will minimize the risk of injury to the wearers and so reduce the cost of insurance claims.  Enforcement also became a source of income for police departments.  Wearing one doesn't make anyone a better driver.  A broad mandate can only be justified if it has a positive effect on everyone, not just the user.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Kev said:


> Are you saying humans shouldn’t have choices?



You mighty find some of these conversations interesting.

https://forum.gon.com/search/451797/?q=predestination&o=relevance


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Exactly right, my wife, RN, deals with it all the time. Try as they might someone is too sick and they go from active care to comfort care. In our Christian world you pray for their comfort in the end of this life and find comfort that there is a spiritual life to follow.



I used to wonder what I would say to a dying loved one if they asked me if I thought that we would be together again in Heaven.  My answer would be "I hope so".


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I am not saying that.
> I am asking the people who say humans have Free Will about what it means when God says that he hardens humans hearts at his Will.



Limited Freewill.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> IMHO sane adult humans absolutely should have choices _in many situations _but not all. In some rare situations, human instinct takes over and there is no cognizant input required. But our choices should always consider the risk vs reward factor and our responsibilities & obligations to the other humans in our vicinity & society in general.



How far can you go back to explain how you got here right now to have the thoughts that you do?  Where along that line did you make any choices?  Really look hard for those moments.


----------



## SLY22 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats probably very true.
> So all this "that other religion is wrong" and "they are wrong" and "only my religion is right" and "nonbelievers will pay" is really just a bunch of hogwash until you find out for sure.



Yes when you focus on words like "Religion", "They", "Nonbelievers" and not the "Bible" then yes it becomes Hogwash. You can study the Bible in the original languages it was written in and the English versions that you have confidence in and it still takes faith that Jesus came to earth died a terrible death then resurrected for Everyone sins.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Life and beliefs are odd. When my Mother In Law was sick we prayed for her to get better. When she deteriorated before our eyes we prayed for her to die quickly. When she didn't die quickly we prayed that she wouldn't agonize in the pain. When she agonized in the pain we prayed that her faith would get her where she thought she belonged.
> 0 fer 3 unanswered.  1 unknowable.



My brother emailed me this thing he wrote. He said I could share it with anyone.  I found it thought provoking.  

_Mom,_

_I was asked to write an introduction to a series of chapters about the moral self that will be part of an academic psychology book. Here is what I have written so far. I thought dad would like it. What do you think? It is his birthday present. _

_Son_

*ON THE VERTICAL: HOW THE MORAL SELF PURSUES ITS HIGHEST GOOD?*​            When I was a teenager, my father had a religious conversion. It was an unsettling time in our family because his language, his behavior, and his new way of dealing with worldly problems greatly changed. At the time, I thought of myself as an iconoclast and so I had many intense arguments with my father about the authenticity of his conversion and logical incoherence of his emerging faith. My mother, while raised to believe in God and attend church, was a nominal participant in religious worship. Like me, she is a natural doubter and often publicly questioned the declarations made from the pulpit of my father’s church. Her interrogations of how the church interpreted Biblical doctrine led my father to accuse her of being an obstacle to his spiritual growth. Family life was not always harmonious during this period.
As my father became more deeply immersed in his religion, he grew closer to a community of like-minded people who I also came to know over many years as part of our extended family. Eventually, my father became a pastor, guiding a small flock who sought moral guidance from him and from something beyond themselves. All of the arguments I had with my father, along with my occasional participation in his religious community’s ceremonial observances, gave me many opportunities to observe how people think about and express morality in their everyday lives. When I pursued an academic career, the contrast between the morality of the people I was surrounded by in the academy and that of the less credentialed laity in my father’s church become more glaring.
I learned over time that a fair number of my colleagues were either dismissive of or openly hostile towards religion. Others were indifferent to it, but charitable toward those who find solace in a simple faith. The more zealous of the anti-religious types were convinced that religion was plague upon humanity that should be replaced as soon as possible with a rational, evidence-based system of morality built upon the findings of science and the empire of reason. Having heard, thought about, and studied many of the allegations they have made against religion and its practitioners for over two decades, it is not obvious to me that the alternatives they proffer for how to live one’s life are any wiser, more nourishing, or more humane than the one my father discovered when he reached his moment of decision.
            The gulf between the thought worlds of father and his fellow believers and that of many with whom I shared an intellectual community largely inspired my interest in studying the psychology of morality. My naïve ethnography of faith and non-faith communities informed my theorizing along with the hundreds of articles and books that I voraciously consumed in my quest to unravel the mysteries of moral life. I listened to, watched, and read about how agnostics, believers, and atheists explained their earthly predicament, comported themselves in the aftermath of personal tragedy or frustrated goals, and how they treated neighbors and strangers during times of need or plentitude. I also introspected regularly about my own moral thoughts, emotions, and behaviors as I bungled my way, often badly, through moral quandaries, deluded or distracted myself to avoid confronting my hypocrisy or cruelty, or projected my depravities or hostilities onto others. I wondered about what these differences reveal about how morality shapes individual and group behavior.
Twenty years ago, I came across a concept that gave me a useful framework for studying morality and organizing my reflections into a coherent explanation for what I had observed. That idea was the moral self-concept, which my colleague Americus Reed and I referred to in a paper we published in 2002 as a person’s _moral identity_. Drawing from decades of theory and research on identity, we defined moral identity as the mental model a person holds about their moral character. This model can include traits they believe they possess that are generally associated with morality such as honesty, compassion, or fairness. It can also include their values, beliefs, ideas about their relationship to others, and stories they tell themselves and others about how they dealt with moral dilemmas. In other words, moral identity is a capacious concept but it can be summarized by the basic notion that it is how one thinks about themselves in the sphere of moral judgment, choice, and action.
            When Americus and I first began exploring moral identity, only a handful of scholars in the social sciences had used the term; most of them were developmental psychologists. Augusto Blasi was perhaps the most influential of the early moral identity theorists and his writings were invaluable for helping us develop our own definition of the concept. Professor Blasi’s contributions to explaining how the self can be a source of sustained moral motivation were seminal and provocative, but his papers, and those of others who wrote about moral identity at the time, were largely theoretical or philosophical. Americus and I wanted to study moral identity empirically, so we developed a measure of its self-importance that has since been used in hundreds of studies
            It is gratifying to see how the idea of the how the self understands morality has expanded beyond its early roots, and I am grateful to the editors of this volume for giving me an opportunity to reflect upon the state of the research and to share my views on what territory remains unexplored. I would like to focus this introduction to the writings that follow to consider what is perhaps the most urgent question one might ask about the moral self in the current historical moment.  I introduce it by alluding to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous assertion that God is dead.
When Nietzsche wrote these words at the end of the 19th century, he did not intend them to be a bland descriptive statement like “The rose is red”. Rather, they were an ominous warning about the price humanity must pay for rejecting what until then had been the most important source of meaning and moral instruction for millions of people throughout history. What remains after the death of God was anyone’s guess. Nietzsche spent the remainder of his sane life trying to answer this question. Unfortunately, madness ended his attempt. I submit, without any claim to originality, that the challenge facing billions of people around the world after the death of God is how to comprehend a self that is the ultimate creator, arbiter, and judge of what constitutes the moral universe. It is a heavy burden. In a world without a transcendent, supreme authority to turn to for moral direction, the self can only either turn inward to its conscience or horizontally towards the actions, suggestions, or commands given by other mortal selves to help it navigate through the increasingly complex and seemingly intractable moral problems that confront the present age. Understanding how the modern self comes to know right and wrong a time when nihilism and a polytheistic worship of many “gods”, whether they be money, power, hedonistic pleasure, political ideology, or a charismatic leader, appears to be default psychological and cultural condition among many in the developed world offers many opportunities for study, as the chapters in this volume attest.
            Another way of stating this condition is that the morality the modern self often generates or accepts as true for either its own use or to facilitate social cooperation has increasingly become a solely horizontal one, by which I mean it is a morality that tells us how we should relate to other terrestrial beings that, like us, are a part of the natural world. This perspective contrasts with one that views the self as being in a vertical relationship to a being that exists outside of nature and time and towards which it is subordinate. The shift from a moral self that stood in vertical relationship to a supreme being to one that is largely conceived as being in a lateral relationship with other biological equals, whether they be human, animal, or plant, is one of the hallmarks of the ascendant naturalism that seems to dominate the thought world of many who have received the gift of higher education. This belief is widely assumed by those who claim to be best equipped for advancing human welfare as being a sufficient for explaining all of what we know about the world. I suggest that the individual and social consequences of the change from looking upward to looking across at other biological equals to deduce the moral rules by which we should all live can be analyzed by invoking the idea of a _relational self. _The relational self refers to how a person thinks about their connection to other individuals with whom they have some causal or intimate interactions. What distinguishes the relational self from other ways of thinking about the self is that it is not focused on one’s individual qualities or their membership in a larger collective. Rather, it reflects one’s role in a relationship with a singular other such as a friend, a team member, a neighbor, or a God.
My reading of the literature is that scholars have paid relatively less attention to the moral self as relational concept compared to the attention devoted to studying the self as a set of individual attributes or as a member of a larger collective like an ethnic group or nation state. It was therefore encouraged to notice that one of the chapters in this volume written by Maryam Kouchacki and Rajen Anderson focuses on moral self-views at the interpersonal level. This treatment of the moral self is much needed, and readers of this chapter will discover many new insights about how our interactions with others in relational contexts shape our views of ourselves and our behavior.
Reviewing the content of all of the chapters in this section on the moral self and writing this introductory reflection has been valuable because it forced me to consider what questions I might ask if I were to study the moral self with fresh and innocent eyes. Here are some of the questions I thought I would ask:

How does a self that submits to no transcendent authority arrange its values into a hierarchy, and on what grounds does it justify this arrangement? Nietzsche claimed that humans are valuing creatures, and it seems to me that the question of how our minds deduce value from messy experiences of everyday life and more importantly how it decides which values it should raise to paramount importance remains largely mysterious. For instance, does the brain have a “valuing module”? Are there connections among different brain systems that explain the process of valuing? Philosophers and theologians have grappled with the question of objective value for hundreds of years. Studies on the moral self can inform this conversation by discovering how the human brain goes about the task of valuing and revaluing. Toward this end, readers will find the chapter by Jennifer Jordan, Elizabeth Mullen, and Marijke Leliveld particularly informative because it offers speculations on how self may go about arranging its value hierarchy to meet the requirements of different situations because it is malleable.
If the self has the capacity to internalize the moralities of many “gods” (Nietzsche would call them idols) with different and competing systems of value, how does it choose its allegiances? What mental mechanisms does it draw from to make peace among its warring gods, which include the different ideologies, cultural expectations, transitory emotional states, faith-based commitments, and the like that make demands upon the self that can be equally compelling. Jolanda Jetten and Charlie R. Crimston explore this question in their chapter by looking at intragroup dissent, which is the willingness by a group member to challenge or deviate from the demands for conformity imposed by a group. Social pressure is among the most commanding of terrestrial gods, so understanding why individuals do not always yield to its imperatives has been an abiding interest to those who consider dissent essential for a well-functioning democracy. But who is willing to bear the costs of dissent when the demands for conformity are intense and price of deviance is high remains almost impossible to predict. Sometimes those who appear least likely to resist, like a Rosa Parks, end up being the ones whose disobedience ignites a revolution. It is possible that part of the answer for why some conform and others do not can be found in how the dissenter views the self.
Walt Whitman presented a defiant defense of moral hypocrisy when he wrote that if he contradicts himself then so be it for the asserts that “I am large, I contain multitudes”. Whitman had a complex self-understanding as anyone who has read his verse can attest. But what is the consequence of thinking that one contains a multitude of selves? Does it mean that one can casually and without psychic cost shed, revise, or recreate our moral self as we wish? To reinvent one’s self is a modern trope that appears to heed the heroic Nietzschean call to become who one is. Yet is it conducive to the practice or morality to have a world of people trying to live out the ideal of a protean self and experimenting with different selves as they go along? What can we say about self-view that permits someone to behave like a de Sadian libertine at one moment and in another perform an act of compassion worthy of St. Francis? What kind of moral self would this be? Perhaps the ability to maintain an essentialist belief in one’s moral goodness even when confronted with evidence to the contrary is a psychic benefit of a complex and malleable moral self. On the other hand, it seems worth asking whether the capacity to execute such mental operations is conducive to the formation of a sound and reliable moral character on which some workable form of social order depends.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Related to the previous question is how might our delusions inform or misinform our understanding and appraisal of our moral actions? One of Nietzsche’s most decisive blows against the morally sanctimonious was his assertion that the will to untruth is more valuable to our survival than the will to truth. Moral psychology has revealed time and time again that we lie to ourselves and to others all the time to support a belief in our moral goodness. The chapter by Matthew J. Hornsey considers this phenomenon at an intergroup level. As Professor Hornsey explains, intergroup processes can allow people to evade moral self-reflection and rationalize immorality. This observation seems particularly relevant during times of polarization and rapid social change where groups that may have once shared a common identity begin to separate and view one another as enemies rather than partners in a valuable and worthy moral enterprise.
Eastern religious traditions counsel that the escape from suffering requires the extinction of the self. The literature on the moral self has been relatively silent about ways of conceiving the self as something to be annihilated rather than preserved. Is it even possible to know whether there is such thing as a non-self in the way that the Buddhist monk might experience this state of being? Does a non-self have a moral identity? How would the non-self answer the Trolley Problem? The Western mind and the psychological theories it produced offers few empirical answers to these questions. Perhaps like the mysterious Zen koan they are beyond the reach of science, but it might be worth finding out if this is so.
Finally, what is the self up to when it makes conspicuous displays of its moral _bona fides_? Social media allows people to present a persona of moral goodness to a global audience, but the image often distorts the reality. What are we to make of the behavior colloquially known as “virtue signaling”? What does it reveal about the values of a culture when many of its members believe it important or even necessary to advertise their moral status to one another, regardless of its fidelity to whatever virtues (or lack thereof) the advertiser believes they possess? Are the motives for virtue signaling similar to those that explain the conspicuous consumption of luxury goods that the economist Thorstein Veblen argued was a way for those who possesses a surfeit of wealth and leisure to distinguish the noble from the common? Does frequent virtue signaling indicate that one possesses morality in abundance, or is it more diagnostic of its absence? Is a self that hungers for social validation of its moral worth a psychology healthy one? Would a self that understands itself to be in a vertical relationship with a supreme being whose grace is lavish and whose love is infinite require such validation to experience itself as having value?
No doubt the reader’s engagement with the essays that follow will raise many more questions than these. If so, I consider it a positive sign that this topic will have a long intellectual shelf life.
During my father’s slow decline from dementia, I watched the moral self he had fashioned from a lifetime of activities, memories, and shared experiences disintegrate and fade away. All the while, I saw the community of believers he had served and worshiped try to ease his passage to the other world. They would clean him when he soiled himself, lift him from his bed to his wheelchair, sing him songs of praise, laugh at his repetitive and often unintelligible jokes, reminisce about past adventures, read him Bible verses, and pray with him until the very end. I was told that he expired after one of the church members who had been a constant companion in his last days concluded the reading of one of his favorite passages from the Psalms. I do not know what moral self-view these believers held, but what I infer from how they dedicated themselves to caring for my father and providing relief for my mother over several years is that the moral universe they inhabited was not an indifferent and pitiless one. I may never acquire the spiritual clarity that characterized my father’s faith, but I hope that before he died his last coherent experience of a moral self was one that stood looking upward, in a relationship of loving reverence, towards its beckoning God. My father was no Nietzschean superman. He chose not to kill God, and for him that made all the difference in this world -- and maybe the next.

*This hasn't been through final editing.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> Yes when you focus on words like "Religion", "They", "Nonbelievers" and not the "Bible" then yes it becomes Hogwash. You can study the Bible in the original languages it was written in and the English versions that you have confidence in and it still takes faith that Jesus came to earth died a terrible death then resurrected for Everyone sins.


Is it Double Jeopardy?
If Jesus died for our sins can we still be held accountable for our sins?


----------



## SLY22 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Is it Double Jeopardy?
> If Jesus died for our sins can we still be held accountable for our sins?


Yes


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Related to the previous question is how might our delusions inform or misinform our understanding and appraisal of our moral actions? One of Nietzsche’s most decisive blows against the morally sanctimonious was his assertion that the will to untruth is more valuable to our survival than the will to truth. Moral psychology has revealed time and time again that we lie to ourselves and to others all the time to support a belief in our moral goodness. The chapter by Matthew J. Hornsey considers this phenomenon at an intergroup level. As Professor Hornsey explains, intergroup processes can allow people to evade moral self-reflection and rationalize immorality. This observation seems particularly relevant during times of polarization and rapid social change where groups that may have once shared a common identity begin to separate and view one another as enemies rather than partners in a valuable and worthy moral enterprise.
> Eastern religious traditions counsel that the escape from suffering requires the extinction of the self. The literature on the moral self has been relatively silent about ways of conceiving the self as something to be annihilated rather than preserved. Is it even possible to know whether there is such thing as a non-self in the way that the Buddhist monk might experience this state of being? Does a non-self have a moral identity? How would the non-self answer the Trolley Problem? The Western mind and the psychological theories it produced offers few empirical answers to these questions. Perhaps like the mysterious Zen koan they are beyond the reach of science, but it might be worth finding out if this is so.
> Finally, what is the self up to when it makes conspicuous displays of its moral _bona fides_? Social media allows people to present a persona of moral goodness to a global audience, but the image often distorts the reality. What are we to make of the behavior colloquially known as “virtue signaling”? What does it reveal about the values of a culture when many of its members believe it important or even necessary to advertise their moral status to one another, regardless of its fidelity to whatever virtues (or lack thereof) the advertiser believes they possess? Are the motives for virtue signaling similar to those that explain the conspicuous consumption of luxury goods that the economist Thorstein Veblen argued was a way for those who possesses a surfeit of wealth and leisure to distinguish the noble from the common? Does frequent virtue signaling indicate that one possesses morality in abundance, or is it more diagnostic of its absence? Is a self that hungers for social validation of its moral worth a psychology healthy one? Would a self that understands itself to be in a vertical relationship with a supreme being whose grace is lavish and whose love is infinite require such validation to experience itself as having value?
> No doubt the reader’s engagement with the essays that follow will raise many more questions than these. If so, I consider it a positive sign that this topic will have a long intellectual shelf life.
> ...


That is a lot to take in on the initial read but it was interesting and worth my time to re-read through it a few more times.
Thank you for sharing.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> Yes


Ok, so the flood gave mankind a new start and we sinned our way to God deciding to kill his Son to give us a new start and we(all of us) continue to sin every day since the reset.
What is the next Do-over to save us again for a 3rd time and does God's foreknowledge see that this time it will work?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> That is a lot to take in on the initial read but it was interesting and worth my time to re-read through it a few more times.
> Thank you for sharing.




I admit I read it once real fast and then again in pieces.  I'm glad you find it interesting.  It's given me allot to think about because I know how much my brother reads and thinks about this stuff.  In response, I told him about something I read in Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's new book.  They say that any cultural beliefs that endure are probably evolutionarily adaptive. And that there are many cultural beliefs that may be literally false but if acted upon as if true, produce a net benefit, like "treating all guns as loaded".  They also refer to the parable of Chesterton's fence allot, which states "If you don't know why a fence is there, don't dismantle it".  They convinced me that we should approach the prospect of undoing faith and religion the same way.  I hope one day we can find a belief system that does all the good things religion does but comports better with science and is more universal.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Yep - he chooses to act upon his deviant urges. Sidenote pedos are almost NEVER - EVER - rehabilitated and should be put down like a dog with rabies. The minute the jury says "guilty" the court should get the body bag ready. Just my 2 cents.



Remember the guy who went up in the clock tower and shot a bunch of people?  He kept telling Drs. that he was hearing voices and couldn't control his thoughts.  Turns out he had a giant tumour in his brain that might have induced homicidal rage.  He was like a lion or a grizzly, a force of nature.  If the dog you loved for many years gets rabies and becomes a threat to you and the community, it will have to be euthanized, but it changes the way that you think about its agency.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Yep - he chooses to act upon his deviant urges. Sidenote pedos are almost NEVER - EVER - rehabilitated and should be put down like a dog with rabies. The minute the jury says "guilty" the court should get the body bag ready. Just my 2 cents.



Would you support the use of Virtual Reality or Robotic therapeutics for people with that type of derangement?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Correct.
> What I am saying is that Scripture clearly states that God wants us all to love him and spend eternity with him and all we have to do is accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
> Then scripture clearly states that God by his very Will purposely will harden a person and prevent them from ever being capable of accepting Jesus and spending eternity with God. That also means God has chosen for those people to spend eternity in suffering flames for no other reason than he Wills it. Punishing those people for a choice he has made for them.
> If a God will do that there is no telling what he also Wills people to do. Abusing children, murder, etc is nothing compared to condemning someone to Hades or all of eternity just because God decided that he wanted to.
> Shrugging it off as "we don't know God's plan" is passing the buck and also admitting again that if God has a plan Free Will is a smoke screen. If God has a plan what happens is meant to happen. If God's Plan can be altered then why call him God?



You must be bored.  We've done this one a bunch.  Here's an interesting discussion (it was to me, anyway) on freewill.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I think Bullet's point is -
> Does God (the all powerful) have the power to stop the Uncle?
> Either He cant or He chooses not to.



I don't know what the original word in Hebrew or Aramaic is for the translated term "Sovereign" is, but if they meant sovereign, then the only answer is that God allows evil as part of his plan and you better make peace with that if you wanna keep the faith.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> You must be bored.  We've done this one a bunch.  Here's an interesting discussion (it was to me, anyway) on freewill.


Not bored, just old plays on new players.  Run it till they stop it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> This brings up a recent situation with my wife's family. A couple of years ago her dad died from Alzheimers related problems. Great guy, very sad to see him taken out by an unhealthy brain in an otherwise very healthy body. He was not a believer (his wife was) when I knew him, but when his brain went south his wife started going to church constantly and of course dragged him along since he had to be supervised at all times. She claimed he loved going to church but he had no idea where he was or what he was doing there. In his right mind he never would have gone.
> 
> When he died she doubled down on the church going and all she ever talked about was wanting to die, so she could be with her husband - and Jesus of course - in heaven.
> 
> ...



Sounds terrible.  I'm sorry you and your family had to go through that.  There are parts of the Bible which would have led her down a better path.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Not bored, just old plays on new players.  Run it till they stop it.



It's not the game they want to play.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Sometimes, the answer to prayer is “no”.  My mom is a saint and would do anything for me, but she’s told me “no” many, many times.



I've heard it said that God answers prayers in three ways "Yes, No, and Not right now".  That about covers any situation.  House rules.


----------



## SLY22 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Ok, so the flood gave mankind a new start and we sinned our way to God deciding to kill his Son to give us a new start and we(all of us) continue to sin every day since the reset.
> What is the next Do-over to save us again for a 3rd time and does God's foreknowledge see that this time it will work?



You have more questions than I have answers with out me feeling like I'm riding a Merry Go Round. I wish you well receiving whatever you're looking for.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> True, the positive psychological effect is beneficial. Then again religion can only affect psychological functioning since it has no basis in tangible reality. Religion/god exists only because the complicated & advanced human imagination enables it to exist.
> I could be wrong, but so far there is ZERO proof of a supernatural or spiritual realm.



Some studies show that people with faith respond to therapies and medicines better that those without.  They are often better patients and endure their suffering and demise better.

No proof of Quantum Entanglement either.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I respect your opinion, as I respect the opinions of all believers in all the different religions across the big wide world.



That's not necessary.  There are some religions whose doctrines more easily direct their adherents towards bad behavior.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Yet statistically the vast majority of people will go to the hot place for all eternity. You could say they had a "choice" and brought it on themselves, but it sounds like an "ultimatum" by all regards: "WORSHIP ME OR SUFFER ETERNAL TORTURE!" sounds a lot like "give me your wallet or I'll blow your brains out!" Technically both are "making a choice" but I don't want to get all hung up in semantics.




You would like the meme about Jesus at the door.  Maybe someone can find it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Interesting note: the hot place as we know it wasn't a part of what would become developing Christian dogma until the strong Greek influence came into play. Many early Christians were Greeks (Jews - like Jesus was born into - already had their own religion which didn't have hot place) so to gain more converts the very early Christian church started to adopt more Greek ideas/mythology into their theology, one of which was a more vivid, descriptive, detailed concept of the hot place. Religions evolve to reflect societal changes - Christianity in 2022 has a different focus than Christianity in 1022 which had a different focus than Christianity in 122.



See: Gehenna


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> You can explain it away all you like but I believe once you take your last breath you will know in an instance whether you were right or wrong.



Seeing as there are over 10,000 different gods on offer, you are making a 1:10,000 bet.  Non-believers are making a coin flip, 50:50;  God or no god.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> You must be bored.  We've done this one a bunch.  Here's an interesting discussion (it was to me, anyway) on freewill.


That is a thinker


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> It's not the game they want to play.


Then why suit up?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Then why suit up?



They were expecting two hand touch, not full pads.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> That is a thinker



Not everyone is capable or interested in that kind of analysis.  He sometimes loses me.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I dont think you are getting the correlation Im making.
> You say "of course not" because your Mom loves you and wants to protect you.
> Yet sometimes the answer to prayer is No.
> See where Im going with this?



In hindsight, I can understand why my mom told me "no".  I can't always say the same thing about God.  I cannot fathom His mind.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I did not ask how temperatures effect butter and clay.
> I asking what seems to be a complex question and I am expecting a more in depth answer rather than a shrug off that has nothing to do with God specifically saying that he purposely hardens the hearts of some and not others.
> If you want to get into why the Sun melts some butter but not all and why the Sun hardens some clay but not all by all means go ahead, I'll wait for for the God/Human explanation.



You asked for clarity on free will.  I gave it (post 26.)

You asked for an explanation of God "hardening" some.  I gave it (post 62.)

All I can do is to explain God to the best of my ability.  You're asking me to explain a God that neither one of us believes in.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> You asked for clarity on free will.  I gave it (post 26.)
> 
> You asked for an explanation of God "hardening" some.  I gave it (post 62.)
> 
> All I can do is to explain God to the best of my ability.  You're asking me to explain a God that neither one of us believes in.


I appreciate the attempts. I just cannot agree with the analogies.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> Yes when you focus on words like "Religion", "They", "Nonbelievers" and not the "Bible" then yes it becomes Hogwash. You can study the Bible in the original languages it was written in and the English versions that you have confidence in and it still takes faith that Jesus came to earth died a terrible death then resurrected for Everyone sins.





> it still takes faith that Jesus came to earth died a terrible death then resurrected for Everyone sins.


Agree 100%.
I do believe Jesus (as we call him) existed and died a terrible death.
Its the rest of the story I'm not sold on.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> You would like the meme about Jesus at the door.  Maybe someone can find it.


----------



## ryanh487 (Sep 28, 2022)

Either God is real or He isn't.  If He's real (which I believe He is) then He is omnipotent and capable of doing anything He wishes without limit.  Questioning how the creator of science can defy science is like a robot wondering how it's creator can breath when it can't.  Limits exist within creation, not around the creator.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


>




Thanks, Walt.  It's a classic.

So, what would be your best attempt to steelman why this meme is inaccurate?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

ryanh487 said:


> Either God is real or He isn't.  If He's real (which I believe He is) then He is omnipotent and capable of doing anything He wishes without limit.  Questioning how the creator of science can defy science is like a robot wondering how it's creator can breath when it can't.  Limits exist within creation, not around the creator.



"Either God is real or He isn't."

I have a feeling it's more complicated than that.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> You can follow your belief system all you want if it doesn't negatively affect other people or violate the law. Apparently people smarter than you or me figured out that wearing a seatbelt will benefit everyone on the road, and made it a law. You not letting your kid get a life saving blood transfusion endangers the life of a child. If you don't want to get one that's fine, but why kill your child? That's what I'm saying about religion not staying in its lane.


Read your history. This country has a Christian foundation regardless if you accept it or not. Research the original purpose of the  school system. Your choice to be free from religion was also established by those same Settlers. You shouldn’t feel violated because of Christianity. No one made you do anything with it.

The Muslims are here, and so are many other religions. I don’t feel violated by them nor feel negatively affected.

But remember, the Muslims didn’t settle this country. Their ways are not in our legal system……..yet.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Read your history. This country has a Christian foundation regardless if you accept it or not. Research the original purpose of the  school system. Your choice to be free from religion was also established by those same Settlers. You shouldn’t feel violated because of Christianity. No one made you do anything with it.
> 
> The Muslims are here, and so are many other religions. I don’t feel violated by them nor feel negatively affected.
> 
> But remember, the Muslims didn’t settle this country. Their ways are not in our legal system……..yet.



We should all be exposed to more history than we are.  Christianity has it's roots in many other religious traditions that came before it.  You can accept that or not.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> We should all be exposed to more history than we are.  Christianity has it's roots in many other religious traditions that came before it.  You can accept that or not.


Yea but regardless of who what and why were here somewhere on this planet before………who had the guts to establish us as a nation and set up a government for us to live by? My response was in relation to laws that affected someone because of Christianity.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Seeing as there are over 10,000 different gods on offer, you are making a 1:10,000 bet.  Non-believers are making a coin flip, 50:50;  God or no god.


Not exactly a correct statement. Remember, we (believer and non believer) ruled all those other gods out……..you (non believer) took it one God further. So the other 10,000 aren’t considered in play until a non believer needs them to help keep ruling out the one God they’ve already claimed to have ruled out.

The difference is…..who is the Flying Spaghetti Monster…….it’s of no thought to a believer, ruled out.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Yea exactly one year ago today I got that text saying my brother was on the way to ER via ambulance.
> 
> 3 hours later I get the update where he’s being admitted to ICU for a blood transfusion.
> 
> ...



Some may take solace in the belief that you believing you chose to cut your finger was God's plan.  By the rules you have chosen to follow, either God is sovereign or he's not.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Some may take solace in the belief that you believing you chose to cut your finger was God's plan.  By the rules you have chosen to follow, either God is sovereign or he's not.


Well to be fair there are some that handle snakes and drink poison so your point is valid.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Not exactly a correct statement. Remember, we (believer and non believer) ruled all those other gods out……..you (non believer) took it one God further. So the other 10,000 aren’t considered in play until a non believer needs them to help keep ruling out the one God they’ve already claimed to have ruled out.



Did you REALLY give due diligence to ruling ALL of them out?  The nonbeliever has ruled out the necessity for that entire endeavor.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Well to be fair there are some that handle snakes and drink poison so your point is valid.



"I'm not the crazy one, THEY are.  I believe in REGULAR miracles".


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ever watch cryptozoologists argue amongst each other?  It's reminiscent of some of the arguments a couple floors up.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Did you REALLY give due diligence to ruling ALL of them out?  The nonbeliever has ruled out the necessity for that entire endeavor.



So has the believer. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, makes due diligence unnecessary.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> So has the believer. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, makes due diligence unnecessary.



I'm not sure how that relates to the probability question.  Maybe it's like "I never bet on 13", or something like that.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> So has the believer. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, makes due diligence unnecessary.




Is it like "We're a Ford family around here.  We don't need to try any other kind of cars"?


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Did you REALLY give due diligence to ruling ALL of them out?  The nonbeliever has ruled out the necessity for that entire endeavor.


There was only one that I can connect my experience to and if I look at any of them others….then yes it’s due diligence because they can’t deliver that. How do I know the one did, because it happened exactly how it’s described in the Bible. I’m not talking about a feel good moment at a gas pump after feeling sorry for myself either.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Is it like "We're a Ford family around here.  We don't need to try any other kind of cars"?


No but when you know the only way to this spot is by boat then the ford truck is ruled out.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> There was only one that I can connect my experience to and if I look at any of them others….then yes it’s due diligence because they can’t deliver that. How do I know the one did, because it happened exactly how it’s described in the Bible. I’m nit talking about a feel good moment at a gas pump after feeling sorry for myself either.



How would you ever know if you don't try?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Is it like "We're a Ford family around here.  We don't need to try any other kind of cars"?



No not at all, but see your question.

It’s part of the buy in. God spoke to Moses and delivered the Ten Commandments. As you can see the first two having to do with other Gods. Due diligence as you call it is a deal breaker.


You shall have no other God's before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. ... 
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. ... 
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy. ... 
Honor your father and mother. ... 
Thou shalt not kill. ... 
Thou shalt not commit adultery. ... 
Thou shalt not steal.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> No but when you know the only way to this spot is by boat then the ford truck is ruled out.



Are you purposely misunderstanding the metaphor I'm using?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> No not at all, but see your question.
> 
> It’s part of the buy in. God spoke to Moses and delivered the Ten Commandments. As you can see the first two having to do with other Gods. Due diligence as you call it is a deal breaker.
> 
> ...




Very well understood.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> No not at all, but see your question.
> 
> It’s part of the buy in. God spoke to Moses and delivered the Ten Commandments. As you can see the first two having to do with other Gods. Due diligence as you call it is a deal breaker.
> 
> ...



Is there any other part of your life that you would apply such inflexibility to?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Is there any other part of your life that you would apply such inflexibility to?



The description of judgement sets out some absolutes.

“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.”


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> How would you ever know if you don't try?


What do they have to offer that’s worth trying?


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Are you purposely misunderstanding the metaphor I'm using?



I didn’t misunderstand your metaphor of “my momma was a Baptist my granddaddy was a Baptist so I’m going to be a Baptist, we don’t need to try anything else”

I’m simply saying it doesn’t matter what car choice you chose, if it takes a boat to get to that destination. You don’t have to rule out other cars - the due diligence is already completed.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> That sure is a slippery slope.
> Opens up the possibility of all scripture being potentially "of the devil".
> Or some of it. Or most of it. Or....



Or maybe, just maybe.... mankind can cite scripture for his own purpose! 
Which brings up an interesting point: a lot of believers think that *everybody *deep down knows that god exists (it's so obvious, right? I mean look around at the wondrous complexity!) but unbelievers just keep denying it.

*So let me flip the script!* Just ponder this: perhaps the default state is *everybody* deep, deep, deep down knows that there is no god (it's obvious right? So many religions with conflicting viewpoints!) but believers just won't admit it.

If more people currently believe in god than _don't_ believe does that automatically make it the correct status quo? How many people believe because they were "born into it" and never really thought much about it - they just assumed it was the way things are? Something to think about!


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> "I'm not the crazy one, THEY are.  I believe in REGULAR miracles".


Regular miracles verses irregular was not the point. It was to point out the fact that "Some may take solace in the belief that you believing you chose to cut your finger was God's plan." is a twisting of scripture, no different than the non believer concluding that a rib taken from one by a Creator should have resulted in a clone of the creation that the Creator created to begin with.............because science says so. It is a perfect example that SOME DO NOT UNDERSTAND a single thing biblically - they run with their own private interpretation.   

How does this sound - "I am not the crazy one for debating the non existence of a God that I don`t even believe in, they are the crazy ones for debating the existence of the God they do believe in"


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> What do they have to offer that’s worth trying?



Everlasting life in Paradise?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> The description of judgement sets out some absolutes.
> 
> “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.”



Those are all under the same framework.  Perhaps my question was worded poorly.  Are there any other frameworks for your life that you would apply the same unquestioning, non-critical inflexibility to?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I didn’t misunderstand your metaphor of “my momma was a Baptist my granddaddy was a Baptist so I’m going to be a Baptist, we don’t need to try anything else”
> 
> I’m simply saying it doesn’t matter what car choice you chose, if it takes a boat to get to that destination. You don’t have to rule out other cars - the due diligence is already completed.



You can apply it to cars, boats, planes.... 

I think you're trying to express a notion like "No other car can give me what a Ford can".  Is that fair?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Regular miracles verses irregular was not the point. It was to point out the fact that "Some may take solace in the belief that you believing you chose to cut your finger was God's plan." is a twisting of scripture, no different than the non believer concluding that a rib taken from one by a Creator should have resulted in a clone of the creation that the Creator created to begin with.............because science says so. It is a perfect example that SOME DO NOT UNDERSTAND a single thing biblically - they run with their own private interpretation.
> 
> How does this sound - "I am not the crazy one for debating the non existence of a God that I don`t even believe in, they are the crazy ones for debating the existence of the God they do believe in"



I haven't once in this thread debated the existence of god.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Regular miracles verses irregular was not the point. It was to point out the fact that "Some may take solace in the belief that you believing you chose to cut your finger was God's plan." is a twisting of scripture, no different than the non believer concluding that a rib taken from one by a Creator should have resulted in a clone of the creation that the Creator created to begin with.............because science says so. It is a perfect example that SOME DO NOT UNDERSTAND a single thing biblically - they run with their own private interpretation.
> 
> How does this sound - "I am not the crazy one for debating the non existence of a God that I don`t even believe in, they are the crazy ones for debating the existence of the God they do believe in"



Take this upstairs. Tell them they're running their own private interpretation (whereas I assume you think you're not).  Lemme know when you do. I wanna watch.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

SLY22 said:


> You can explain it away all you like but I believe once you take your last breath you will know in an instance whether you were right or wrong.



I just don't believe that fear should guide the universe. Life is tough, scary and brutal for almost all species on this planet, and humans are no exception. So after dealing with a lifetime of this hard existence the "creator" wants to kick his "special creation" while we are down and make us deal with torture for all of eternity? What purpose would that serve? Is he doing it just because he can? How can anybody equate such a concept with "love"? Maybe god should have given me a reason to believe in him & worship him other than fear of what happens if I don't. Should I live my life like a battered wife or a dog that's had the spirit beat out of him? 

I guess if somebody could hypnotize me into believing in god then I might, but here's the catch: you have to believe in hypnotism for it to work on you. And as far as I know you can't hypnotize yourself.   I can't unlearn what I have learned about how reality works - and why should anybody have to? Is that the deal god has set up for us? Deny reality and fool yourself into believing what has been proven to be false? 
Believe that 2+3 = 7 despite your brain and 99.9 percent of the sane world telling you that's incorrect? Just my take on things spiritual.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Science has made many mistakes in the past.  That isn't a weakness, it's its strength.  But science isn't always the right tool.



True, science can sometimes be wrong - but religion is rarely (if ever) right.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I just don't believe that fear should guide the universe. Life is tough, scary and brutal for almost all species on this planet, and humans are no exception. So after dealing with a lifetime of this hard existence the "creator" wants to kick his "special creation" while we are down and make us deal with torture for all of eternity? What purpose would that serve? Is he doing it just because he can? How can anybody equate such a concept with "love"? Maybe god should have given me a reason to believe in him & worship him other than fear of what happens if I don't. Should I live my life like a battered wife or a dog that's had the spirit beat out of him?
> 
> I guess if somebody could hypnotize me into believing in god then I might, but here's the catch: you have to believe in hypnotism for it to work on you. And as far as I know you can't hypnotize yourself.   I can't unlearn what I have learned about how reality works - and why should anybody have to? Is that the deal god has set up for us? Deny reality and fool yourself into believing what has been proven to be false?
> Believe that 2+3 = 7 despite your brain and 99.9 percent of the sane world telling you that's incorrect? Just my take on things spiritual.




Not true.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> True, science can sometimes be wrong - but religion is rarely (if ever) right.



Science has been historically and statistically more wrong than right. "Religiously" was the right way live for quite a long time, since it's inception.  It provided moral framework before the concept of moral framework existed.  I would recommend reading the introduction my brother wrote.  I think I pasted it to this thread.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I just don't believe that fear should guide the universe. Life is tough, scary and brutal for almost all species on this planet, and humans are no exception. So after dealing with a lifetime of this hard existence the "creator" wants to kick his "special creation" while we are down and make us deal with torture for all of eternity? What purpose would that serve? Is he doing it just because he can? How can anybody equate such a concept with "love"? Maybe god should have given me a reason to believe in him & worship him other than fear of what happens if I don't. Should I live my life like a battered wife or a dog that's had the spirit beat out of him?
> 
> I guess if somebody could hypnotize me into believing in god then I might, but here's the catch: you have to believe in hypnotism for it to work on you. And as far as I know you can't hypnotize yourself.   I can't unlearn what I have learned about how reality works - and why should anybody have to? Is that the deal god has set up for us? Deny reality and fool yourself into believing what has been proven to be false?
> Believe that 2+3 = 7 despite your brain and 99.9 percent of the sane world telling you that's incorrect? Just my take on things spiritual.



I don't think religion and spiritual exploration are the right tool for this.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Not true.



So that's how to save your immortal soul? Hypnotize yourself into believing that 2+3 = 7?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> So has the believer. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, makes due diligence unnecessary.



You realize that other religions claim their god is the only true god, right?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> You realize that other religions claim their god is the only true god, right?



Sure, again it’s faith with some tangible evidence such as multiple religious scrolls dated to the right periods but by different authors telling same stories. Multiple witnesses if you would.

Collaborating evidence from nonreligous sources such as letters of Romans and Greeks mentioning events described in the scripture.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Everlasting life in Paradise?



Already found that promise with no need of a 100 virgins. One woman to keep happy is job in itself.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> You can apply it to cars, boats, planes....
> 
> I think you're trying to express a notion like "No other car can give me what a Ford can".  Is that fair?


For my belief, you’re correct. No other God can get me where I believe I’ll end up.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I haven't once in this thread debated the existence of god.


Fair enough. I haven’t spoken of any miracles, either.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

We should all make a pact that the first few who pass on will try to contact the living ones to set the record straight if possible. After we are all gone lets try to see if there is a way to contact the others no matter where they end up.
Start a forum called Steam & Clouds, Deceased Media, spell out something on a steamed up bathroom mirror, ....


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Take this upstairs. Tell them they're running their own private interpretation (whereas I assume you think you're not).  Lemme know when you do. I wanna watch.


Lol ? folks differing in doctrine is nothing more than folks learning from one another. They all believe there’s a God to look to. We all (believers and non believers) stick our opinion in on what God wants and thinks. That’s not a private interpretation.

God told me to cut my finger off is a private interpretation and an incorrect one. Ask that question upstairs and you’ll get 100% agreement.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> We should all make a pact that the first few who pass on will try to contact the living ones to set the record straight if possible. After we are all gone lets try to see if there is a way to contact the others no matter where they end up.
> Start a forum called Steam & Clouds, Deceased Media, spell out something on a steamed up bathroom mirror, ....


Be nice but impossible lol 

Folks think this a crazy cake walk. There’s a good bit of discipline involved for those who take it seriously.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Sure, again it’s faith with some tangible evidence such as multiple religious scrolls dated to the right periods but by different authors telling same stories. Multiple witnesses if you would.
> 
> Collaborating evidence from nonreligous sources such as letters of Romans and Greeks mentioning events described in the scripture.



Collaborating evidence from non-religious sources? Examples or links please - not that I'm going to debunk them or discredit the sources or anything.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> We should all make a pact that the first few who pass on will try to contact the living ones to set the record straight if possible. After we are all gone lets try to see if there is a way to contact the others no matter where they end up.
> Start a forum called Steam & Clouds, Deceased Media, spell out something on a steamed up bathroom mirror, ....



Escape artist Harry Houdini promised to send his wife a message from beyond the grave if he died before she did. She never did get a message.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Escape artist Harry Houdini promised to send his wife a message from beyond the grave if he died before she did. She never did get a message.


Yes true. I have not been contacted by any deceased family who said they will if they can either.
Maybe once we are all dead the souls in Heaven can visit the souls in Hades and talk through a set of phones like visiting someone in prison? Just to rub it in...


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 28, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Yes true. I have not been contacted by any deceased family who said they will if they can either.
> Maybe once we are all dead the souls in Heaven can visit the souls in Hades and talk through a set of phones like visiting someone in prison? Just to rub it in...



Sounds about as logical as half the stories in the bible!


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Collaborating evidence from non-religious sources? Examples or links please - not that I'm going to debunk them or discredit the sources or anything.



I’ll get back to you. Crickets, worms and bream are the priority this morning.
Been a good conversation.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I’ll get back to you. Crickets, worms and bream are the priority this morning.
> Been a good conversation.



I hear you! That's my favorite kind of fishing. Sidenote I've tried two different Walmart stores recently and the bait refrigerator was either COMPLETELY EMPTY or just some remnants of work containers that look like they have been picked through for the last healthy worms.   Yes I can use bacon for bluegills, but I need actual worms for shellcrackers. After the hurricane weather is over I'll try it again.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I’ll get back to you. Crickets, worms and bream are the priority this morning.
> Been a good conversation.


Good luck!
Hope you catch a basket full.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Good luck!
> Hope you catch a basket full.



A couple of days ago I went fishing for the first time since May, and I caught enough bluegills for my own dinner. The whole sunfish family is my favorite - hard fighting, almost ALWAYS hungry, aesthetically pleasing and widespread across many types of climates. How can you top that combination?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> A couple of days ago I went fishing for the first time since May, and I caught enough bluegills for my own dinner. The whole sunfish family is my favorite - hard fighting, almost ALWAYS hungry, aesthetically pleasing and widespread across many types of climates. How can you top that combination?



Make them all 4lbs.?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> A couple of days ago I went fishing for the first time since May, and I caught enough bluegills for my own dinner. The whole sunfish family is my favorite - hard fighting, almost ALWAYS hungry, aesthetically pleasing and widespread across many types of climates. How can you top that combination?


Its kind of funny -
Started out with a Zebco, a bobber and a coffee can full of worms fishing for bream.
Then it became all about high dollar equipment and fishing for big bass.
Now that Im an old geezer its back to kicking back with a can of worms and fishing for bream .
I do have a thing for inshore salt water fishing though. Going to St. Simons Island next week. Hope the weather cooperates!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I hear you! That's my favorite kind of fishing. Sidenote I've tried two different Walmart stores recently and the bait refrigerator was either COMPLETELY EMPTY or just some remnants of work containers that look like they have been picked through for the last healthy worms.   Yes I can use bacon for bluegills, but I need actual worms for shellcrackers. After the hurricane weather is over I'll try it again.




Thanks for reminding me.  I have a tub of red wigglers in the back of my fridge.  Cost 6bux!!!!


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Make them all 4lbs.?
> 
> View attachment 1179589


Daaaang! Is that real???
Probably took a crane to reel that in!


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for reminding me.  I have a tub of red wigglers in the back of my fridge.  Cost 6bux!!!!


When we were kids on rainy nights we would get flashlights and go out catch night crawlers on peoples lawns. The rain would bring them up and they would be crawling around. Maybe it was a Yankee thing. We had actual dirt instead of concrete red clay.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> When we were kids on rainy nights we would get flashlights and go out catch night crawlers on peoples lawns. The rain would bring them up and they would be crawling around. Maybe it was a Yankee thing. We had actual dirt instead of concrete red clay.


Took part in many rainy Night Crawler hunts myself. Could fill 2 metal coffee cans in short order just from neighborhood lawns.
Funny, nobody ever questioned what some goofy kids were doing on their lawns out in the pouring rain with flashlights sticking out of their mouths, lololol. Different times....


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> When we were kids on rainy nights we would get flashlights and go out catch night crawlers on peoples lawns. The rain would bring them up and they would be crawling around. Maybe it was a Yankee thing. We had actual dirt instead of concrete red clay.



I grew up in the Midwest.  When it's not raining, you can pour a weak soap and water solution down their holes and they will come out.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Took part in many rainy Night Crawler hunts myself. Could fill 2 metal coffee cans in short order just from neighborhood lawns.
> Funny, nobody ever questioned what some goofy kids were doing on their lawns out in the pouring rain with flashlights sticking out of their mouths, lololol. Different times....


Very different times.
You would get a cap busted in your butt these days!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Took part in many rainy Night Crawler hunts myself. Could fill 2 metal coffee cans in short order just from neighborhood lawns.
> Funny, nobody ever questioned what some goofy kids were doing on their lawns out in the pouring rain with flashlights sticking out of their mouths, lololol. Different times....



Ha!!!!  They used to make an attachment for a mini mag light to bite on.  Remember that? Before that, we were instructed to wrap the end with duct tape to bite on.  Used to have to saddle horses in the dark with one of those sticking out my mouth with slobber dripping down it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Very different times.
> You would get a cap busted in your butt these days!



Nah.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Daaaang! Is that real???
> Probably took a crane to reel that in!



Many a giant bluegill was caught on a plastic bass worm.  That would have been fun even on a bait caster.

https://tacklevillage.com/world-record-bluegill/
_
The world record bluegill was caught in 1950 in *Ketona Lake, Alabama* with a cane pole and common worms. This world record fish measured 15″ long and weighed 4 pounds and 12 oz._


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Nah.


If you were in my yard you would 

Joke!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Its kind of funny -
> Started out with a Zebco, a bobber and a coffee can full of worms fishing for bream.
> Then it became all about high dollar equipment and fishing for big bass.
> Now that Im an old geezer its back to kicking back with a can of worms and fishing for bream .
> I do have a thing for inshore salt water fishing though. Going to St. Simons Island next week. Hope the weather cooperates!



Gimme the report.  I wanna hit the coast real soon.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> If you were in my yard you would
> 
> Joke!



Well, if it were me in your yard I wouldn't blame you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Well, if it were me in your yard I wouldn't blame you.


Actually it was a generic "you".
But you do have a good point


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Gimme the report.  I wanna hit the coast real soon.


Will do.
Going with a guide one day and then surf/pier fishing for a couple of days.
We have a group of guys that go on a trip every year. This will be our 32nd year in a row. Fun times.


----------



## brutally honest (Sep 29, 2022)

All this agreement and fishing talk is sickening.  Can we please get back to arguing?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> All this agreement and fishing talk is sickening.  Can we please get back to arguing?




I know, right?  Big, sloppy love fest.  What do you wanna argue about?  Predestination?  Baptism by sprinkles VS dunking?  Noah's ark?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Make them all 4lbs.?
> 
> View attachment 1179589



 I can't wrap my mind around bringing that one in (to bank or boat or through the ice) on the 4# test line I use when I fish for panfish. I bet when that fish put all its sideways leverage into a run you would feel it down to your feet! Okay this hurricane weather needs to clear out of here so I can catch my panfish!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I can't wrap my mind around bringing that one in (to bank or boat or through the ice) on the 4# test line I use when I fish for panfish. I bet when that fish put all its sideways leverage into a run you would feel it down to your feet! Okay this hurricane weather needs to clear out of here so I can catch my panfish!



You'd have to drill another hole.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Its kind of funny -
> Started out with a Zebco, a bobber and a coffee can full of worms fishing for bream.
> Then it became all about high dollar equipment and fishing for big bass.
> Now that Im an old geezer its back to kicking back with a can of worms and fishing for bream .
> I do have a thing for inshore salt water fishing though. Going to St. Simons Island next week. Hope the weather cooperates!



I must have turned a corner on "geezer" because I get excited about you-tube videos of a guy who specializes in fishing creeks, mostly from the bank!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for reminding me.  I have a tub of red wigglers in the back of my fridge.  Cost 6bux!!!!



That's what I'm saying! Why is there a worm shortage? It was baby formula, now worms.   I need my Bill Dance "Dancin' Rascals" 30 worms in a container NOW!   No garlic flavor, no neon green, just fat healthy worms!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> When we were kids on rainy nights we would get flashlights and go out catch night crawlers on peoples lawns. The rain would bring them up and they would be crawling around. Maybe it was a Yankee thing. We had actual dirt instead of concrete red clay.



Yep! I grew up in Illinois - soft black dirt everywhere. You could gather all the nightcrawlers & worms in general all you wanted after a rain or just flip over boards & rock any other time.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

"Many a giant bluegill was caught on a plastic bass worm.  That would have been fun even on a bait caster." - Ambush 80

Tuesday I had TINY bass doing their best to swallow my 5 inch Zoom worm fished unweighted Texas style pulled across the top in thick weeds. The bass were shorter than the worm! But they would stay on the line for a few seconds going nuts until they would finally give up.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 29, 2022)

We harassed the bream, caught enough for a small mess but released them back to my friend’s pond. They’ll be there in the spring, we may not be as kind then.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> I know, right?  Big, sloppy love fest.  What do you wanna argue about?  Predestination?  Baptism by sprinkles VS dunking?  Noah's ark?



People who fish with a spinning reel upside down are


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> People who fish with a spinning reel upside down are


----------



## bullethead (Sep 29, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> We harassed the bream, caught enough for a small mess but released them back to my friend’s pond. They’ll be there in the spring, we may not be as kind then.
> 
> View attachment 1179599View attachment 1179600


Good Livin right there Ruger!


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> People who fish with a spinning reel upside down are



Can’t figure that one out either.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 29, 2022)

I love that rod, I bought it back in the spring. 8 ft microlite, makes a bream feel like moby dick!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> We harassed the bream, caught enough for a small mess but released them back to my friend’s pond. They’ll be there in the spring, we may not be as kind then.
> 
> View attachment 1179599View attachment 1179600


Good times.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> We harassed the bream, caught enough for a small mess but released them back to my friend’s pond. They’ll be there in the spring, we may not be as kind then.
> 
> View attachment 1179599View attachment 1179600




Is that a bobber out there?  I have sweet dreams of watching bobbers.  I always catch my biggest 'gills when I use a tiny split shot on the bottom.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Is that a bobber out there?  I have sweet dreams of watching bobbers.  I always catch my biggest 'gills when I use a tiny split shot on the bottom.



Yes sir, there’s bobber with a tiny split shot and baited with a cricket. My partner definitely out fished me with worms.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Is that a bobber out there?  I have sweet dreams of watching bobbers.  I always catch my biggest 'gills when I use a tiny split shot on the bottom.



You lost me - tiny split shot on the bottom of what? Do you mean underneath a  bobber but above the bait? Or no bobber at all with the split shot on lake bottom with the bait above the split shot? For reference I use a Thill "pencil" bobber with enough split shot to get the bobber to stand up, so there's no resistance when the fish takes the bait. The price tag sticker is torn off before use of course.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> You lost me - tiny split shot on the bottom of what? Do you mean underneath a  bobber but above the bait? Or no bobber at all with the split shot on lake bottom with the bait above the split shot? For reference I use a Thill "pencil" bobber with enough split shot to get the bobber to stand up, so there's no resistance when the fish takes the bait. The price tag sticker is torn off before use of course.
> 
> View attachment 1179638View attachment 1179640



Just a hook and a split shot pinched about a foot above it.  Lightest weight you can cast with, depending on wind or current.  I like a long shank cricket hook cause they get gut hooked allot.  That's how I've always caught the biggest 'gills.  Might catch a bass or cat or bullhead or sucker, too.  They all eat just fine to me.  Pics to come.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Just a hook and a split shot pinched about a foot above it.  Lightest weight you can cast with, depending on wind or current.  I like a long shank cricket hook cause they get gut hooked allot.  That's how I've always caught the biggest 'gills.  Might catch a bass or cat or bullhead or sucker, too.  They all eat just fine to me.  Pics to come.



Oh I see - I fish with just a split shot if the wind's calm and you can see subtle movements of your line as a fish bites. I never thought about a long shank hook because they can get gut hooked sometimes. I might pick some up.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> You lost me - tiny split shot on the bottom of what? Do you mean underneath a  bobber but above the bait? Or no bobber at all with the split shot on lake bottom with the bait above the split shot? For reference I use a Thill "pencil" bobber with enough split shot to get the bobber to stand up, so there's no resistance when the fish takes the bait. The price tag sticker is torn off before use of course.
> 
> View attachment 1179638View attachment 1179640



Yes, like the one of the left, with a tiny split shot between the bobber and hook to make it stand up.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 29, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Oh I see - I fish with just a split shot if the wind's calm and you can see subtle movements of your line as a fish bites. I never thought about a long shank hook because they can get gut hooked sometimes. I might pick some up.



The pond I fish at for 'gills, there's no subtle movements.  They just pick it up and go.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Just a hook and a split shot pinched about a foot above it.  Lightest weight you can cast with, depending on wind or current.  I like a long shank cricket hook cause they get gut hooked allot.  That's how I've always caught the biggest 'gills.  Might catch a bass or cat or bullhead or sucker, too.  They all eat just fine to me.  Pics to come.



When I fish this way I use a tiny egg sinker with a stop so the line slides without resistance, trying to get more feel of the bait.

I guess this is OK as the OP derailed his own thread.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 29, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Make them all 4lbs.?
> 
> View attachment 1179589


Now that’d be a good fight on a zebco 33!!!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Now that’d be a good fight on a zebco 33!!!



You can't beat a 33. I caught my two biggest bass on a 33 and plenty of smaller ones too.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 29, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> When I fish this way I use a tiny egg sinker with a stop so the line slides without resistance, trying to get more feel of the bait.
> 
> I guess this is OK as the OP derailed his own thread.



Did the thread derail - or evolve?   Also the thread relates to believers with a "fishers of men" thing. The thread relates to non-believers (or at least non creationists) because the sunfish family proves evolution!* Let me preach on it*:

Imagine if you will, god creating in that six-day period all the critters, to include freshwater fish of course. He has to keep up a BLISTERING pace on fish day, considering there are 18,000 species of freshwater fish. Would he take the time to make the bluegill, the red breasted sunfish, the red eared sunfish, the long eared sunfish, the green sunfish, the spotted sunfish, the pumpkinseed, the banded sunfish, the rock bass, the shadow bass, the flier, the warmouth, two types of crappie, etc.etc?
  Or is it more likely that these sunfish family members evolved over thousands of years since genetically they are very similar? Some are so similar that they can naturally hybridize but produce sterile offspring, because genetic drift affects genes responsible for reproduction to go south quickly in many species of animals, fish, plants, and pretty much all complicated living things.  

These are the two (very general) but not comprehensive "world views" exhibited:

1) god said "exist!" and suddenly there are dozens of slightly different versions of the sunfish.

2) all the members of the sunfish family could be (and most likely are) in an ongoing state of evolution over a timespan so long that it's imperceptible within the very limited lifespan of any one member of any species.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Did the thread derail - or evolve?   Also the thread relates to believers with a "fishers of men" thing. The thread relates to non-believers (or at least non creationists) because the sunfish family proves evolution!* Let me preach on it*:
> 
> Imagine if you will, god creating in that six-day period all the critters, to include freshwater fish of course. He has to keep up a BLISTERING pace on fish day, considering there are 18,000 species of freshwater fish. Would he take the time to make the bluegill, the red breasted sunfish, the red eared sunfish, the long eared sunfish, the green sunfish, the spotted sunfish, the pumpkinseed, the banded sunfish, the rock bass, the shadow bass, the flier, the warmouth, two types of crappie, etc.etc?
> Or is it more likely that these sunfish family members evolved over thousands of years since genetically they are very similar? Some are so similar that they can naturally hybridize but produce sterile offspring, because genetic drift affects genes responsible for reproduction to go south quickly in many species of animals, fish, plants, and pretty much all complicated living things.
> ...




From what I've gathered, there will be some believers who will agree with your first scenario; poofed into existence.  Then there will be those who believe that God made "kinds", which may or may not be subject to some sort of evolutionary process.  Most believers don't care how stuff got here.  They know that it got here by whatever means God used.  Most creation stories universally involve some poofing.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 30, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> From what I've gathered, there will be some believers who will agree with your first scenario; poofed into existence.  Then there will be those who believe that God made "kinds", which may or may not be subject to some sort of evolutionary process.  Most believers don't care how stuff got here.  They know that it got here by whatever means God used.  Most creation stories universally involve some poofing.



I actually have more respect for the people that believe god just snapped his fingers (magic in other words) and things existed than the creationist apologists who bend into pretzels trying try to link the bible with how reality really works. The "kinds" theory is a great example. The apologists cannot or will not admit that evolution is a logical, natural, provable process that takes an incredibly long time. *Yet ironically*, they will say that a limited number of "kinds" of critters were created in the time of Adam and existed until Noah fit this very limited number of "kinds" of animals into the ark - then this very limited number somehow.... miraculously.... through divine intervention.... went into *HYPER EVOLUTION *(which they call "adaptation") when the ark hit dry land within a few thousand years we now have GAZILLIONS of different species!  So gazillions of species can't evolve naturally over 500 million years, but with god's "adaptation" we have gazillions of species over four thousand years. 

Please creationist "young earth" apologists - stop the madness. Stop tilting at windmills. Just admit you prefer to believe the bible version and that you have no explanation (and need no explanation) that could ever match up to the reality of science. It's like oil & water, two different worldviews that are not compatible. 

That said if a "god" exists they could very well use evolution over many millions of years to create what we see today - but of course that would have NOTHING to do with the god of the bible. IMHO the god of the bible - and the bible itself - is manmade mythology, cover-to-cover. But if you want to believe the bible, you may as well believe all the magic in it rather than cherry-pick what you believe and what you don't. 

There are people here on GON forum who knew the bible inside & out but studied & learned the bible so much that they started to notice the COUNTLESS  contradictions/inconsistencies/inaccuracies etc. and one day realized that the emperor really was naked. Now their worldview flipped from magic to reality. This happens all the time with all religions.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 30, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I actually have more respect for the people that believe god just snapped his fingers (magic in other words) and things existed than the creationist apologists who bend into pretzels trying try to link the bible with how reality really works. The "kinds" theory is a great example. The apologists cannot or will not admit that evolution is a logical, natural, provable process that takes an incredibly long time. *Yet ironically*, they will say that a limited number of "kinds" of critters were created in the time of Adam and existed until Noah fit this very limited number of "kinds" of animals into the ark - then this very limited number somehow.... miraculously.... through divine intervention.... went into *HYPER EVOLUTION *(which they call "adaptation") when the ark hit dry land within a few thousand years we now have GAZILLIONS of different species!  So gazillions of species can't evolve naturally over 500 million years, but with god's "adaptation" we have gazillions of species over four thousand years.
> 
> Please creationist "young earth" apologists - stop the madness. Stop tilting at windmills. Just admit you prefer to believe the bible version and that you have no explanation (and need no explanation) that could ever match up to the reality of science. It's like oil & water, two different worldviews that are not compatible.
> 
> ...



Two quotes come to mind:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

--Arthur C Clarke

and

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

--Max Planck


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> Two quotes come to mind:
> 
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
> 
> ...



Problem with you sayings is there’s thousand of years of documented Christianity. From the bronze age to the space age. The stories are consistent and the belief grows.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Problem with you sayings is there’s thousand of years of documented Christianity. From the bronze age to the space age. The stories are consistent and the belief grows.





> and the belief grows


Depends on where you are talking about.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Problem with you sayings is there’s thousand of years of documented Christianity. From the bronze age to the space age. The stories are consistent and the belief grows.



I may see what you are saying, but I might be mistaken. But here is my take on what I think I understand you are saying:

Christianity was finally formalized into it's current state about a thousand years ago. The head honchos settled on what would be in the bible and what would be left out.
Anyone following unapproved/unofficial teachings was called a heretic and considered a fringe religion and persecuted in many cases. Hey, history is written by the winners and all that.

So bottom line Christianity can't bring anything new to the table. All Christians can do is find new interpretations & meanings behind what has been written. But the ways to spin, misinterpret, reinterpret, etc. the bible are almost infinite. And new generations of Christians will find ways to blend the original bible stories with changing societies. Yes societies, not just one society, since Christianity is worldwide. 

But as scientific knowledge advances there is not just one old book written by people with very limited scientific knowledge (no fault of theirs of course) there are millions of books and millions of brilliant minds and scientific ideas and techniques - not just facts - growing exponentially. 

More and more people realize that the way the world works is not the way the bible says the world works. Yes, human behavior is still the same and works the same, but the outrageous supernatural "god stuff" is getting harder & harder to swallow. These days most children know enough about how the world works to treat bible stories as fables & myths & fairy tales. How are you going to fool adults? 

The bible is full of incredible "miracles" but there hasn't been one verified, certified, passes the smell test PROVEN miracle in our lifetimes. None of us on GON forum (nor anyone on this planet) will ever see a "sun standing still to give an army more daylight" miracle or even a miracle on a smaller scale like turning water into wine, or legitimately coming back from the dead. That's not how the world works, and nobody has ever been able to prove any different. There are plenty of things that people can imagine are miracles, but not one that cannot be explained. Not one defying the laws of physics miracle experienced in public in front of hundreds with physical proof verified by impartial experts and average people. Reality = reality and we are stuck with it, for better or worse. 2 + 3 = 5 all day long and twice on Sunday.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I may see what you are saying, but I might be mistaken. But here is my take on what I think I understand you are saying:
> 
> Christianity was finally formalized into it's current state about a thousand years ago. The head honchos settled on what would be in the bible and what would be left out.
> Anyone following unapproved/unofficial teachings was called a heretic and considered a fringe religion and persecuted in many cases. Hey, history is written by the winners and all that.
> ...



I understand but it just isn’t valid that disbelief and intangibles are shrinking Christian numbers.

Not only is religion growing overall, but Christian specifically is growing. With a *1.17 percent growth* rate, almost 2.56 billion people will identify as a Christian by the middle of 2022. By 2050, that number will top 3.33 billion.

Islam is likely to catch Christianity by mid century as it grows. Right now 1/3 the worlds population is Christian.

Religion is not dying by any means.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

One would have to ask with all this science and knowledge why is it growing? People are more than facts and science. It’s what why we have art, music, and religion.


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Sep 30, 2022)

I have no problem reading stories in the Bible that say "God did this miracle." I am also fine with the Bible telling how something happened in a way that any sane person would view as a miracle although the Bible does not explicitly call it a miracle of God.


I have a hard time with other stories (or aspects of stories) in the Bible that are both physically impossible / highly improbable  but are NOT presented as God having interfered with the normal functioning of Earth through a miracle.
Two small examples that come to mind: Samson encountering a lion's carcass in which bees had made a hive filled with honey. And later, Sampson committing arson against a city's crops in the field by tying two foxes together, lighting their tails on fire, and sending them free to scamper about burning the fields as they went.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> One would have to ask with all this science and knowledge why is it growing? People are more than facts and science. It’s what why we have art, music, and religion.


With over 40,000 denominations , Christianity has a wide range to offer it's followers. Many wouldn't share the same pew with others. It certainly isn't a universal fit as much as it is a find what suits you. One denomination will tell you another are not "real" Christians but then include all others to make the numbers sound good.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> With over 40,000 denominations , Christianity has a wide range to offer it's followers. Many wouldn't share the same pew with others. It certainly isn't a universal fit as much as it is a find what suits you. One denomination will tell you another are not "real" Christians but then include all others to make the numbers sound good.



No argument about the differences. At the core of each is a belief in Christ as told in the Bible.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> One would have to ask with all this science and knowledge why is it growing? People are more than facts and science. It’s what why we have art, music, and religion.


The answer to your question is in your post!


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> The answer to your question is in your post!



I would agree.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

I owe OF some references We’ll start off with a religious one.These scrolls were found in the 40s, scientifically dated to the period of Christ, so a couple thousand yearsold. They contain books of the Bible which describe events going back thousands more.

https://www.imj.org.il/en/wings/shrine-book/dead-sea-scrolls

The Roman Senator was writing of other events but included a description of Christ and his trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

A Roman Governor was struggling to handle the Christians not worshipping Roman gods.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/pliny

There’s many of these corroborating writings from nonreligious sources that include events verifying Christianity, hence Christ, existed during the period.

Like all history the further back you go the less evidence there is.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 30, 2022)

"And later, Sampson committing arson against a city's crops in the field by tying two foxes together, lighting their tails on fire, and sending them free to scamper about burning the fields as they went."

  That's some *Paul Bunyan *legend stuff right there! Every word in the bible is true and god-inspired! If this doesn't prove it, nothing will.  Man this made my day.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> No argument about the differences. At the core of each is a belief in Christ as told in the Bible.


Very watered down and adapted to fit personally after believing in Christ. Almost like saying biker gangs are all Bikers.....Yeah but....


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Very watered down and adapted to fit personally after believing in Christ. Almost like saying biker gangs are all Bikers.....Yeah but....



Just FYI, the ancient churches were very similar from the period of Christ until 1600, the reformation. From that point on all Protestant faiths developed that you see debating in the Christian section here. There in lies the great diversity of interpretation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Just FYI, the ancient churches were very similar from the period of Christ until 1600, the reformation. From that point on all Protestant faiths developed that you see debating in the Christian section here. There in lies the great diversity of interpretation.


Did Christianity start to grow at the Reformation or die? It doesn't really say much for Christianity or religion if most of it is false.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 30, 2022)

Thanks for the links ruger 3! Lots to unpack, I'll dig into them when I get uninterrupted quiet time. 
But really quick, I have to address this:

"There’s many of these corroborating writings from nonreligious sources that include events *verifying Christianity, hence Christ, *existed during the period.

  No, verifying Christianity does not verify_ the godliness _of Christ. It verifies at best that a person named Jesus Christ existed and decades later enough people who believed he was the son of god - and that the stories told about his miraculous powers were true - and this movement turned gained traction and into a major religion. 

If I write a story about a Christmas Parade and that Santa Claus was throwing candy out to the crowd, it proves somebody dressed up as Santa Claus was in a parade. Does writing about the parade mean that I believe that there's an actual Santa Claus?


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> Did Christianity start to grow at the Reformation or die? It doesn't really say much for Christianity or religion if most of it is false.



I grew by leaps and bounds due to another event. The printing press was invented about the same time. Previous to this bibles were tediously scribed by hand. Now the Bible could be printed in volume. It was as significant as the arrival of Amazon.com.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> Just FYI, the ancient churches were very similar from the period of Christ until 1600, the reformation. From that point on all Protestant faiths developed that you see debating in the Christian section here. There in lies the great diversity of interpretation.


I am familiar with the history of Christianity. Taking it back from 1600 to 300ish when The Church decided to destroy some scrolls and writings of the earliest Christians. Certain practices were outlawed and some were combined amd around that time of making doctrine is where The Church made Christianity into what they wanted. Christ never asked to be worshipped or have a religion started around him.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I am familiar with the history of Christianity. Taking it back from 1600 to 300ish when The Church decided to destroy some scrolls and writings of the earliest Christians. Certain practices were outlawed and some were combined amd around that time of making doctrine is where The Church made Christianity into what they wanted. Christ never asked to be worshipped or have a religion started around him.



Im not one of those that will say the reformation wasn’t without justification. Parts of the church had got greedy and corrupt. Instead of purging the church they wheeled off in another direction.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

The historian Josephus is provably the most reliable record of the beginning of Christianity outside the Bible. He wrote history confirmed through multiples sources.

He wrote about Christ and Christianity.

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I understand but it just isn’t valid that disbelief and intangibles are shrinking Christian numbers.
> 
> Not only is religion growing overall, but Christian specifically is growing. With a *1.17 percent growth* rate, almost 2.56 billion people will identify as a Christian by the middle of 2022. By 2050, that number will top 3.33 billion.
> 
> ...


You havent claimed otherwise but I do think its fair to point out those ^ numbers are not derived from the Western world.  In the West and particularly the US, the numbers are in a steady decline.
And not meaning to be picky but you are bouncing around a bit from Christianity to religion. 
Religion includes alot more than just Christianity.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> The historian Josephus is provably the most reliable record of the beginning of Christianity outside the Bible. He wrote history confirmed through multiples sources.
> 
> He wrote about Christ and Christianity.
> 
> “At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”


Ruger, PLEASE do your self a favor and do not take what you read about Josephus from Christian sources ad "gospel". That false information has been debunked, refuted and acknowledged even by religious scholars as a forgery and later to addition to what Josephus actually wrote.
Don't take my word for it. Don't shoot the messenger.  But actually research it.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Sep 30, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Ruger, PLEASE do your self a favor and do not take what you read about Josephus from Christian sources ad "gospel". That false information has been debunked, refuted and acknowledged even by religious scholars as a forgery and later to addition to what Josephus actually wrote.
> Don't take my word for it. Don't shoot the messenger.  But actually research it.



No offense taken, it was found the interpretation, which included a Affirmation of the resurrectio, had been altered. What I posted contained no such affirmation and is the revised text as originally written.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> No offense taken, it was found the interpretation, which included a Affirmation of the resurrectio, had been altered. What I posted contained no such affirmation and is the revised text as originally written.


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-this-mention-of-jesus-a-forgery


----------



## Ruger#3 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-this-mention-of-jesus-a-forgery



The summary paragraph of your article….

Whether the surviving quotes contain Christian interpolations or not, the scholarly consensus is that Josephus _did_ indeed know something of an obscure teacher named Jesus. What we are left with is a non-Christian account that backs up at least three main points about him: He existed, he started the Christian movement, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

That article outlines exactly whatI said, someone changed the original text and what I posted is the corrected text. Of course there’s an atheist that disagrees.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 1, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> The summary paragraph of your article….
> 
> Whether the surviving quotes contain Christian interpolations or not, the scholarly consensus is that Josephus _did_ indeed know something of an obscure teacher named Jesus. What we are left with is a non-Christian account that backs up at least three main points about him: He existed, he started the Christian movement, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
> 
> That article outlines exactly whatI said, someone changed the original text and what I posted is the corrected text. Of course there’s an atheist that disagrees.





> What we are left with is a non-Christian account that backs up at least three main points about him: He existed, he started the Christian movement, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.


TO ME, thats ^ pretty basic stuff.
What am I missing?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> The summary paragraph of your article….
> 
> Whether the surviving quotes contain Christian interpolations or not, the scholarly consensus is that Josephus _did_ indeed know something of an obscure teacher named Jesus. What we are left with is a non-Christian account that backs up at least three main points about him: He existed, he started the Christian movement, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
> 
> That article outlines exactly whatI said, someone changed the original text and what I posted is the corrected text. Of course there’s an atheist that disagrees.


Leave it to a Christian to embellish.
You posted this:
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”

The direct quote from the Catholic article below is NOT exactly what you claim to have posted:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first ceased not so to do; and the race of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct even now."


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 1, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> No argument about the differences. At the core of each is a belief in Christ as told in the Bible.


Thats a pretty stock/off the shelf response that we hear alot.
Im not sure it outweighs some of the MAJOR differences in belief throughout the denominations.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Leave it to a Christian to embellish.
> You posted this:
> "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”
> 
> ...


Your direct quote isnt nearly as wonderous as the first quote


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Your direct quote isnt nearly as wonderous as the first quote


Josephus never insinuated or elevated Jesus from being a man to being a god.. He acknowledged that he heard of a man such as Jesus existed and had followers.

Back in that time period before, during, and after Jesus, the Jews had many men throughout their history who were rebellious leaders or messiah candidates....all of which had followers.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Josephus never insinuated or elevated Jesus from being a man to being a god.. He acknowledged that he heard of a man such as Jesus existed and had followers.
> 
> Back in that time period before, during, and after Jesus, the Jews had many men throughout their history who were rebellious leaders or messiah candidates....all of which had followers.



I agree with you. Some scribe took license and embellished his writing but it was found and corrected.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I understand but it just isn’t valid that disbelief and intangibles are shrinking Christian numbers.
> 
> Not only is religion growing overall, but Christian specifically is growing. With a *1.17 percent growth* rate, almost 2.56 billion people will identify as a Christian by the middle of 2022. By 2050, that number will top 3.33 billion.
> 
> ...



Indeed, religion isn't dying, it's just switching from Bibles to Korans. Yes Christianity is growing, but only at the same rate as the population. Christianity is shrinking in America, but growing in sub-Saharan Africa. IMHO over a very long timespan (let's say 1,000 years) most likely all of our major religions today will be extinct. Granted for those saying "Jesus will return by then/the world won't be here" all I can say is Jesus had two thousand years to return and it didn't happen, so why would another thousand years make any difference?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I agree with you. Some scribe took license and embellished his writing but it was found and corrected.


 - 
Ruger #3 referring to Josephus writing about Jesus

So if a scribe messed up Josephus' writings and they were corrected - can you trust the scribe/author who corrected them?   I'm not being a smarty-pants, I'm just pointing out that this could just be heaping one mistake on top of another mistake. 
It doesn't seem to me to be a strong defense, that's all.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Oct 1, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> -
> Ruger #3 referring to Josephus writing about Jesus
> 
> So if a scribe messed up Josephus' writings and they were corrected - can you trust the scribe/author who corrected them?   I'm not being a smarty-pants, I'm just pointing out that this could just be heaping one mistake on top of another mistake.
> It doesn't seem to me to be a strong defense, that's all.



I don’t take you as being a smarty pants, very valid questions.
A good historian would use basic historical principles.


_When_ was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
_Where_ was it produced (localization)?
_By whom_ was it produced (authorship)?
_From what pre-existing material_ was it produced (analysis)?
_In what original form_ was it produced (integrity)?
_What is the evidential value_ of its contents (credibility)?
The revised version sounded like a Bible scripture , not something a nonChristian would write. More study brought historians to the original text, much more in line with the view of a historian of the period.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> I agree with you. Some scribe took license and embellished his writing but it was found and corrected.


This "scribe" was most likely Eusebius or under orders from Eusebius himself to add anything about Jesus in there.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 1, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> You havent claimed otherwise but I do think its fair to point out those ^ numbers are not derived from the Western world.  In the West and particularly the US, the numbers are in a steady decline.
> And not meaning to be picky but you are bouncing around a bit from Christianity to religion.
> Religion includes alot more than just Christianity.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=christianity+is+growing&atb=v343-4&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=christianity+is+shrinking&atb=v343-4&ia=web


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 1, 2022)

ambush80 said:


> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=christianity+is+growing&atb=v343-4&ia=web
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=christianity+is+shrinking&atb=v343-4&ia=web





> Now, a new study from Pew Research Center shows that as of 2020, the number of Americans who identify as Christian is about 64%. Fifty years ago, that number was 90%. And if that trend continues, Pew predicts that Christians could become a minority in just a few decades.


I find those numbers ^ pretty amazing. Thats a BIG drop in just 50 years.
I'm sure alot of those folks still have a belief in "God", they are just shedding the Christian label and its ideas of what that God thinks, says, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

Headlines today:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-evangelical-christianity-become-more-095211303.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Headlines today:
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-evangelical-christianity-become-more-095211303.html


For example, 43 percent of evangelicals said Jesus was "not God"

From another poll by; A majority of Americans and nearly a third of evangelicals say Jesus was a “good teacher” but was not God, according to a new survey for Ligonier Ministries that was conducted by LifeWay Research. 
Although the poll’s finding about the general population may not be shocking, Ligonier said it is surprising that nearly a third of evangelicals (30 percent) affirm the statement and believe Jesus was a good teacher and nothing more. 
https://www.christianheadlines.com/...elicals-say-jesus-was-not-god-poll-shows.html


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> For example, 43 percent of evangelicals said Jesus was "not God"
> 
> From another poll by; A majority of Americans and nearly a third of evangelicals say Jesus was a “good teacher” but was not God, according to a new survey for Ligonier Ministries that was conducted by LifeWay Research.
> Although the poll’s finding about the general population may not be shocking, Ligonier said it is surprising that nearly a third of evangelicals (30 percent) affirm the statement and believe Jesus was a good teacher and nothing more.
> https://www.christianheadlines.com/...elicals-say-jesus-was-not-god-poll-shows.html


C I N O's.
Lolololol


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> C I N O's.
> Lolololol


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Headlines today:
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-evangelical-christianity-become-more-095211303.html




OUUU! Too many are gona pretend they have not read this and just ignore the salt in the wound of it. As a matter of fact I'm surprised -you_ posted it... but you'd feel no pain from it perhaps.  Just kidding.


C.I.N.O.s. In two yrs I predict that this will be a standard term in the Christian media where it makes perfect cultural sense.  I will remember where I "read" it first.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

gordon 2 said:


> OUUU! Too many are gona pretend they have not read this and just ignore the salt in the wound of it. As a matter of fact I'm surprised -you_ posted it... but you'd feel no pain from it perhaps.  Just kidding.
> 
> 
> C.I.N.O.s. In two yrs I predict that this will be a standard term in the Christian media where it makes perfect cultural sense.  I will remember where I "read" it first.


Patent it and throw 10% my way!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Headlines today:
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-evangelical-christianity-become-more-095211303.html



"notably Arianism, a 4th-century belief that Jesus was the son of God but not divine like him"      What in the wide world of sports does that even mean? How could you be the son of god but not be divine? Being divine is pretty much the whole point of being the son of god. Otherwise, Jesus would be the son of Joseph - or the milkman - and not be divine.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> C I N O's.
> Lolololol


 
Like I said, religions evolve. As Christians get more educated in general their collective concept of Jesus changes from magical to philosophical. That's an oversimplification
of what's going on, but something along these lines is what's happening.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

Ruger#3 said:


> The historian Josephus is provably the most reliable record of the beginning of Christianity outside the Bible. He wrote history confirmed through multiples sources.
> 
> He wrote about Christ and Christianity.
> 
> “At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”



There's a good chance that Josephus' sources were passing on the stories that they themselves were told - the most common stories at that time in early Christianity. I don't think a religion would grow up around a figure who didn't have a larger-than-life supernatural "origin story".


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> TO ME, thats ^ pretty basic stuff.
> What am I missing?



He existed, he was crucified, a movement started around him. Yep, all three facts are probably true, I'm not doubting that. This doesn't prove god's existence in the least. It just proves that some people BELIEVED that Jesus was special/divine/godly/etc.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

Who started to worship Jesus first and ehy?


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Who started to worship Jesus first and ehy?



Justin Martyr referred to worshiping Jesus in his _First Apology_.  It was written in the mid-2nd century.  I don’t think that was the first record, but that’s one of the earliest.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> "notably Arianism, a 4th-century belief that Jesus was the son of God but not divine like him"      What in the wide world of sports does that even mean? How could you be the son of god but not be divine? Being divine is pretty much the whole point of being the son of god. Otherwise, Jesus would be the son of Joseph - or the milkman - and not be divine.



That’s similar to the argument Athanasius made against Arius.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Who started to worship Jesus first and ehy?



There's no way to know who was "the first" and what was on their mind. That's like trying to know who was the first person to ever whistle a tune, or throw a curveball.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Justin Martyr referred to worshiping Jesus in his _First Apology_.  It was written in the mid-2nd century.  I don’t think that was the first record, but that’s one of the earliest.


Did the 12 Disciples worship Jesus?
Did they pray to him while he was alive?
Did Jesus ask or instruct anyone to worship him? 
When did Jesus suggest that his fellow Jews abandon their faith and start a new religion around him?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

Okay Ruger #3 I read the first link. I'm not seeing what it had to do with any events other than anything related to the inner workings of different aspects of Judaism. Very enlightening and detailed though from a historical aspect, being limited of course to the religion's origins. I do know these scrolls are not the forgeries - those are in the Museum of the Bible or somewhere like that. So they are authentic writings.

But this makes me wonder just how many ancient religious writings never saw the light of day, or were eventually destroyed because they didn't make the cut when the head honchos decided what would be canon and what would not. 

Now I'm moving on to the second link.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> There's no way to know who was "the first" and what was on their mind. That's like trying to know who was the first person to ever whistle a tune, or throw a curveball.


I would think that at some point one of those Gospel writers who supposedly knew Jesus personally and spent time with him would have mentioned the moment that Jesus suggested they and others worship him. I find it odd that the authors and personal friends of Jesus didn't record the conversation where Jesus mentioned abandoning Judaism and starting a new religion with him at the center.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Did the 12 Disciples worship Jesus?



Yes, Luke 24:52.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Did they pray to him while he was alive?



Well, they certainly _talked_ to Him.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Did Jesus ask or instruct anyone to worship him?



Peter referred to Him as “Christ”.  Thomas called Him “my Lord and my God”.  Jesus accepted both.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Did the 12 Disciples worship Jesus?
> Did they pray to him while he was alive?
> Did Jesus ask or instruct anyone to worship him?
> When did Jesus suggest that his fellow Jews abandon their faith and start a new religion around him?



I'm guessing his disciples wouldn't pray to him while he was alive because until he's dead & resurrected he's not god yet.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Yes, Luke 24:52.


That was after Jesus was Crucified and supposedly came back.
They didn't seem to know he was God for three years of hanging out with him.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> When did Jesus suggest that his fellow Jews abandon their faith and start a new religion around him?



That’s not what they did.  They saw Jesus as the Messiah as foretold in their scriptures.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> That was after Jesus was Crucified and supposedly came back.
> They didn't seem to know he was God for three years of hanging out with him.



Jesus _forgave sins_.  No mere man can do that.  Even the Pharisees understood that.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Peter referred to Him as “Christ”.  Thomas called Him “my Lord and my God”.  Jesus accepted both.


Did they take it upon themselves to do that?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> That’s not what they did.  They saw Jesus as the Messiah as foretold in their scriptures.


I don't agree with that mainly because Jesus did not fulfill OT Messah requirements. Jewish history contains men that fulfilled more than Jesus and still still did not fulfill all.
If the Disciples were practicing Jews they would know he did not fufill prophesy.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Did they take it upon themselves to do that?



Jesus asked Peter, “Who do you say that I am?”

Thomas did not believe until he touched Jesus’ wounds.  Upon his confession, Jesus blessed Thomas.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Jesus _forgave sins_.  No mere man can do that.  Even the Pharisees understood that.


Priests do it at every confession. 

How would anyone know a sin is forgiven merely by Jesus or anyone saying it?


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I don't agree with that mainly because Jesus did not fulfill OT Messah requirements.



That’s opinion.  Both Paul and Apollos argued _from the scriptures_ that Jesus was the Messiah.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Jesus asked Peter, “Who do you say that I am?”
> 
> Thomas did not believe until he touched Jesus’ wounds.  Upon his confession, Jesus blessed Thomas.


I know the story.
Peter took it upon himself to think Jesus was God.
Thomas apparently didn't believe until after an embellished miracle was told.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Priests do it at every confession.



They do not.  A priest is merely a witness to the confession.  Only God can forgive.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 1, 2022)

Second link read! 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

Here's my take: Christians or Chrestians? Was it a typo?  Small potatoes! I would say Tacitus was talking about the same group that started Christianity as we know it. 
But IMHO all that proves is that there was a Jew named Jesus who stepped on the wrong toes, got crucified, and his followers *believed *that he was the Messiah that he claimed he was. Throughout history people have believed in and followed effective leaders to varying degrees with various outcomes. Bottom line when taken in context: nothing to see here kids.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Peter took it upon himself to think Jesus was God.



… yet Jesus did not rebuke him for blasphemy.  Why not?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> That’s opinion.  Both Paul and Apollos argued _from the scriptures_ that Jesus was the Messiah.


It is not opinion. It is clearly defined by Judaism. If Jesus fulfilled prophesy the Jews would call him Messiah.
The requirements are easily searchable (I've posted them 50x in other threads) from Jewish sources.
Christianity is still saying "wait" for a few requirements be fulfilled, but claims Jesus is the Messiah anyway. The fact that those things didnt happen yet immediately excludes Jesus from the running.
Paul never met Jesus. Never physically saw Jesus. He wrote to try to make Jesus fulfill the requirements but could not.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> They do not.  A priest is merely a witness to the confession.  Only God can forgive.


Roman Catholics believe that priests have power to forgive sins as taught by Christ himself.

John 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (NIV)

Paul also declares that God has given the ministry of reconciliation to the Church. Catholics interpret this ministry of reconciliation to be the power of forgiving sins and bringing the repentant sinner back to God.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> … yet Jesus did not rebuke him for blasphemy.  Why not?


Because it is an embellished story, Jesus may have thought he was, pick one.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Jesus _forgave sins_.  No mere man can do that.  Even the Pharisees understood that.


As did the disciples. Jesus only did the will of the Father.
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 1, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Jesus asked Peter, “Who do you say that I am?”
> 
> Thomas did not believe until he touched Jesus’ wounds.  Upon his confession, Jesus blessed Thomas.


Peter told Jesus that was the son of the living god and the messiah.
Jesus later prdered his disciples not to say to anyone that he was the messiah.

Odd that he didn't want others to know.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 1, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> He existed, he was crucified, a movement started around him. Yep, all three facts are probably true, I'm not doubting that. This doesn't prove god's existence in the least. It just proves that some people BELIEVED that Jesus was special/divine/godly/etc.


Exactly


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 1, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Roman Catholics believe that priests have power to forgive sins as taught by Christ himself.
> 
> John 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (NIV)
> 
> Paul also declares that God has given the ministry of reconciliation to the Church. Catholics interpret this ministry of reconciliation to be the power of forgiving sins and bringing the repentant sinner back to God.





> Roman Catholics believe that priests have power to forgive sins as taught by Christ himself.


Yep. Im a former Roman Catholic and that was my understanding.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 1, 2022)

Also John 3:16 
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

What about all of Paul's greetings in his letters?
_To all who are in Rome_, _beloved of God, called to be saints: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ_. 
Plus he never includes the Holy Spirit?

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
I don't think that implies that Jesus wasn't good, just Jesus giving he goodness to God. We should actually do the same. His goodness was derived from his Father.

There are other verses that God sent Jesus and that Jesus is doing miracles and wonders and signs only through him from his Father in Heaven.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 1, 2022)

If Jesus is God which is right? Trinity or Oneness? Did God the Father incarnate as the Son or did the 1/3 of the Trinity known as Christ, incarnate as Jesus? Has that 1/3 we know as Son always existed in more that God's Word or did that 1/3 part become God's son when he was born a man?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Peter told Jesus that was the son of the living god and the messiah.
> Jesus later prdered his disciples not to say to anyone that he was the messiah.
> 
> Odd that he didn't want others to know.



Maybe he didn't want others to know because it's all about the big "reveal" when it's time for that jaw-dropping surprise.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Maybe he didn't want others to know because it's all about the big "reveal" when it's time for that jaw-dropping surprise.


Hundreds of reasons that can be suggested after the fact. Pro and Con. One as likely as the other
No clarity when it supposedly happened.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Roman Catholics believe that priests have power to forgive sins as taught by Christ himself.
> 
> John 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (NIV)
> 
> Paul also declares that God has given the ministry of reconciliation to the Church. Catholics interpret this ministry of reconciliation to be the power of forgiving sins and bringing the repentant sinner back to God.



My RC sources are a little vague on the issue.  Maybe it’s a question of semantics.  I’m not Catholic, so I won’t debate Catholicism with you.

My understanding of the Anglican and Orthodox positions are different, however.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It is not opinion. It is clearly defined by Judaism. If Jesus fulfilled prophesy the Jews would call him Messiah.
> The requirements are easily searchable (I've posted them 50x in other threads) from Jewish sources.
> Christianity is still saying "wait" for a few requirements be fulfilled, but claims Jesus is the Messiah anyway. The fact that those things didnt happen yet immediately excludes Jesus from the running.



The Jewish apostles, along with Jewish Paul, Jewish Barnabas, and Jewish Apollos went into Jewish synagogues on the Jewish sabbath and preached to Jews from the Jewish scriptures.  Consequently, many Jews believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Paul never met Jesus. Never physically saw Jesus. He wrote to try to make Jesus fulfill the requirements but could not.



Peter’s audience on the day of Pentecost was 100% Jewish.  Three thousand Jews were baptized that day.  All this occurred before Paul entered the picture.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Peter’s audience on the day of Pentecost was 100% Jewish.  Three thousand Jews were baptized that day.  All this occurred before Paul entered the picture.


According to......


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> The Jewish apostles, along with Jewish Paul, Jewish Barnabas, and Jewish Apollos went into Jewish synagogues on the Jewish sabbath and preached to Jews from the Jewish scriptures.  Consequently, many Jews believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.


Look up the requirements from Jewish sources and see for yourself.
If you are at all familiar with Judaism, the people were and are always searching for gods and messiahs. They worshipped many gods(bible shows examples of that) and have had numerous messiah candidates who's followers (like Peter, Paul and all who are associated with Jesus) were sure that the candidates were the messiah and followed them 100% They also died for their guys too.
You can search Messiah candidates that fulfilled even more requirements than Jesus but ultimately did not accomplish them ALL.
Like within Christianity and most religions, there are always offshoots of the original or main core. Christianity has 40,000 denominations that all differ slightly in order to suit like minded people. Judiasm is no different. Their history is full of guys like Paul and the gang who wanted to take the religion in directions to suit.
*Edited to include:
This is a quick outline that should be researched more in depth but it gives you basis to go off of.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/videos/six-reasons-why-jews-don-t-believe-in-jesus


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> My RC sources are a little vague on the issue.  Maybe it’s a question of semantics.  I’m not Catholic, so I won’t debate Catholicism with you.
> 
> My understanding of the Anglican and Orthodox positions are different, however.


I guess the Roman Catholics set the rules and everyone else did what they wanted with them to suit. ?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

Another site with better explanations about why Jesus just isn't "the guy".
https://aish.com/why-jews-dont-believe-in-jesus/


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> My RC sources are a little vague on the issue.  Maybe it’s a question of semantics.  I’m not Catholic, so I won’t debate Catholicism with you.
> 
> My understanding of the Anglican and Orthodox positions are different, however.


Its one of those things, like most things that has to do with Christianity, that ends up going around in circles with the so called scholars/experts.
But basically the Preist is granting forgiveness through authority granted from God/Jesus.
As a former Roman Catholic that, although simplified, is what I was taught.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Another site with better explanations about why Jesus just isn't "the guy".
> https://aish.com/why-jews-dont-believe-in-jesus/



You can post stuff like this till the cows come home, and my reply will be the same:

The Jewish apostles, along with Jewish Paul, Jewish Barnabas, and Jewish Apollos went into Jewish synagogues on the Jewish sabbath and preached to Jews from the Jewish scriptures. Consequently, many Jews believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> You can post stuff like this till the cows come home, and my reply will be the same:
> 
> The Jewish apostles, along with Jewish Paul, Jewish Barnabas, and Jewish Apollos went into Jewish synagogues on the Jewish sabbath and preached to Jews from the Jewish scriptures. Consequently, many Jews believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.


Joseph Smith preached to Christians who were raised Christian and went to Christian Churches, on Christian days of worship and Christians believed what Joseph Smith was telling them.
Does that make Joseph Smith right?
Are you a Mormon now?
Or do you find fault with his teachings even though others think those teachings are 100% right.

Paul and the rest of your crew are the Joseph Smiths.
Welcome home Cows.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Joseph Smith preached to Christians ...



... 1800 years after the fact.  I'm talking about Jews who knew Jesus and/or the apostles. 

You point out that most Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah.  Fine!  Most gentiles don't believe He is, either.

"Because strait _is_ the gate, and narrow _is_ the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." - Matt. 7:14


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Another site with better explanations about why Jesus just isn't "the guy".
> https://aish.com/why-jews-dont-believe-in-jesus/



These guys didn't get the memo.

_"Messianic Judaism is actually 2,000 years old. Dating back to the time of the Messiah Yeshua. Historically, Yeshua was Jewish. He was raised in a Jewish home and ministered to Jewish people in a Jewish land (Eretz Yisrael). His disciples were Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The writers of the Brit Hadashah (New Covenant or New Testament) were Jewish, and for a time, the faith was strictly Jewish.

Some historians believe that more than one million Jewish people in the first century A.D. believed that Yeshua was the Messiah, both in Israel and outside of Israel (Acts 2:37-42, 4:4, 21:20)."_

Messianic Judaism | Beth Yeshua International -


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> ... 1800 years after the fact.  I'm talking about Jews who knew Jesus and/or the apostles.
> 
> You point out that most Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah.  Fine!  Most gentiles don't believe He is, either.
> 
> "Because strait _is_ the gate, and narrow _is_ the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." - Matt. 7:14


A small % of Jews were convinced. Similar % twere convinced of other Jews being the messiah throughout their history.

Joseph Smith was able to take 1800 years of beliefs and change peoples minds. No different than Paul.
Paul did it a couple thouand years "after the fact" of Abraham and Moses.

Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy in the Torah. If you actually read the requirements you can clearly see that and yet you still overlook it to go with what you want to believe.  You aren't any different than those who believe what they want or need to.
Saying "but Paul and those others said he did and people believe them..." does not negate what the requirements are and that Jesus didn't fulfill them.

If you can refute the outline laid out in the Aish link I posted I am all ears. If you've read it and your rebuttle is that some Jews bought into Peter and Paul's stories is all on you. Christianity was on a decline, hanging on by a thread until Rome adopted it, tweaked it, and used it to bring multiple beliefs  together so more would buy into it. As far as religions go,Christianity was hanging on by a thread and on its way out until Constantine.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> These guys didn't get the memo.
> 
> _"Messianic Judaism is actually 2,000 years old. Dating back to the time of the Messiah Yeshua. Historically, Yeshua was Jewish. He was raised in a Jewish home and ministered to Jewish people in a Jewish land (Eretz Yisrael). His disciples were Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The writers of the Brit Hadashah (New Covenant or New Testament) were Jewish, and for a time, the faith was strictly Jewish._
> 
> ...


Lots of religions are old. Many still have followers with beliefs. Do they hold more clout than any other?

Who are these "some" historians?

Are you using scripture as a source to confirm scripture?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> These guys didn't get the memo.
> 
> _"Messianic Judaism is actually 2,000 years old. Dating back to the time of the Messiah Yeshua. Historically, Yeshua was Jewish. He was raised in a Jewish home and ministered to Jewish people in a Jewish land (Eretz Yisrael). His disciples were Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The writers of the Brit Hadashah (New Covenant or New Testament) were Jewish, and for a time, the faith was strictly Jewish._
> 
> ...


Let's break the Messanic Jews down.
They are the Jews who belive that Jesus is their Messiah but that is as far as it goes. They do not worship him because they worship a Deity and do not worship a man who is ordained by God to lead the people.
They are outnumbered and flanked by both non-messanic Jews and Christians.
The non-messanic Jews worship God and are still waiting for their messiah.

The Christians started as messanic Jews and then for some reason also made a man into a part of their God which is also a no-no in traditional Judaism and then started to worship him.
It's like a denomination branched off to follow thier own beleifs the same as in Christianity. Some Christian denominations pray to Mary and Saints. Who was the one to sell that twist?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

https://www.jewishhistory.org/bar-kochba/

This guy rolled in about 40 years after Jesus. Had an army of 350,000 "messanic" Jews (messanic doesn't mean for Jesus) without counting the non military.
He could uproot trees from horseback and it was a requirement to be in his army.
His reign had Rome in terror so much so that they Outlawed Judaism. Oddly enough that is about the time that Authors,  anonymous and otherwise,  started writing about a new religion.....
Coincidence?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://www.jewishhistory.org/bar-kochba/
> 
> This guy rolled in about 40 years after Jesus. Had an army of 350,000 "messanic" Jews (messanic doesn't mean for Jesus) without counting the non military.
> He could uproot trees from horseback and it was a requirement to be in his army.
> ...



 So the Bar-Kochba stories were told/recorded by the Jews, right? To be honest if the Old Testament tells us anything, the Jews were very fond of embellishment & propaganda. If there aren't many outside sources saying much about Bar-Kochba it might be a myth/legend. Let me preach on it:

"What we do know about him is that he was a person of tremendous physical strength. He was able to uproot a tree while riding a horse. He was able to hold back a Roman catapult."   And every member of his 350,000-member army could uproot trees while riding? Color me skeptical. 

This reminds me of the old SNL skits with a bunch of drunken salesmen talking about legendary salesman "BILL BRASKY - weighed about 350 stood about 6 feet 8!" and the tall tales of Bill Brasky would get taller and taller the drunker they got.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 2, 2022)

Okay Ruger #3 I finished the links you provided. Interesting insight into how early Christianity was affecting the Romans and society in general in the region. It does show that Christians were dedicated to their beliefs, of which I have no doubt or Christianity would have fizzled out. But bottom-line other religions are filled with followers of strong, unfailing dedication. Cults pop up all the time even today where the members - and often leaders - are willing to face death. And it's usually the promise of a wonderful after-life that seals the deal. Just sayin'


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> He could uproot trees from horseback ...



You take this as gospel yet laugh at Sampson.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Lots of religions are old. Many still have followers with beliefs. Do they hold more clout than any other?
> 
> Who are these "some" historians?



Ask the Messianic Jews.  I just posted the link.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> A small % of Jews were convinced.



... just as Jesus said.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy in the Torah.



Then why did _any_ Jews believe?  Why did 3,000 sign up on Day 1?  Why was the _entire early church_ Jewish?


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Christianity was on a decline, hanging on by a thread until Rome adopted it, tweaked it ...



What doctrines did Rome "tweak"?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> You take this as gospel yet laugh at Sampson.


I do not take anything as gospel. Just relaying examples of Jewish history to show you your one messiah candidate is not unique.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Ask the Messianic Jews.  I just posted the link.


Exactly


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Then why did _any_ Jews believe?  Why did 3,000 sign up on Day 1?  Why was the _entire early church_ Jewish?


If you are paying attention I already told you that like with many other religions there are people who are always looking for someone or something new. In Jewish history there are examples of people, great numbers of people in the hundreds of thousands regarding Bar-Kochba, that are eager to follow the next messiah candidate.  Bar-Kochba came onto the scene only 40 years after Jesus and had a 365,000 man army and the support of the Jewish people.

Don't you love how accurate Acts is with numbers? Exactly 3,000 people in 1 day. Outside sources do not corroborate those claims...just scripture. 500 saw the ascension too, don't forget that!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> What doctrines did Rome "tweak"?


The various councils met many times to adopt doctrine.  You must know of them.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> You take this as gospel yet laugh at Sampson.



I don't think anybody is taking this (nor samson) as gospel. I would like to see what the dude ACTUALLY did to inspire the legend of uprooting trees on horseback. Technically a six-inch sapling is still a tree, so who knows?


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 2, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The various councils met many times to adopt doctrine.  You must know of them.



Of course I do.  What doctrines did they "adopt"?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Of course I do.  What doctrines did they "adopt"?


There were three versions of the Nicene Creed: the original Nicene, the enlarged Constantinopolitan, and the Latin version.[1] The first creed was adopted in A.D. 325 by a Council held at Nicaea.[2] The council was attended by 318 eastern bishops, except for Hosius who was from Spain.[3] The creed refutes the heresy of the Arian Controversy and was designed to settle the controversy. The Arian doctrine taught that Jesus was not God. He was only a created being. Arius taught that Christ was a created being and was not of the same essence or substance (_heteroousios_) of the Father.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 2, 2022)

Praying to the Virgin Mary is The Doctrine of Assumption. That was adopted from Pagan rituals and called De-facto Idolatry.

The Church adopted a few Pagan practices and made them doctrine.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Praying to the Virgin Mary is The Doctrine of Assumption. That was adopted from Pagan rituals and called De-facto Idolatry.
> 
> The Church adopted a few Pagan practices and made them doctrine.


Cant count how many times Ive said this one -
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The Arian doctrine taught that Jesus was not God. He was only a created being. Arius taught that Christ was a created being and was not of the same essence or substance (_heteroousios_) of the Father.



Yes, Arius - one priest in Alexandria - taught that.  The church met at Nicea to refute him because that was not what the church had always taught.  

No new doctrine came from Nicea.  They were opposing Arius’ new doctrine.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Praying to the Virgin Mary is The Doctrine of Assumption. That was adopted ...



… in 1950.

Lots of non-Catholics would take issue with that.  Martin Luther took issue with far less.  I’m talking about the ancient councils.  What doctrines did they change?

Just tell me what Constantine changed.  He seems to be at the root of this.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Praying to the Virgin Mary is The Doctrine of Assumption. That was adopted from Pagan rituals and called De-facto Idolatry.
> 
> The Church adopted a few Pagan practices and made them doctrine.



I have read this many times, but according to my research the prayer comes progressively out from the Church's understanding that Mary is of special "merits" because the bible says so and that  because of these "merits" Mary can intercede for others if anyone can due to the Christian understanding by which prayers are answered which is due her relationship with the God. The formalizing of this is recent to the Church and dubious as to it being the copy of Pagan ritual(s). Rather it comes out of the realization within Christianity of what it means to be Christian in this life and its implications in the life to come.

And once more, the intercession of the saints was a feature of the Jewish cult and derived internally and not derived from the pagans especially.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Yes, Arius - one priest in Alexandria - taught that.  The church met at Nicea to refute him because that was not what the church had always taught.
> 
> No new doctrine came from Nicea.  They were opposing Arius’ new doctrine.





> The first creed was adopted in A.D. 325 by a Council held at Nicaea.


Apparently Arius and whoever else under him spread around the empire did not get the universal memo or direct instructions from God and therefore taught how they understood it to be. That went on until the Council made the doctrine official, IE: adopted it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> … in 1950.
> 
> Lots of non-Catholics would take issue with that.  Martin Luther took issue with far less.  I’m talking about the ancient councils.  What doctrines did they change?
> 
> Just tell me what Constantine changed.  He seems to be at the root of this.


Instead of me posting,then having to go back and explain, then having to copy/paste.
Here you go..
https://reformation.org/6-changes-of-constantine.html


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

gordon 2 said:


> I have read this many times, but according to my research the prayer comes progressively out from the Church's understanding that Mary is of special "merits" because the bible says so and that  because of these "merits" Mary can intercede for others if anyone can due to the Christian understanding by which prayers are answered which is due her relationship with the God. The formalizing of this is recent to the Church and dubious as to it being the copy of Pagan ritual(s). Rather it comes out of the realization within Christianity of what it means to be Christian in this life and its implications in the life to come.
> 
> And once more, the intercession of the saints was a feature of the Jewish cult and derived internally and not derived from the pagans especially.


https://bigthink.com/the-present/pagan-roots-of-catholicism/


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> … in 1950.
> 
> Lots of non-Catholics would take issue with that.  Martin Luther took issue with far less.  I’m talking about the ancient councils.  What doctrines did they change?
> 
> Just tell me what Constantine changed.  He seems to be at the root of this.


https://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/heart_mary/mary_early_church_miravalle.htm


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

https://www.apostolic.edu/historica...church-fathers-catholic-of-the-third-century/


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Instead of me posting,then having to go back and explain, then having to copy/paste.
> Here you go..
> https://reformation.org/6-changes-of-constantine.html





What the heck is "reformation.org"?  I don't know because you can't even access the home page.  Let's briefly look at his points (responses in blue):


1.C onstantine changed the place of the Resurrection of Christ.  Even if true (doubtful), so what?

2. Constantine changed the time of the Resurrection of Christ.  Even if true (doubtful), so what?

3. Constantine changed the time of the birth of Christ.  Even if true (doubtful), so what? 

4. Constantine changed the Scriptural method of becoming a Christian.  Nonsense.  No more repentance?  No more baptism?  This is what you'd expect from an anti-Catholic site.

5. Constantine changed the relationship of Christianity to the state.  If by "changed the relationship", he means "no longer slaughtering them", that's correct. 

6.Constantine changed the headquarters from Jerusalem to Rome or Constantinople.  There were five great church "sees" of the ancient world:  Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople.  Since Rome and Constantinople were the Western and Eastern capitals of the empire, it made sense that they would be important church hubs.  This did not diminish the importance of the others.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Work in process
> 
> Constantine changed the place of the Resurrection of Christ.2.Constantine changed the time of the Resurrection of Christ. 3.Constantine changed the time of the birth of Christ. 4.Constantine changed the Scriptural method of becoming a Christian. 5. Constantine changed the relationship of Christianity to the state. 6.Constantine changed the headquarters from Jerusalem to Rome or Constantinople.


Now mind you I know that Constantine didn't personally decide the changes just like Trump didn't pack his own moving boxes. I get it.
Under Constantine's rule he got the council together that decided these things.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Work in process
> 
> Constantine changed the place of the Resurrection of Christ.2.Constantine changed the time of the Resurrection of Christ. 3.Constantine changed the time of the birth of Christ. 4.Constantine changed the Scriptural method of becoming a Christian. 5. Constantine changed the relationship of Christianity to the state. 6.Constantine changed the headquarters from Jerusalem to Rome or Constantinople.


There has been a lot more unaddressed or unacknowledged that gets skipped over.
I am still waiting on the refutation of the Aish link that points out why Jesus did not fulfill prophecy. 
Saying that Paul, Pete and gang got some Jews to believe that Jesus did just doesn't cut it.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://www.apostolic.edu/historica...church-fathers-catholic-of-the-third-century/



This is a United Pentecostal Church site.  They are "oneness" pentecostals (Arians.)

I'm not surprised that modern-day Arians are critical of the Council of Nicea.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/heart_mary/mary_early_church_miravalle.htm



As Mr. Peterman said on _Seinfeld_, "Well, that certainly is a lot of words."

I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to get out of all that, other than the RCC has changed its doctrines of Mary over the years.  I'm sure the Copts, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant churches would agree that the RCC has changed.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> This is a United Pentecostal Church site.  They are "oneness" pentecostals (Arians.)
> 
> I'm not surprised that modern-day Arians are critical of the Council of Nicea.


Well who is going to criticize it, a fan?
It's more about refuting the points than shooting the messenger.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> As Mr. Peterman said on _Seinfeld_, "Well, that certainly is a lot of words."
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to get out of all that, other than the RCC has changed its doctrines of Mary over the years.  I'm sure the Copts, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant churches would agree that the RCC has changed.


All that is in response to your "in 1950" comment about Mary. It shows the practice of praying to her and worship was done early on.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Well who is going to criticize it, a fan?
> It's more about refuting the points than shooting the messenger.



The messenger doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> All that is in response to your "in 1950" comment about Mary. It shows the practice of praying to her and worship was done early on.



What happened in 1950 is different.  It was definitely a "step up".

She was always given honor ("venerated") in the past.  Even most of the Reformers believed she was "ever virgin".


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I am still waiting on the refutation of the Aish link that points out why Jesus did not fulfill prophecy..



Knock yourself out:

The REAL Messiah | Explore - Investigate - Seek - Find


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> What the heck is "reformation.org"?  I don't know because you can't even access the home page.  Let's briefly look at his points (responses in blue):
> 
> 
> 1.C onstantine changed the place of the Resurrection of Christ.  Even if true (doubtful), so what?
> ...


1,2, and 3., So if changing the times and locations of places of events from their original dates and locations in order to better suit the Church is common practice, changing other things is not a stretch.
4. I dont think you read that one correctly. 
5. The Catholic Church still slaughtered non Catholic Christians into the 19th century. Might be wise to look into that.
6. Where was the first church located?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> The messenger doesn't know what he's talking about.


Well that response is way better than using facts and sources to refute it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Knock yourself out:
> 
> The REAL Messiah | Explore - Investigate - Seek - Find


"According to one of the Messiah legends"
Concrete for sure


----------



## bullethead (Oct 3, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Knock yourself out:
> 
> The REAL Messiah | Explore - Investigate - Seek - Find


That doesn't address the Aish link point by point.
And 6000 year old earth...
In the words of Brandon the Clueless...
C'mon Man!


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> That doesn't address the Aish link point by point.



I'm sure Brown does in his five-volume series.  

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus : Volume 1: General and Historical Objections - Kindle edition by Brown, Michael L.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. 

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus : Volume 2: Theological Objections - Kindle edition by Brown, Michael L.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. 

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus : Volume 3: Messianic Prophecy Objections - Kindle edition by Brown, Michael L.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. 

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus : Volume 4: New Testament Objections - Kindle edition by Brown, Michael L.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. 

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 5: Traditional Jewish Objections - Kindle edition by Brown, Michael. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 3, 2022)

bullethead said:


> "According to one of the Messiah legends"
> Concrete for sure



It doesn't bother me in the least that most Jews don't accept Jesus as Messiah.  I would expect nothing else.

OTOH, it kills you that Brown and others like him won't "fall in line".  They are living refutations of what you're clinging to.  They are the crucifix, and you are Dracula.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 4, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Well who is going to criticize it, a fan?
> It's more about refuting the points than shooting the messenger.


Actually; if one studied denominations as part of their entire research, the UPC is critical of the “councils” because according to them they are the original church born in Acts. The “council” was the first to start leaving and altering the doctrine given in Acts and reformed their own doctrine mixed between what was given in thry NT and the old OT - hanging on to the priesthood of a man instead of Jesus. The rest of the denominations broke off out of the Catholic Church - there’s a founding date given for them.

“Pentecost *comes from a Jewish harvest festival called Shavuot*. The apostles were celebrating this festival when the Holy Spirit descended on them. It sounded like a very strong wind, and it looked like tongues of fire”

A couple of critical points - they don’t baptize the same as the disciples baptized in Acts. The same councils credited for “giving us our known Bible” left in Jesus being our Mediator / calling no man “Father” while interpreting confession as asking a “Father” in a box to forgive you and praying to Mary.

Don’t shoot the messenger……..it’s just stuff easily found when studying denominations.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> It doesn't bother me in the least that most Jews don't accept Jesus as Messiah.  I would expect nothing else.
> 
> OTOH, it kills you that Brown and others like him won't "fall in line".  They are living refutations of what you're clinging to.  They are the crucifix, and you are Dracula.


It kills me? Statements like that reaffirm me that some people live in their own world and make up their own facts when reality eludes them.
I personally could not care less about who does or thinks what. I like the discussion and presentations to be discussed. Brown and his others like him who do not take into account the requirements did not get done and rely on will happen eventually do not surprise me. I would expect nothing else.
The messiah dies of natural causes.
The messiah rebuilds the Temple.
The messiah unites all Jews.
World peace is had through the Messiah.
If Jesus did any of those let me and then Charlie Brown know.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Actually; if one studied denominations as part of their entire research, the UPC is critical of the “councils” because according to them they are the original church born in Acts. The “council” was the first to start leaving and altering the doctrine given in Acts and reformed their own doctrine mixed between what was given in thry NT and the old OT - hanging on to the priesthood of a man instead of Jesus. The rest of the denominations broke off out of the Catholic Church - there’s a founding date given for them.
> 
> “Pentecost *comes from a Jewish harvest festival called Shavuot*. The apostles were celebrating this festival when the Holy Spirit descended on them. It sounded like a very strong wind, and it looked like tongues of fire”
> 
> ...


So in your many other words UPC is NOT a FAN of the Roman Catholic council and is CRITICIZING the RCC?
Which is what I said, based off of my study of Denominations. 
You made a LONG summary out of my short one. Thank you. Maybe Brutally Honest will understand it a little more now.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I'm sure Brown does in his five-volume series.
> 
> Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus : Volume 1: General and Historical Objections - Kindle edition by Brown, Michael L.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
> 
> ...


Lets pretend that you've read what you are using. Give me the cliffnotes.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 4, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Lets pretend that you've read what you are using. Give me the cliffnotes.



Haven’t read any of them.  Not my thing.  (I prefer church history.  I read a book on Catholicism recently, just finished an “intro to Orthodoxy” book, and have a fat, juicy book on the Reformation in the on-deck circle.)

However, it _is_ your thing.  So, bon appetit!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> Haven’t read any of them.  Not my thing.  (I prefer church history.  I read a book on Catholicism recently, just finished an “intro to Orthodoxy” book, and have a fat, juicy book on the Reformation in the on-deck circle.)
> 
> However, it _is_ your thing.  So, bon appetit!


Unless Michael L Brown has informed us that Jesus died of old age and passed on the Title to his Son. Has shown us that the Temple was rebuilt by Jesus. Writes with factual examples that all Jews have come home and are united. And throws a few nightly news segments in there that World Peace was achieved under the Messiahship of Jesus.....
Paying for fiction that is used as examples (which the provider has not read himself and literally has no idea what the author says) is actually NOT my thing.


----------



## brutally honest (Oct 4, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Lets pretend that you've read what you are using. Give me the cliffnotes.



I gave you the “cliff notes” in post 355.  You sarcastically dismissed them in post 358.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I gave you the “cliff notes” in post 355.  You sarcastically dismissed them in post 358.


I read them.
My reply wasn't sarcasm.
The author is dismissing written Torah requirements and prophecy and replacing it with "according to legends".

None of it, or anything that you've posted by others and have avoided directly answering yourself explains why the requirements in #363 and #367 absolutely have not been met by Jesus. There is is no wait 2000+ years clause. The Messiah will do those things while alive. They will happen in his lifetime. Period.
If and when those things happen, which I highly doubt they will, then whoever is responsible for them happening will be the Messiah that Judaism awaits.

Did those things happen by Jesus and in his lifetime?
Did Jesus die of old age?
If the answer to all or even one is No then the Messiah requirements are not met.
They aren't my rules.  The rules didn't change. It is really very simple. It is harder to know the rules/requirements, ignore them because there is just no evidence that proves your case, and continue on as if twisting the rules is an acceptable mulligan. 
I am open to seeing someone, anyone, bringing world peace. I really wish that if there is a god I could know which one it is. I am all for a believable religion around that god or gods. I just don't have faith that anything currently proposed by man has got it even close.
If a god wants me to know it, it would know exactly how to contact me and convince me. My number isnt hard to find and especially not for a god.

But, this back and forth, posting examples that take novels to read which ultimately cannot prove prophecy has been fulfilled by one man is ridiculous. Look around you, you are a living example in a world where these prophetic proofs did not happen. I can't give you any more real time proof that those links are bunk than that. If the world is at peace please let me know.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 4, 2022)

bullethead said:


> So in your many other words UPC is NOT a FAN of the Roman Catholic council and is CRITICIZING the RCC?
> Which is what I said, based off of my study of Denominations.
> You made a LONG summary out of my short one. Thank you. Maybe Brutally Honest will understand it a little more now.


You’re correct. They’re not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church / council. I think BH understands, but he might be looking for something a little different. I haven’t kept up so I’m just wild guessing.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 4, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> This is a United Pentecostal Church site.  They are "oneness" pentecostals (Arians.)
> 
> I'm not surprised that modern-day Arians are critical of the Council of Nicea.


I'm not sure Oneness is the same as Arianism. Oneness believe that the one God, incarnate as the Son. That before that point, the Son only existed in Word.
Oneness believe in the Trinity, that God is all three but not at the same time. That he operates as all three personas, just not at the same time.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 4, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> You’re correct. They’re not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church / council. I think BH understands, but he might be looking for something a little different. I haven’t kept up so I’m just wild guessing.


Your initial post explaining it was directed at me (you quoted me) and in a way that seemed like you were issuing me a correction and telling me that if I researched more about denominations I would know this.
My initial reply that said " well who is going to criticize it, a "fan" was based on UPC not being fans of the RCC because BrutallyHonest was knocking my UPC source.
Maybe you intended it to be In Addition to my reply to Brutallyhonest ....I wasn't sure.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 4, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Your initial post explaining it was directed at me (you quoted me) and in a way that seemed like you were issuing me a correction and telling me that if I researched more about denominations I would know this.
> My initial reply that said " well who is going to criticize it, a "fan" was based on UPC not being fans of the RCC because BrutallyHonest was knocking my UPC source.
> Maybe you intended it to be In Addition to my reply to Brutallyhonest ....I wasn't sure.


Yes Sir, I was agreeing with you with additional info. No correction intended for you. My apologies if it came across that way.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 24, 2022)

Sorry for the interruption or if this has been brought up already but, little known fact about Adam and the rib. 
Adam was hanging around the garden of Eden feeling very lonely... God asked him, "What's wrong with you?" Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to. God said that He was going to make Adam a companion and that it would be a woman.
He said, "This pretty lady will gather food for you, she will cook for you, and when you discover clothing, she will wash it for you. She will always agree with every decision you make and she will not nag you, and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She will praise you! She will bear your children. and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them. She will never have a headache and will freely give you love and passion whenever you need it."
Adam asked God, "What will a woman like this cost?"
God replied, "An arm and a leg."
Then Adam asked, "What can I get for a rib?"


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 24, 2022)

660griz said:


> Sorry for the interruption or if this has been brought up already but, little known fact about Adam and the rib.
> Adam was hanging around the garden of Eden feeling very lonely... God asked him, "What's wrong with you?" Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to. God said that He was going to make Adam a companion and that it would be a woman.
> He said, "This pretty lady will gather food for you, she will cook for you, and when you discover clothing, she will wash it for you. She will always agree with every decision you make and she will not nag you, and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She will praise you! She will bear your children. and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them. She will never have a headache and will freely give you love and passion whenever you need it."
> Adam asked God, "What will a woman like this cost?"
> ...



HA!


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 25, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> ^
> Alot of times we try to nail down believers to a concrete answer. Which sometimes is alot like herding cats.  We do appreciate your honest participation.


----------

