# Question



## stringmusic

If Christianity were proven 100% true today, would you become a Christian?


----------



## WaltL1

Howdy String hope all is well with you and yours.
If Christianity was 100% proven to be true, I would believe the Christian God exists but no I dont think I would become a "Christian".
Too many things I disagree with.
Not to mention Christianity has so many differing beliefs that it cant ALL be 100% true.


----------



## stringmusic

WaltL1 said:


> Howdy String hope all is well with you and yours.


You too man.


> If Christianity was 100% proven to be true, I would believe the Christian God exists but no I dont think I would become a "Christian".
> Too many things I disagree with.
> Not to mention Christianity has so many differing beliefs that it cant ALL be 100% true.


thanks for the answer.


I honestly don't really have anything to argue about this topic. It's just a question I was pondering today.


----------



## Israel

stringmusic said:


> You too man.
> 
> thanks for the answer.
> 
> 
> I honestly don't really have anything to argue about this topic. It's just a question I was pondering today.


This may sound contentious, but my hope is that you hear it, nonetheless.

Is it, as it often seems, we may set out in hope to prove "christianity" (and here, I believe Walt1 answered soberly) is in whatever sense, true? But, if that be so, is that what a believer is sent for? Here, in this time and place, what a believer is set for?
If (as I hope I discern) in your question is the more fundamental question "If Jesus presented Himself as alive to you..."?

This matter of christianity, (for which I acknowledge Walt's answer) is often (and perhaps only to me) more an appeal to join a team, a faction (perhaps) that remains more tribal in appeal..."come to our winning side".

Now I would be wrong to deny the gain to a soul in seeing this (the Lord, alive), and yes, there is a recruitment to a brotherhood of saints in whose company is found much encouragement and comfort. But this is always, and only by the Lord's presence discovered, not by the mere signing up (so to speak) with a credo whose particulars do seem to vary in the many "flavors" of christianity proffered. 

It is a seeming cart and horse affair. But to one thing are we not called...and that, in its outworking in and through each member of this body, is the manifestation of Jesus Christ as Lord and King, whose Kingdom is open to any and all who believe, and in whose name alone is such entrance granted?
I trust.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> If Christianity were proven 100% true today, would you become a Christian?


I would love to have a personal experience with a god, the Christian god, so that I would know the truth...whatever that may be.
I would think that something that moved me to believe would also have me respect that entity with worship.
I do not know what that personal experience would be or could be. I leave that open for any god that wants to try, as a god would know exactly what it would take more than I would.


----------



## ambush80

I agree 100% with Walt.  I tell that God that He wasn't worth worshiping.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I agree 100% with Walt.  I tell that God that He wasn't worth worshiping.



I think that depending on how I found out, IE personal visit (and that might depend upon knowledge gained as to whether or not us humans have gotten the bible correct) by a Jesus entity or an OT type God entity.
I really do not know how Christianity or any religion could be proven as true without a visit to the masses worldwide by the god.


----------



## Israel

That's what I mean about cart and horse.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> That's what I mean about cart and horse.



If only the rest of your first post was that simple.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> This may sound contentious, but my hope is that you hear it, nonetheless.
> 
> Is it, as it often seems, we may set out in hope to prove "christianity" (and here, I believe Walt1 answered soberly) is in whatever sense, true? But, if that be so, is that what a believer is sent for? Here, in this time and place, what a believer is set for?
> If (as I hope I discern) in your question is the more fundamental question "If Jesus presented Himself as alive to you..."?
> 
> This matter of christianity, (for which I acknowledge Walt's answer) is often (and perhaps only to me) more an appeal to join a team, a faction (perhaps) that remains more tribal in appeal..."come to our winning side".
> 
> Now I would be wrong to deny the gain to a soul in seeing this (the Lord, alive), and yes, there is a recruitment to a brotherhood of saints in whose company is found much encouragement and comfort. But this is always, and only by the Lord's presence discovered, not by the mere signing up (so to speak) with a credo whose particulars do seem to vary in the many "flavors" of christianity proffered.
> 
> It is a seeming cart and horse affair. But to one thing are we not called...and that, in its outworking in and through each member of this body, is the manifestation of Jesus Christ as Lord and King, whose Kingdom is open to any and all who believe, and in whose name alone is such entrance granted?
> I trust.



I have no idea what you're talking about.  I never do.  I simply can't decipher it.  I try.  Honestly I do.  It's just beyond me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

stringmusic said:


> If Christianity were proven 100% true today, would you become a Christian?



I get the jest of your question, but I think if it were ever proven 100% true then it would have to be false.  If a finite being with a finite capacity for understanding could truly UNDERSTAND it, God would have to be finite also and therefore not God.
It's too early on a Monday for my mind to delve too much into this.  I gotta stop while I'm behind.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.  I never do.  I simply can't decipher it.  I try.  Honestly I do.  It's just beyond me.



Every paragraph he writes can be condensed down into a simple clear single sentence but the filler dilutes it so bad that the message is lost.


----------



## East River Guide

bullethead said:


> I would love to have a personal experience with a god, the Christian god



I'm holding out for Aphrodite.


----------



## bullethead

East River Guide said:


> I'm holding out for Aphrodite.



Atta boy


----------



## gordon 2

bullethead said:


> I would love to have a personal experience with a god, the Christian god, so that I would know the truth...whatever that may be.
> I would think that something that moved me to believe would also have me respect that entity with worship.
> I do not know what that personal experience would be or could be. I leave that open for any god that wants to try, as a god would know exactly what it would take more than I would.



Why do you say " as a god would know exactly what it would take "? This begs that you have a definition of what-who  "the god" must be?

The personal experience you are seeking is found in faith and is in part faith as faith is the bias of scripture and of Christianity itself, (but also other religions) and is generally the means to the experience of God.

The bias of scripture and believers is faith. Faith is what they have and faith is what they offer as the experience offered by God that is of most importance.  More than not people who's lives are changed in a  positive meaningful way due to spirituality generally take on the bias offered by faith.   

And faith here is not only " believing blindly" as some would claim. Believing blindly is a minute part of faith. Rather faith forms the bias to super change the assessment of personal experiences and motivates actions. All the human senses and faculties can be aligned to go through the bias of faith. And it is through this bias that one gets the experience you will enjoy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

East River Guide said:


> I'm holding out for Aphrodite.



What does she have to offer after the love fades...... Eternal nagging?  Nah...  I'll pass.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> What does she have to offer after the love fades...... Eternal nagging?  Nah...  I'll pass.



She's a goddess. It's everlasting ecstatic love that never fades.  You can't even comprehend it with your mortal mind.


----------



## centerpin fan

SemperFiDawg said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.  I never do.  I simply can't decipher it.  I try.  Honestly I do.  It's just beyond me.



You deserve this, just for trying.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> She's a goddess. It's everlasting ecstatic love that never fades.  You can't even comprehend it with your mortal mind.



Son at my age I'd rather have a good tomato sandwich.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Son at my age I'd rather have a good tomato sandwich.



It's your fantasy world.  You're entitled to whatever you wish, even everlasting life with tomato sandwich.


----------



## j_seph

As our pastor and others have said, H.E. double hockey sticks is no place to be, you are not welcome there and you will be considered an intruder. There won't be no party there for sure with all your buddies. So if it was proven and you still refused to believe, how foolish is that of you.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> As our pastor and others have said, H.E. double hockey sticks is no place to be, you are not welcome there and you will be considered an intruder. There won't be no party there for sure with all your buddies. So if it was proven and you still refused to believe, how foolish is that of you.


How would your pastor and others know? Have they been there?


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> Why do you say " as a god would know exactly what it would take "? This begs that you have a definition of what-who  "the god" must be?
> 
> The personal experience you are seeking is found in faith and is in part faith as faith is the bias of scripture and of Christianity itself, (but also other religions) and is generally the means to the experience of God.
> 
> The bias of scripture and believers is faith. Faith is what they have and faith is what they offer as the experience offered by God that is of most importance.  More than not people who's lives are changed in a  positive meaningful way due to spirituality generally take on the bias offered by faith.
> 
> And faith here is not only " believing blindly" as some would claim. Believing blindly is a minute part of faith. Rather faith forms the bias to super change the assessment of personal experiences and motivates actions. All the human senses and faculties can be aligned to go through the bias of faith. And it is through this bias that one gets the experience you will enjoy.



Are you saying a god doesn't know everything?


----------



## j_seph

bullethead said:


> How would your pastor and others know? Have they been there?


It is written in what is known as the Holy Bible
Can you show me where there is not a He11 nor a heaven?
  1 Timothy 2:3-4
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 

Matthew 25:41
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Isaiah 5:14
14 Therefore CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

and for knowledge purposes
http://www.goingtojesus.com/topic_satan.html?tname=tfe03-09


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I would love to have a personal experience with a god, the Christian god, so that I would know the truth...whatever that may be.
> I would think that something that moved me to believe would also have me respect that entity with worship.
> I do not know what that personal experience would be or could be. I leave that open for any god that wants to try, as a god would know exactly what it would take more than I would.



Bullet I hope you have your personal experience.  I really do.  If you do,there will be no doubt that Christ is exactly who he claimed to be.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

j_seph said:


> It is written in what is known as the Holy Bible
> Can you show me where there is not a He11 nor a heaven?
> 1 Timothy 2:3-4
> 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
> 
> Matthew 25:41
> 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
> 
> Isaiah 5:14
> 14 Therefore CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
> 
> and for knowledge purposes
> http://www.goingtojesus.com/topic_satan.html?tname=tfe03-09



Seth I know your intentions are good , but you can't preach to these people.   Many, if not most here will reject verbatim scripture.  It has no meaning to them like it does to you.


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> It is written in what is known as the Holy Bible
> Can you show me where there is not a He11 nor a heaven?
> 1 Timothy 2:3-4
> 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
> 
> Matthew 25:41
> 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
> 
> Isaiah 5:14
> 14 Therefore CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
> 
> and for knowledge purposes
> http://www.goingtojesus.com/topic_satan.html?tname=tfe03-09



So you believe everything in the Bible is true.  Good for you, bad for the rest of us.  I will, however, take one piece of the Bible as good advice and leave you to your foolishness.


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> It is written in what is known as the Holy Bible
> Can you show me where there is not a He11 nor a heaven?
> 1 Timothy 2:3-4
> 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
> 
> Matthew 25:41
> 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
> 
> Isaiah 5:14
> 14 Therefore CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
> 
> and for knowledge purposes
> http://www.goingtojesus.com/topic_satan.html?tname=tfe03-09



Oh, the bible. Not a single inaccurate word in there.........carry on.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet I hope you have your personal experience.  I really do.  If you do,there will be no doubt that Christ is exactly who he claimed to be.



I'm ready.


----------



## Israel

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet I hope you have your personal experience.  I really do.  If you do,there will be no doubt that Christ is exactly who he claimed to be.



See? You already get it.
It's Jesus Christ being who He is, not what christians may or may not say He is.

Some may find themselves and their faith vindicated in this, some, may not. But Jesus is who He is not dependent at all upon christianity as such. Nor does he appear to vindicate christianity as the "right" religion, nor the better way, nor any of that. He appears as the True and Faithful Witness of the God of all gods, just as He is the Lord of lords.
Yes, there are gods many and lords many, yet for us...well the apostle speaks to this:

For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist...

If a man appeal for any god...perhaps even a christian god...(Is God..."christian"?) he may well have an answer.
But there is for us only One God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is true, even if we all be found liars.

But, may we press on to know Him.
Fortunately, this Conqueror takes prisoners.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> See? You already get it.
> It's Jesus Christ being who He is, not what christians may or may not say He is.
> 
> Some may find themselves and their faith vindicated in this, some, may not. But Jesus is who He is not dependent at all upon christianity as such. Nor does he appear to vindicate christianity as the "right" religion, nor the better way, nor any of that. He appears as the True and Faithful Witness of the God of all gods, just as He is the Lord of lords.
> Yes, there are gods many and lords many, yet for us...well the apostle speaks to this:
> 
> For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist...
> 
> If a man appeal for any god...perhaps even a christian god...(Is God..."christian"?) he may well have an answer.
> But there is for us only One God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is true, even if we all be found liars.
> 
> But, may we press on to know Him.
> Fortunately, this Conqueror takes prisoners.


Claims, declarations, answering own questions and questions not ever asked...
"WHEEERE'S THE GOD "?
~bullethead pellar


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Claims, declarations, answering own questions and questions not ever asked...
> "WHEEERE'S THE GOD "?
> ~bullethead pellar



Always closer than a man might think.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> This may sound contentious, but my hope is that you hear it, nonetheless.
> 
> Is it, as it often seems, we may set out in hope to prove "christianity" (and here, I believe Walt1 answered soberly) is in whatever sense, true? But, if that be so, is that what a believer is sent for? Here, in this time and place, what a believer is set for?
> If (as I hope I discern) in your question is the more fundamental question "If Jesus presented Himself as alive to you..."?
> 
> This matter of christianity, (for which I acknowledge Walt's answer) is often (and perhaps only to me) more an appeal to join a team, a faction (perhaps) that remains more tribal in appeal..."come to our winning side".
> 
> Now I would be wrong to deny the gain to a soul in seeing this (the Lord, alive), and yes, there is a recruitment to a brotherhood of saints in whose company is found much encouragement and comfort. But this is always, and only by the Lord's presence discovered, not by the mere signing up (so to speak) with a credo whose particulars do seem to vary in the many "flavors" of christianity proffered.
> 
> It is a seeming cart and horse affair. But to one thing are we not called...and that, in its outworking in and through each member of this body, is the manifestation of Jesus Christ as Lord and King, whose Kingdom is open to any and all who believe, and in whose name alone is such entrance granted?
> I trust.





Israel said:


> See? You already get it.
> It's Jesus Christ being who He is, not what christians may or may not say He is.
> 
> Some may find themselves and their faith vindicated in this, some, may not. But Jesus is who He is not dependent at all upon christianity as such. Nor does he appear to vindicate christianity as the "right" religion, nor the better way, nor any of that. He appears as the True and Faithful Witness of the God of all gods, just as He is the Lord of lords.
> Yes, there are gods many and lords many, yet for us...well the apostle speaks to this:
> 
> For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist...
> 
> If a man appeal for any god...perhaps even a christian god...(Is God..."christian"?) he may well have an answer.
> But there is for us only One God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is true, even if we all be found liars.
> 
> But, may we press on to know Him.
> Fortunately, this Conqueror takes prisoners.



Having been recently pressed into consideration of denominations and eschatology (pressure being required to take me there), and specifically the interface of those, I have found your posts both helpful and affirming.  Thank You.

_BTW Love this line:
"this Conqueror takes prisoners"_


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Always closer than a man might think.


Another claim. Zero merit.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Having been recently pressed into consideration of denominations and eschatology (pressure being required to take me there), and specifically the interface of those, I have found your posts both helpful and affirming.  Thank You.
> 
> _BTW Love this line:
> "this Conqueror takes prisoners"_



I don't always understand Israel either but I'm also feeling him on this thread.


----------



## gordon 2

bullethead said:


> Are you saying a god doesn't know everything?



The experience your after is not something which must be drawn out of the bag of knowing everything. Your demand is not out of the ordinary for individuals and it is faith.

Simply for Christians the case of the cross, (or that Jesus, said the son of God, who was killed by people who denied him being God and more, that Jesus returned to life thereafter and witnessed and ministered  to the living after three days dead) reverberates as to what is wrong in the world and what is right in the lives of people.

So the experience is in this for you regard Christianity , either your with those who understand the cross as a truthful  experience of life and that it resonates with your life experiences  or it don't.

If it don't and you still would like the experience than I suggest that it is not God who is stopping you-- because the sign is out there and the experience is identified and named. My experience suggests people shut doors for various reasons of their own and that they burn their own bridges in their own minds regards knowledge and understanding ---for many varied reasoning from experience and thought. 

 So my experience is that when God with a big G is out of sight and out of mind and out of life, asking for a sign from any god to release his power which is claimed all knowing is a request much far fetched.

The sign and the experience you ask for is the same for everyone it has always been for a couple of thousand yrs regards Christianity and God and as far as I know it is the sign of the cross and the experience of faith. But these are not what you really are asking for, your asking for something supper special outside of this reality maybe... from any god. That my friend in my view is a hard row to hoe.


----------



## j_seph

gordon 2 said:


> The experience your after is not something which must be drawn out of the bag of knowing everything. Your demand is not out of the ordinary for individuals and it is faith.
> 
> Simply for Christians the case of the cross, (or that Jesus, said the son of God, who was killed by people who denied him being God and more, that Jesus returned to life thereafter and witnessed and ministered  to the living after three days dead) reverberates as to what is wrong in the world and what is right in the lives of people.
> 
> So the experience is in this for you regard Christianity , either your with those who understand the cross as a truthful  experience of life and that it resonates with your life experiences  or it don't.
> 
> If it don't and you still would like the experience than I suggest that it is not God who is stopping you-- because the sign is out there and the experience is identified and named. My experience suggests people shut doors for various reasons of their own and that they burn their own bridges in their own minds regards knowledge and understanding ---for many varied reasoning from experience and thought.
> 
> So my experience is that when God with a big G is out of sight and out of mind and out of life, asking for a sign from any god to release his power which is claimed all knowing is a request much far fetched.
> 
> The sign and the experience you ask for is the same for everyone it has always been for a couple of thousand yrs regards Christianity and God and as far as I know it is the sign of the cross and the experience of faith. But these are not what you really are asking for, your asking for something supper special outside of this reality maybe... from any god. That my friend in my view is a hard row to hoe.


When you look around and see everything God has created should be enough proof. Friends dad went into hospital, was in ICU for nearly a week. Doctors had him and his sister planning his funeral. His dad went home and the doctor said there is no medical explanation how he got better to go home. Buddy pointed up and the doctor says, that is the only explanation he can give. I would say there have been many times God has shown himself in everyones lives, it was up to the individual to see this, realize this. If you choose not to believe, mind set that you won't believe then why would an almighty God answer you when you ask that he show you proof.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> See? You already get it.
> It's Jesus Christ being who He is, not what christians may or may not say He is.



You shoulda stopped here.^^^^^


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> Always closer than a man might think.



See.  You CAN be concise.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gordon 2 said:


> The experience your after is not something which must be drawn out of the bag of knowing everything. Your demand is not out of the ordinary for individuals and it is faith.
> 
> Simply for Christians the case of the cross, (or that Jesus, said the son of God, who was killed by people who denied him being God and more, that Jesus returned to life thereafter and witnessed and ministered  to the living after three days dead) reverberates as to what is wrong in the world and what is right in the lives of people.
> 
> So the experience is in this for you regard Christianity , either your with those who understand the cross as a truthful  experience of life and that it resonates with your life experiences  or it don't.
> 
> If it don't and you still would like the experience than I suggest that it is not God who is stopping you-- because the sign is out there and the experience is identified and named. My experience suggests people shut doors for various reasons of their own and that they burn their own bridges in their own minds regards knowledge and understanding ---for many varied reasoning from experience and thought.
> 
> So my experience is that when God with a big G is out of sight and out of mind and out of life, asking for a sign from any god to release his power which is claimed all knowing is a request much far fetched.
> 
> The sign and the experience you ask for is the same for everyone it has always been for a couple of thousand yrs regards Christianity and God and as far as I know it is the sign of the cross and the experience of faith. But these are not what you really are asking for, your asking for something supper special outside of this reality maybe... from any god. That my friend in my view is a hard row to hoe.



It's a paradox that is very hard to grasp for many people.  We say show me God and I'll show you faith.  God says show me faith and I'll show you God.  It actually works if you do it his way, but it's a 'bridge too far' that many (for whatever reason) can't make the reach.


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> The experience your after is not something which must be drawn out of the bag of knowing everything. Your demand is not out of the ordinary for individuals and it is faith.
> 
> Simply for Christians the case of the cross, (or that Jesus, said the son of God, who was killed by people who denied him being God and more, that Jesus returned to life thereafter and witnessed and ministered  to the living after three days dead) reverberates as to what is wrong in the world and what is right in the lives of people.
> 
> So the experience is in this for you regard Christianity , either your with those who understand the cross as a truthful  experience of life and that it resonates with your life experiences  or it don't.
> 
> If it don't and you still would like the experience than I suggest that it is not God who is stopping you-- because the sign is out there and the experience is identified and named. My experience suggests people shut doors for various reasons of their own and that they burn their own bridges in their own minds regards knowledge and understanding ---for many varied reasoning from experience and thought.
> 
> So my experience is that when God with a big G is out of sight and out of mind and out of life, asking for a sign from any god to release his power which is claimed all knowing is a request much far fetched.
> 
> The sign and the experience you ask for is the same for everyone it has always been for a couple of thousand yrs regards Christianity and God and as far as I know it is the sign of the cross and the experience of faith. But these are not what you really are asking for, your asking for something supper special outside of this reality maybe... from any god. That my friend in my view is a hard row to hoe.


Extraordinary evidence should be within the realm of a god. Whatever has been offered my way has not been convincing. In fact I would say nothing has been offered at all. 
All I ask is that one god should bring it instead of having their believers sing it.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter

Israel said:


> See? You already get it.
> It's Jesus Christ being who He is, not what christians may or may not say He is.
> 
> Some may find themselves and their faith vindicated in this, some, may not. But Jesus is who He is not dependent at all upon christianity as such. Nor does he appear to vindicate christianity as the "right" religion, nor the better way, nor any of that. He appears as the True and Faithful Witness of the God of all gods, just as He is the Lord of lords.
> Yes, there are gods many and lords many, yet for us...well the apostle speaks to this:
> 
> For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist...
> 
> If a man appeal for any god...perhaps even a christian god...(Is God..."christian"?) he may well have an answer.
> But there is for us only One God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is true, even if we all be found liars.
> 
> But, may we press on to know Him.
> Fortunately, this Conqueror takes prisoners.



For even if there are so called gods.???? what does that mean. Is somebody speculating in this paragraph..


----------



## bullethead

j_seph said:


> When you look around and see everything God has created should be enough proof. Friends dad went into hospital, was in ICU for nearly a week. Doctors had him and his sister planning his funeral. His dad went home and the doctor said there is no medical explanation how he got better to go home. Buddy pointed up and the doctor says, that is the only explanation he can give. I would say there have been many times God has shown himself in everyones lives, it was up to the individual to see this, realize this. If you choose not to believe, mind set that you won't believe then why would an almighty God answer you when you ask that he show you proof.



I am thrilled for the man's recovery.
Of all the Gods worshiped worldwide, and with all the people that point skyward in recognition of these many gods, how can you show us that Jesus or God or a Holy Spirit had anything at all to do with it let alone specifically was responsible for his recovery?


----------



## gordon 2

bullethead said:


> Extraordinary evidence should be within the realm of a god. Whatever has been offered my way has not been convincing. In fact I would say nothing has been offered at all.
> All I ask is that one god should bring it instead of having their believers sing it.



Your funnin faith as ignorant with a mind in a rut.  And that's alright. Yours is an extraordinary deep seated satire. You have an extraordinary gift, in fact, already. Maybe you could worship the tragic-comic muses or possibly the pall-mall of Viking gods? Or the God Zepher, a greek god, god of the west wind, god of spring and boy killer?


----------



## Artfuldodger

If there is no God, how do we explain the unexplainable?


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> If there is no God, how do we explain the unexplainable?



You say "I don't know" because you don't.

It's OK.  It really is.  It's far better than saying "I know" when you don't.


----------



## Israel

Summertime-Nymph said:


> For even if there are so called gods.???? what does that mean. Is somebody speculating in this paragraph..



Paul...the apostle, an enlightened man.
But he learned, as all disciples do...there are things above a man, mostly unknown to him, not perceived in darkness. 

But, the light that has pierced them, does pierce them, coming down from Heaven to be given to man to free him, is that which makes them discernible, and frangible. But not with their willing participation to their surrender, although their conquest becomes clear. And more clear to anyone dwelling in light. They yet resist the revelation of their poverty of truth.

They try and make their home over the mind of man. But the air has been cleared. It is given to man to sweep away cob webs...if he finds no joy in this labor, nothing in all the earth given to do, will ever satisfy him. The cross is a most effective (and glorious) tool. Or X, if it fits you.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Extraordinary evidence should be within the realm of a god. Whatever has been offered my way has not been convincing. In fact I would say nothing has been offered at all.
> All I ask is that one god should bring it instead of having their believers sing it.


 
He has.


----------



## Israel

SemperFiDawg said:


> See.  You CAN be concise.



I don't know at what point you determined me an offense, unless I misread your attempts to both limit my responses and comment in what appears a rather sarcastic manner.
I don't claim to deserve better, but if I offend you...in more than the generalized sense I have often been found to be accused of saying "too much", please let me know.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> I don't know at what point you determined me an offense, unless I misread your attempts to both limit my responses and comment in what appears a rather sarcastic manner.
> I don't claim to deserve better, but if I offend you...in more than the generalized sense I have often been found to be accused of saying "too much", please let me know.



Not offended by you.  Just perplexed.


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> He has.



Once apon a time long ago man held the bridles of their gods, commanding them with a twitch and a whistle to do this and to do that, to come here and to go there. I think that our brother is looking to capture  such a god to hitch up. What might be wanted is a sign, some sort of sign, that a god might want to be pushed around. Them kind are rare birds these days. But I wish him hunter's luck.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> Once apon a time long ago man held the bridles of their gods, commanding them with a twitch and a whistle to do this and to do that, to come here and to go there. I think that our brother is looking to capture  such a god to hitch up. What might be wanted is a sign, some sort of sign, that a god might want to be pushed around. Them kind are rare birds these days. But I wish him hunter's luck.



I can go no farther than what this brother has already openly confessed.
He has stated he was once a devout christian. Yet, I can only surmise by his own testimony such was not sufficient in practice to prove what he maintains now as insufficient truth to be found.

If I misrepresent him by my understanding, it's correctable.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=A8x73UW8Hjk&start=36.5&end=79.88&cid=8510133"></param><embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=A8x73UW8Hjk&start=36.5&end=79.88&cid=8510133" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> Your funnin faith as ignorant with a mind in a rut.  And that's alright. Yours is an extraordinary deep seated satire. You have an extraordinary gift, in fact, already. Maybe you could worship the tragic-comic muses or possibly the pall-mall of Viking gods? Or the God Zepher, a greek god, god of the west wind, god of spring and boy killer?


If any one of them want to reveal themself to me, I'll consider it.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I can go no farther than what this brother has already openly confessed.
> He has stated he was once a devout christian. Yet, I can only surmise by his own testimony such was not sufficient in practice to prove what he maintains now as insufficient truth to be found.
> 
> If I misrepresent him by my understanding, it's correctable.
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=A8x73UW8Hjk&start=36.5&end=79.88&cid=8510133"></param><embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=A8x73UW8Hjk&start=36.5&end=79.88&cid=8510133" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



You have only been able to surmise what you want to surmise and each time you bring it up you fall just short of the actual truth.


----------



## Israel

I'm here. Correct my understanding.
What have I missed...here:



> I'm sure you may have missed my background story but I am familiar with the gospels, I was once a devout follower of the bible and JC.
> I have met those examples of people within Christianity but I have also met those people regarding other religions.
> What I am getting at is that nothing is unique. For every kook in Christianity there is a Buddhist kook too. For every person that swears Jesus reached out and plucked them from despair I have found a person of another faith that tells me the same story about their god saving them, both sides with equal conviction. Then the peculiar part is that I have met people who follow no god. They are just as kooky and or just as blessed and yet do not ask, seek or give credit to any sort of entity for their fortunate happenstances in life.
> I am looking for the person that can offer something more than just the common and tired parlor tricks credited to a thousand gods. I want someone who actually can back up their claims of having a relationship with a real honest to goodness god. As big of a skeptic as I have become, I still have enough brain to think that something so right, so wonderful, so pure and powerful as a god would not be so hard to produce. If a god wants my attention, what better than a god would know how to get it?
> It's not that I am not looking. It is because I just do not accept any old example that is found elsewhere within religion and outside of religion. For every miracle done and prayer answered credited to your god there is another person who worships a totally different god that has had the same results.
> 
> Oh there may be a god alright. The likes of which I'll never ever know. But I am darn sure it is nothing like what is portrayed in the bible or any other religion conjured up by man.




Bullethead 05-12-2016, 01:04 PM

If it is that I had made the statement "devout christian"...instead of "a devout follower of the bible and JC."? Then yes, I am in error, and rightly corrected.


----------



## Israel

> Been there. Done that.
> Have read the Bible,and few versions to boot, a few times.
> I have read John a few times.
> 
> Is it that I have not read it right?
> Is it that I have not been sincere enough?
> Is it that I cannot possibly understand it(even when I was a devout Christian) and am not worthy?
> Or is it that God has answered your prayers and my prayers but his answer was NO?
> Or is it that it is all not what it is claimed to be and I am living breathing proof that everything believers claim just does not happen?


 Bullethead

I would have to surmise that ain't it, either, then.


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> I can go no farther than what this brother has already openly confessed.
> He has stated he was once a devout christian. Yet, I can only surmise by his own testimony such was not sufficient in practice to prove what he maintains now as insufficient truth to be found.
> 
> If I misrepresent him by my understanding, it's correctable.
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=A8x73UW8Hjk&start=36.5&end=79.88&cid=8510133"></param><embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=A8x73UW8Hjk&start=36.5&end=79.88&cid=8510133" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



A devout christian you say. Really! Do you really think that a "devout christian" can put his/her "devout christianity" in a mason jar and throw it out his/her life with such force as the break the glass and spill the contents?

I personally understand such people in my life as having lied about being "devout" then or they are lying now about unbelief.

Or some people just chose a most comfortable light... whatever that might be... and hope that an especially grand life outcome will happen-- gods willing, gods indifferent and gods none existent.

Faith in man alone is a devotion which I respect however...


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I'm here. Correct my understanding.
> What have I missed...here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullethead 05-12-2016, 01:04 PM
> 
> If it is that I had made the statement "devout christian"...instead of "a devout follower of the bible and JC."? Then yes, I am in error, and rightly corrected.


I was deeply religious. I was devoted to divine worship and service within and of the Christian faith. I had faithfully fulfilled my religious obligations. I had devoted myself to the teachings of Christ.

Now if you feel that you have some other qualifications that I have not met, I personally could not care less. You finger point in disbelief that things did not work out for me because in your mind I obviously did something incorrectly or was not as sincere in my dovotion to YOUR likings.
If you think you have the ability to decifer me and my prior religious practices from a couple of non detailed posts you are truly even way more delusional than I had given you credit for. It reaffirms my thoughts that you are easily persuaded and led by little information.
Get over it.
Move on.
The next time you want to refer to  brother bullethead's devotion, look no further than this post. Bookmark it. Quote and requote it as often as you need to until you understand  it.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Bullethead
> 
> I would have to surmise that ain't it, either, then.



That and a dollar will get you a sweet tea at Micky D's.


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> A devout christian you say. Really! Do you really think that a "devout christian" can put his/her "devout christianity" in a mason jar and throw it out his/her life with such force as the break the glass and spill the contents?
> 
> I personally understand such people in my life as having lied about being "devout" then or they are lying now about unbelief.
> 
> Or some people just chose a most comfortable light... whatever that might be... and hope that an especially grand life outcome will happen-- gods willing, gods indifferent and gods none existent.
> 
> Faith in man alone is a devotion which I respect however...


I cannot say in here what I really think.
My severe lack of devotion only allows me to recall 6 verses about judging others. Even a former Christian and unworthy deciple to even wear a "once devout" ball cap like me must have had more devotion than someone who claims to be a practicing Christian that either purposely disregards the scripture they  preach or isn't familiar with it at all.


----------



## gordon 2

bullethead said:


> I cannot say in here what I really think.
> My severe lack of devotion only allows me to recall 6 verses about judging others. Even a former Christian and unworthy deciple to even wear a "once devout" ball cap like me must have had more devotion than someone who claims to be a practicing Christian that either purposely disregards the scripture they  preach or isn't familiar with it at all.



If I have offended you I regret this as it was never my intention. I do not judge you in any way shape or form. I offered my understanding ( discernment from my experience) of people who say they were devoted and today are not.  We are all on the many roads of life... we all sometimes take a step back, before we take two step forward. 

My understanding of devotion in Christianity is that it is devotion to Christ, regardless of where one is born, which denomination one frequents or one's intelligence score. There are not countless Jesus persons in Christianity. There is one.  So to be a devote Christian one day and yet kick Jesus to the curb on an other is a bit suspect to me. And that is all--- as I am not putting you down as a person with no integrity. I suspect your devotion to Christ  and that you ever had it--- that is all.

(O and I don't let scripture get in the way of loving people or my devotion to God. Your right on that count. Bless you bros.)


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> If I have offended you I regret this as it was never my intention. I do not judge you in any way shape or form. I offered my understanding ( discernment from my experience) of people who say they were devoted and today are not.  We are all on the many roads of life... we all sometimes take a step back, before we take two step forward.
> 
> My understanding of devotion in Christianity is that it is devotion to Christ, regardless of where one is born, which denomination one frequents or one's intelligence score. There are not countless Jesus persons in Christianity. There is one.  So to be a devote Christian one day and yet kick Jesus to the curb on an other is a bit suspect to me. And that is all--- as I am not putting you down as a person with no integrity. I suspect your devotion to Christ  and that you ever had it--- that is all.
> 
> (O and I don't let scripture get in the way of loving people or my devotion to God. Your right on that count. Bless you bros.)



You only know or dont know anything about a Christ or a bullethead through your discernment which boils down to your own personal understanding of things. I am not offended by that. I just want to point out the hypocrisy of acting like an expert while critiquing another when in all actuality you are using yourself as the example to base others off of and you really have no more or less knowledge of a god than anyone else on the planet.
I get it, you go off of your beliefs but please do not confuse them with facts and then hold others to those non standards.

Try to appreciate the gift you had gotten when you had that first moment where you were absolutely positive that Jesus was is and always will be lord, and now reverse that 180 degrees to see how I may have come to the moment where  I knew he wasn't.  We are both equally as sure due to our discernment and understanding.


----------



## gordon 2

bullethead said:


> You only know or dont know anything about a Christ or a bullethead through your discernment which boils down to your own personal understanding of things. I am not offended by that. I just want to point out the hypocrisy of acting like an expert while critiquing another when in all actuality you are using yourself as the example to base others off of and you really have no more or less knowledge of a god than anyone else on the planet.
> I get it, you go off of your beliefs but please do not confuse them with facts and then hold others to those non standards.
> 
> Try to appreciate the gift you had gotten when you had that first moment where you were absolutely positive that Jesus was is and always will be lord, and now reverse that 180 degrees to see how I may have come to the moment where  I knew he wasn't.  We are both equally as sure due to our discernment and understanding.



Thanks for sharing.  Gee I hope I don't come off as an expert.... I'm not. However I am not using myself as an example, my examples are other people who did similarly as you did. They were all into Christian devotion and now they are all out and into something else...


----------



## Artfuldodger

Israel said:


> I don't know at what point you determined me an offense, unless I misread your attempts to both limit my responses and comment in what appears a rather sarcastic manner.
> I don't claim to deserve better, but if I offend you...in more than the generalized sense I have often been found to be accused of saying "too much", please let me know.



I don't think he was offended. He does sometimes come across as a bit sarcastic. 

You are a very unique individual with insight that is not grasped by the common man. Sometimes I'm too common to grasp your message, sometimes the Spirit interprets your message to me completely. 

I don't always respond to your messages when interpreted as a common man but only when guided by the Spirit do I understand.

I can only assume  the Spirit reveals what I need to experience and disregards the rest.

So keep responding and I and the others will receive what we are suppose to receive.


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> Thanks for sharing.  Gee I hope I don't come off as an expert.... I'm not. However I am not using myself as an example, my examples are other people who did similarly as you did. They were all into Christian devotion and now they are all out and into something else...


If by similarly you mean all you know of them is the same you know of me, a few paragraphs of very general non detailed dialog to sum up about 20 years worth of a way of life, then it would certainly fit that expert is not an accurate description and probably why a few hundred more case studies that contain more detailed knowledge of similarly minded people may be in order.
Why do so many leave their Christian devotion and get into something else if the center of Christianity is the one and only truth? That may be even better to research.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I was deeply religious. I was devoted to divine worship and service within and of the Christian faith. I had faithfully fulfilled my religious obligations. I had devoted myself to the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Now if you feel that you have some other qualifications that I have not met, I personally could not care less. You finger point in disbelief that things did not work out for me because in your mind I obviously did something incorrectly or was not as sincere in my dovotion to YOUR likings.
> If you think you have the ability to decifer me and my prior religious practices from a couple of non detailed posts you are truly even way more delusional than I had given you credit for. It reaffirms my thoughts that you are easily persuaded and led by little information.
> Get over it.
> Move on.
> The next time you want to refer to  brother bullethead's devotion, look no further than this post. Bookmark it. Quote and requote it as often as you need to until you understand  it.





> I cannot say in here what I really think.
> My severe lack of devotion only allows me to recall 6 verses about judging others. Even a former Christian and unworthy deciple to even wear a "once devout" ball cap like me must have had more devotion than someone who claims to be a practicing Christian that either purposely disregards the scripture they preach or isn't familiar with it at all.



You do well to remember the scriptures. Do you think I judge you? Do you think I judge myself...or even can...with any precision?

You may remember (perhaps you do not), these particular matters were discussed very much along the lines to which Gordon has already referred, that more than a few of those posting here as to the _insufficiency_ of Christ to meet their standard of truth, make the claim that they were "once" christian.
Do you want to be fey and coy now about the matter, seeking, as it were, to hobble responders with "what they should and shouldn't do" regarding this? (By tossing in some remembrance of scriptures regarding judging?) 



> The next time you want to refer to brother bullethead's devotion, look no further than this post. Bookmark it. Quote and requote it as often as you need to until you understand it.



My original contention remains, from months and many many posts ago.

You are like men who have eaten in a restaurant, convinced you have sampled everything on the menu, found it not to your own liking, and therefore worthy to judge as fools those who continue to eat there. You stand outside eschewing every possible offering because, to your own mind, you have already eaten all...and know well the best it has to offer. You have "plumbed the depths" so to speak...and found Christ lacking. On this you take your stand "I know what it's all about"... and it is rubbish.

Of course you now feel judged. But I don't judge you, I don't tell you anything except what I see. Of course you are free to call me delusional. I am made to bear that, indeed, called to. (As is Gem, absurd in his simplicity of faith, Gordon..."acting like an expert", etc...and I am sure more than a few others toward whom you reserve your barbs) But hey...do you think this matters at all?

Yes. It matters that you take your stand against Christ, while seeking to dissuade exchange with the very words of Christ...if even by reference. (I can recall scriptures about judging, too)

"Don't judge me...Jesus says so...the one I feel free to call JC...you know, this one?



> "Are you saying Jesus didnt exist?" (stringmusic)
> 
> "I'm convinced that is the case."(Bullethead)



Now, it takes a remarkably unaware man to use what he hopes will save him from some heat in referencing someone he claims doesn't exist/didn't exist.

You don't like the heat? Then get out of the kitchen of mind where you imagine you can cook up, and serve whatever you desire from your own recipe of "christianity" to show others _you_ are indeed the expert and all the food is going to stink.

In your remembering of the scriptures, do you remember this:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us"....?

I truly do not know what "you left"...so, to that extent I cannot, and am not prepared to say you left the Christ (though you may have indeed left "christendom")
So, it is not for me to judge whether your present state is either heretic or simply one who never really met Jesus Christ.

If you feel disappointed in Him, there remains a comfort of renewal when you discover it was never He who disappointed you...but the expectation of something else...which was not Him at all.

I really do not know whether you are an aggrieved lover...having some sense of unrequited love, or moved by something more impish in your acquittal.

Both you and I will discover...where we stand.


----------



## Terminal Idiot

j_seph said:


> When you look around and see everything God has created should be enough proof. Friends dad went into hospital, was in ICU for nearly a week. Doctors had him and his sister planning his funeral. His dad went home and the doctor said there is no medical explanation how he got better to go home. Buddy pointed up and the doctor says, that is the only explanation he can give. I would say there have been many times God has shown himself in everyones lives, it was up to the individual to see this, realize this. If you choose not to believe, mind set that you won't believe then why would an almighty God answer you when you ask that he show you proof.



The problem is that god always gets credited for the "good" stuff in the world, but no one ever condemns him for the bad stuff. He chose to save your friend's dad, but the millions of jews that were murdered by Hitler.... Naw, they weren't important.

The main problem with your thinking is that if you don't understand it, well then that proves there's a god. A guy gets better and a doctor doesn't know why.....must be a god. The good news is, that means your god will eventually get pushed out by science. Our circle of understanding is getting bigger and bigger every day.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> You do well to remember the scriptures. Do you think I judge you? Do you think I judge myself...or even can...with any precision?
> 
> You may remember (perhaps you do not), these particular matters were discussed very much along the lines to which Gordon has already referred, that more than a few of those posting here as to the _insufficiency_ of Christ to meet their standard of truth, make the claim that they were "once" christian.
> Do you want to be fey and coy now about the matter, seeking, as it were, to hobble responders with "what they should and shouldn't do" regarding this? (By tossing in some remembrance of scriptures regarding judging?)
> 
> 
> 
> My original contention remains, from months and many many posts ago.
> 
> You are like men who have eaten in a restaurant, convinced you have sampled everything on the menu, found it not to your own liking, and therefore worthy to judge as fools those who continue to eat there. You stand outside eschewing every possible offering because, to your own mind, you have already eaten all...and know well the best it has to offer. You have "plumbed the depths" so to speak...and found Christ lacking. On this you take your stand "I know what it's all about"... and it is rubbish.
> 
> Of course you now feel judged. But I don't judge you, I don't tell you anything except what I see. Of course you are free to call me delusional. I am made to bear that, indeed, called to. (As is Gem, absurd in his simplicity of faith, Gordon..."acting like an expert", etc...and I am sure more than a few others toward whom you reserve your barbs) But hey...do you think this matters at all?
> 
> Yes. It matters that you take your stand against Christ, while seeking to dissuade exchange with the very words of Christ...if even by reference. (I can recall scriptures about judging, too)
> 
> "Don't judge me...Jesus says so...the one I feel free to call JC...you know, this one?
> 
> 
> 
> Now, it takes a remarkably unaware man to use what he hopes will save him from some heat in referencing someone he claims doesn't exist/didn't exist.
> 
> You don't like the heat? Then get out of the kitchen of mind where you imagine you can cook up, and serve whatever you desire from your own recipe of "christianity" to show others _you_ are indeed the expert and all the food is going to stink.
> 
> In your remembering of the scriptures, do you remember this:
> 
> "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us"....?
> 
> I truly do not know what "you left"...so, to that extent I cannot, and am not prepared to say you left the Christ (though you may have indeed left "christendom")
> So, it is not for me to judge whether your present state is either heretic or simply one who never really met Jesus Christ.
> 
> If you feel disappointed in Him, there remains a comfort of renewal when you discover it was never He who disappointed you...but the expectation of something else...which was not Him at all.
> 
> I really do not know whether you are an aggrieved lover...having some sense of unrequited love, or moved by something more impish in your acquittal.
> 
> Both you and I will discover...where we stand.


Despite you sounding like a Will Ferrel skit character sitting in a hot tub on Saturday Night Live (aggreived lover....that is priceless) I will try to take some part of the post seriously.
Sifting through all of the answers to your own questions I will address the only relatable one.

Like the restaurant where I have tried all the menu items and found them not to my liking, Christianity is the same.
The difference from your scenario to mine is that I do not go back because after eating breakfast, lunch and supper there for 20 years because the owner was supposedly a good friend of the family I found out there was no Mel at "Mel's Diner"....and the food was horrible.
Some reasons also include that after working there for a few years I've gotten to know the help and have an inside knowledge of how things are run.
 I have found out that only the quality ingredients are highlighted on the menu but the full list is avaible and contains many things that are very unhealthy.
I don't like the cooks or kitchen help.
Depite giving the restaurant multiple tries and eating the entire dishes, not just a quick whiff or tongue dabs as some waiters on here who do not even work at the restaurant in question suggest, the food just does not appeal to me.

 When I look up and down the street there are more equally as busy restaurants with equally as satisfied and unsatified customers so that tells me not one restaurant stands out any better or worse than the next, but they all have their "The best meal in town" signs lit up in neon.
The daily customers who always sit in the same stool at the counter and hold the same conversations over and over are also the ones that constantly brag about their coffee being the best and their toast tasting like home baked are the same guys that give a bad Yelp review to the next restaurant even though both restaurants get their coffee beans from the same purveyor and their bread from the same bakery.

I do not picket outside of the restaurants doors telling others not to try it, I just simply walk down past the row of eateries and do my shopping at the grocery store because I enjoy home cooked meals and I am fully capable of being my own chef.
Meanwhile you counter guys try to sneek a peek at the contents of my grocery bags as I walk by the front window and criticize my recipies and cooking methods, but as long as Alice is topping off your java and slipping you and extra pat of jelly every now and then you are content. In reality you dont really eat the meals there either, you just gather for the refills.


----------



## gordon 2

bullethead said:


> Despite you sounding like a Will Ferrel skit character sitting in a hot tub on Saturday Night Live (aggreived lover....that is priceless) I will try to take some part of the post seriously.
> Sifting through all of the answers to your own questions I will address the only relatable one.
> 
> Like the restaurant where I have tried all the menu items and found them not to my liking, Christianity is the same.
> The difference from your scenario to mine is that I do not go back because after eating breakfast, lunch and supper there for 20 years because the owner was supposedly a good friend of the family I found out there was no Mel at "Mel's Diner"....and the food was horrible.
> Some reasons also include that after working there for a few years I've gotten to know the help and have an inside knowledge of how things are run.
> I have found out that only the quality ingredients are highlighted on the menu but the full list is avaible and contains many things that are very unhealthy.
> I don't like the cooks or kitchen help.
> Depite giving the restaurant multiple tries and eating the entire dishes, not just a quick whiff or tongue dabs as some waiters on here who do not even work at the restaurant in question suggest, the food just does not appeal to me.
> 
> When I look up and down the street there are more equally as busy restaurants with equally as satisfied and unsatified customers so that tells me not one restaurant stands out any better or worse than the next, but they all have their "The best meal in town" signs lit up in neon.
> The daily customers who always sit in the same stool at the counter and hold the same conversations over and over are also the ones that constantly brag about their coffee being the best and their toast tasting like home baked are the same guys that give a bad Yelp review to the next restaurant even though both restaurants get their coffee beans from the same purveyor and their bread from the same bakery.
> 
> I do not picket outside of the restaurants doors telling others not to try it, I just simply walk down past the row of eateries and do my shopping at the grocery store because I enjoy home cooked meals and I am fully capable of being my own chef.
> Meanwhile you counter guys try to sneek a peek at the contents of my grocery bags as I walk by the front window and criticize my recipies and cooking methods, but as long as Alice is topping off your java and slipping you and extra pat of jelly every now and then you are content. In reality you dont really eat the meals there either, you just gather for the refills.



The people working at Mel's are not perfect and they are slack?  Once more the food at Mel's makes for a slack people, keeping them slack in their slackness. And every other place that tries to compete with Mel's gets supplied by the same supplier which boiled down is the same food as Mel's. So the people of my culture are all slack and I don't want to be slack so I eat the food I grow and prepare myself.

Did I get that even partly right?


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> The people working at Mel's are not perfect and they are slack?  Once more the food at Mel's makes for a slack people, keeping them slack in their slackness. And every other place that tries to compete with Mel's gets supplied by the same supplier which boiled down is the same food as Mel's. So the people of my culture are all slack and I don't want to be slack so I eat the food I grow and prepare myself.
> 
> Did I get that even partly right?



Nope.

There is no Mel. All the rest is just added negatives as to why I have no reason to go back.


----------



## hummerpoo

Although I tend to my own cooking, it does not compare to Miss Dolly’s light rolls ‘n’ sorghum, or Edna’s chicken ‘n’ noodles, or Grandma’s turkey ‘n’ dressing, or Mom’ biscuits ‘n’ gravy.  So, I keep searching for those who know how to put the ’n’ in exactly the right place.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Although I tend to my own cooking, it does not compare to Miss Dolly’s light rolls ‘n’ sorghum, or Edna’s chicken ‘n’ noodles, or Grandma’s turkey ‘n’ dressing, or Mom’ biscuits ‘n’ gravy.  So, I keep searching for those who know how to put the ’n’ in exactly the right place.


I'll throw you an Amen to that. 
I can appreciate the cooking of a Miss Dolly, Edna, Grandma, and especially Mom. Nothing like standing next to them and learning from the source instead of from a cookbook full of anonymous authors.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I'll throw you an Amen to that.
> I can appreciate the cooking of a Miss Dolly, Edna, Grandma, and especially Mom. Nothing like standing next to them and learning from the source instead of from a cookbook full of anonymous authors.



Each of them attributed the glory to Another.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Each of them attributed the glory to Another.



Dolly to Edna to Grandma to Mom...I'd agree.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Dolly to Edna to Grandma to Mom...I'd agree.



And in doing so you would ignore the self sacrificial love that, in each case, made them the cook that they were, and deny the source of that love which they claimed.  Effectively calling them fools.


----------



## Artfuldodger

We talking about Edna's in Chatsworth?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> And in doing so you would ignore the self sacrificial love that, in each case, made them the cook that they were, and deny the source of that love which they claimed.  Effectively calling them fools.


No, I am respecting the skills, time and dedication that they each learned from someone before them of this world.
Jesus doesn't teach a cooking class.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> No, I am respecting the skills, time and dedication that they each learned from someone before them of this world.
> Jesus doesn't teach a cooking class.



This conversation about food and cooking is an extension of the analogy; figuratively referring to knowledge available to us from past and ancient philosophers and theologians (those cooks we remember from our past) and searching for those who have good information to share today.

The 'n', being a conjunction, referencing the bridge between physical and metaphysical and the source of that conjunction.  Yes, Jesus does teach a cooking class.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> This conversation about food and cooking is an extension of the analogy; figuratively referring to knowledge available to us from past and ancient philosophers and theologians (those cooks we remember from our past) and searching for those who have good information to share today.
> 
> The 'n', being a conjunction, referencing the bridge between physical and metaphysical and the source of that conjunction.  Yes, Jesus does teach a cooking class.


I am well aware of the analogy. Remember I am the one that said there is no Mel at Mel's Diner. Just a bunch of help pretending to be Mel.
Mel's soup of the day.
Mel's lunch special.
Mel's homemade pie. 
Kitchen staff makes it.
Waitresses serve it.
Cashier takes your money.
No Mel at all. Just the illusion of Mel.


----------



## hummerpoo

I acknowledged that in #75.


----------



## bullethead

That is not unique to any believer in any diety.
They can praise Mel all they want, the patrons at the next diner claim Al is a better cook.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> That is not unique to any believer in any diety.
> They can praise Mel all they want, the patrons at the next diner claim Al is a better cook.



You and I did the "uniqueness" conversation earlier this year.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> You and I did the "uniqueness" conversation earlier this year.


I know. If a deity does not stand out from the crowd one claim is as good as the next.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I know. If a deity does not stand out from the crowd one claim is as good as the next.



That doesn't reflect the earlier conversation.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> That doesn't reflect the earlier conversation.



Then refresh me. Give me a link.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Then refresh me. Give me a link.



You can search my handle in AAA for "One True God" in the 1st qtr. of 2016.  I'm pretty sure that will get it, and there shouldn't be many hits.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> You can search my handle in AAA for "One True God" in the 1st qtr. of 2016.  I'm pretty sure that will get it, and there shouldn't be many hits.


I am unable to find it through search or going back to 2015.


----------



## hummerpoo

I will look tomorrow.
Good night.


----------



## hummerpoo

hummerpoo said:


> I will look tomorrow.
> Good night.


http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=863010&page=6

Posts #138 thru #173


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=863010&page=6
> 
> Posts #138 thru #173



Yeah that is just one of the conversations that you bailed out early on.
You stated that you were coming back when you figured out some complicated words. 8 months have passed since without a reply from you.

Reading back through it seems the conversation was EXACTLY reflecting about nothing being unique with welder and I doing much of the talking and then you entered with scripture verses and I countered with scripture verses. Then you left.


----------



## Israel

Many bear with greater patience and to far greater depth contradictions to the faith than I have yet known. This surprises no one.
Regardless, we are called to be true to what we see...and what we believe we see, in entrance to life.

Some have borne in a grace given (and received) the many accusations of men who lie in wait with cunning craftiness to deceive.
Some have said, and continue to "the scriptures are assembled of men, mere men, recorded of men, mere men, created of men, mere men, whose Machievelleian schemes are revealed plainly as no more than a desire to trick and enslave other men." I do not deny the  (given) scriptures can be handled of such men, and indeed, have been. 

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" might be of some derivative application, here.

One would be missing the point to believe any question of "devout-ness" is a direct attack against their practice, or their recollections of some involvement in a thing. 

Jesus Christ captivates a soul. His word of life brings entrance of light to a soul. This is the testimony of the believer "though once dead in darkness, light and life have come (even) to one such as I"
And that "I" finds itself amongst a company of others also so made alive. Its experience, though intensely personal...so personal in truth as to be almost_ exclsuionary_ to all others, is nevertheless concomittantly establshed in a truth that will not, dare not, cannot be denied..."I am part". To, by deception, let go of this...to seek, as it were, to continue in this life as excluding...by nature of the intensely personal experience of it, is a lie. No matter how personal the experience may seem in its power, there remains the caution of the Spirit when needed, and as needed..."You are not the only one here, nor the first...what you experience as so particular to yourself...is shared by all who are called by the One who already is made preeminent in all things" To ignore this, to lose this consciousness always leads to reproof, which if not heeded, leads to rebuke...which if not heeded, leads to shipwreck. 

No man walks where the Christ has not already walked, no man can receive what the Christ has not been made to receive, and no man has experienced "first", what the Lord Jesus has not already experienced...and known. If, and when indeed this becomes true to a man, he knows he is "only" a follower (though in experience, and of what may seem the commonness of "only", is blown away by the glory revealed of being "only" a follower). 

It is here such words as devout in description of oneself take on a silly ring, hit a false chord...one either follows...or does not. (How far a man may go in detour God knows, and it is not for any to decide "such a wandering one has gone 'too far'...rememeber the parable of the lost sheep)

So here presents itself the lie of "Machievellian" schemes. For men, if serving only their craven interests would never include such. Men would exclude all of the Lord's words, words that caution a man to not be highminded of himself (or his devout-ness/devotion), words that caution a man, entrance upon this path gives one no position to exclude another...and words even referenced in caution of judging. But even in this, no man is restricted to not speak what he sees.

One man says "there is no Jesus, never was." In like manner of analogy he says "there is no Mel"...yet the same man says "I would love for a god to reveal himself to me, (even the christian god) and he knows how to do this if he wants to reach me" (not verbatim, my remembrance of his context)
How could such a man appear, but confused? Is confusion such a thing over which another man should take any delight? God forbid!
But I know, have been made to know, how such response to such a one appears...as a judgment of that man being unworthy...and by response another man is seeking to show himself "more" worthy. An expert.

Some well understand how the disciple is manifestly hamstrung in this, and rightly so. Some well understand this place. By seeming to make an enemy of another in speaking what one sees, and has seen. And few have gone any distance who do not know the basest of accusations against the Lord "So, you're saying you're better than me?" It is always the Lord who suffers this, and not we, ourselves. And it is enough.

But, to such a man all I am given to say, even in this silly analogy of eateries...he says to me and you together, as brothers, both hungry, on the very same ground...with the very same application for both of us, and to both of us....regardless of how much we may think we know, have learned, have seen, have attained "I have meat to eat that you know not of".

There's more being presented to us both than we yet know.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Yeah that is just one of the conversations that you bailed out early on.
> You stated that you were coming back when you figured out some complicated words. 8 months have passed since without a reply from you.
> 
> Reading back through it seems the conversation was EXACTLY reflecting about nothing being unique with welder and I doing much of the talking and then you entered with scripture verses and I countered with scripture verses. Then you left.



Incredably selective.

I trust that those interested enough in the question of "uniqness" to go back and read will not need your guidance, or mine, to draw their conclusions.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Many bear with greater patience and to far greater depth contradictions to the faith than I have yet known. This surprises no one.
> Regardless, we are called to be true to what we see...and what we believe we see, in entrance to life.
> 
> Some have borne in a grace given (and received) the many accusations of men who lie in wait with cunning craftiness to deceive.
> Some have said, and continue to "the scriptures are assembled of men, mere men, recorded of men, mere men, created of men, mere men, whose Machievelleian schemes are revealed plainly as no more than a desire to trick and enslave other men." I do not deny the  (given) scriptures can be handled of such men, and indeed, have been.
> 
> "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" might be of some derivative application, here.
> 
> One would be missing the point to believe any question of "devout-ness" is a direct attack against their practice, or their recollections of some involvement in a thing.
> 
> Jesus Christ captivates a soul.His word of life brings entrance of light to a soul. This is the testimony of the believer "though once dead in darkness, light and life have come (even) to one such as I"
> And that "I" finds itself amongst a company of others also so made alive. Its experience, though intensely personal...so personal in truth as to be almost_ exclsuionary_ to all others, is nevertheless concomittantly establshed in a truth that will not, dare not, cannot be denied..."I am part". To, by deception, let go of this...to seek, as it were, to continue in this life as excluding...by nature of the intensely personal experience of it, is a lie. No matter how personal the experience may seem in its power, there remains the caution of the Spirit when needed, and as needed..."You are not the only one here, nor the first...what you experience as so particular to yourself...is shared by all who are called by the One who already is made preeminent in all things" To ignore this, to lose this consciousness always leads to reproof, which if not heeded, leads to rebuke...which if not heeded, leads to shipwreck.



How does Christ captivate a soul?  Describe the process. 



Israel said:


> No man walks where the Christ has not already walked, no man can receive what the Christ has not been made to receive, and no man has experienced "first", what the Lord Jesus has not already experienced...and known. If, and when indeed this becomes true to a man, he knows he is "only" a follower (though in experience, and of what may seem the commonness of "only", is blown away by the glory revealed of being "only" a follower).



You keep saying things like this as if they are absolutely true and understood to be true to all.  Why?



Israel said:


> It is here such words as devout in description of oneself take on a silly ring, hit a false chord...one either follows...or does not. (How far a man may go in detour God knows, and it is not for any to decide "such a wandering one has gone 'too far'...rememeber the parable of the lost sheep)
> 
> So here presents itself the lie of "Machievellian" schemes. For men, if serving only their craven interests would never include such. Men would exclude all of the Lord's words, words that caution a man to not be highminded of himself (or his devout-ness/devotion), words that caution a man, entrance upon this path gives one no position to exclude another...and words even referenced in caution of judging. But even in this, no man is restricted to not speak what he sees.
> 
> One man says "there is no Jesus, never was." In like manner of analogy he says "there is no Mel"...yet the same man says "I would love for a god to reveal himself to me, (even the christian god) and he knows how to do this if he wants to reach me" (not verbatim, my remembrance of his context)
> How could such a man appear, but confused? Is confusion such a thing over which another man should take any delight? God forbid!
> But I know, have been made to know, how such response to such a one appears...as a judgment of that man being unworthy...and by response another man is seeking to show himself "more" worthy. An expert.
> 
> Some well understand how the disciple is manifestly hamstrung in this, and rightly so. Some well understand this place. By seeming to make an enemy of another in speaking what one sees, and has seen. And few have gone any distance who do not know the basest of accusations against the Lord "So, you're saying you're better than me?" It is always the Lord who suffers this, and not we, ourselves. And it is enough.
> 
> But, to such a man all I am given to say, even in this silly analogy of eateries...he says to me and you together, as brothers, both hungry, on the very same ground...with the very same application for both of us, and to both of us....regardless of how much we may think we know, have learned, have seen, have attained "I have meat to eat that you know not of".
> 
> There's more being presented to us both than we yet know.



Do you know how many times I've asked you to describe "what you see and have seen"?  Why won't you do it?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> How does Christ captivate a soul?  Describe the process.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying things like this as if they are absolutely true and understood to be true to all.  Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how many times I've asked you to describe "what you see and have seen"?  Why won't you do it?




Light.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Light.



A light in the sky?  Floating, glowing orbs?  Blinking or steady?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Incredably selective.
> 
> I trust that those interested enough in the question of "uniqness" to go back and read will not need your guidance, or mine, to draw their conclusions.


 They did. You left. The conversation continued and now you brought it back up 8 months later.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Many bear with greater patience and to far greater depth contradictions to the faith than I have yet known. This surprises no one.
> Regardless, we are called to be true to what we see...and what we believe we see, in entrance to life.
> 
> Some have borne in a grace given (and received) the many accusations of men who lie in wait with cunning craftiness to deceive.
> Some have said, and continue to "the scriptures are assembled of men, mere men, recorded of men, mere men, created of men, mere men, whose Machievelleian schemes are revealed plainly as no more than a desire to trick and enslave other men." I do not deny the  (given) scriptures can be handled of such men, and indeed, have been.
> 
> "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" might be of some derivative application, here.
> 
> One would be missing the point to believe any question of "devout-ness" is a direct attack against their practice, or their recollections of some involvement in a thing.
> 
> Jesus Christ captivates a soul. His word of life brings entrance of light to a soul. This is the testimony of the believer "though once dead in darkness, light and life have come (even) to one such as I"
> And that "I" finds itself amongst a company of others also so made alive. Its experience, though intensely personal...so personal in truth as to be almost_ exclsuionary_ to all others, is nevertheless concomittantly establshed in a truth that will not, dare not, cannot be denied..."I am part". To, by deception, let go of this...to seek, as it were, to continue in this life as excluding...by nature of the intensely personal experience of it, is a lie. No matter how personal the experience may seem in its power, there remains the caution of the Spirit when needed, and as needed..."You are not the only one here, nor the first...what you experience as so particular to yourself...is shared by all who are called by the One who already is made preeminent in all things" To ignore this, to lose this consciousness always leads to reproof, which if not heeded, leads to rebuke...which if not heeded, leads to shipwreck.
> 
> No man walks where the Christ has not already walked, no man can receive what the Christ has not been made to receive, and no man has experienced "first", what the Lord Jesus has not already experienced...and known. If, and when indeed this becomes true to a man, he knows he is "only" a follower (though in experience, and of what may seem the commonness of "only", is blown away by the glory revealed of being "only" a follower).
> 
> It is here such words as devout in description of oneself take on a silly ring, hit a false chord...one either follows...or does not. (How far a man may go in detour God knows, and it is not for any to decide "such a wandering one has gone 'too far'...rememeber the parable of the lost sheep)
> 
> So here presents itself the lie of "Machievellian" schemes. For men, if serving only their craven interests would never include such. Men would exclude all of the Lord's words, words that caution a man to not be highminded of himself (or his devout-ness/devotion), words that caution a man, entrance upon this path gives one no position to exclude another...and words even referenced in caution of judging. But even in this, no man is restricted to not speak what he sees.
> 
> One man says "there is no Jesus, never was." In like manner of analogy he says "there is no Mel"...yet the same man says "I would love for a god to reveal himself to me, (even the christian god) and he knows how to do this if he wants to reach me" (not verbatim, my remembrance of his context)
> How could such a man appear, but confused? Is confusion such a thing over which another man should take any delight? God forbid!
> But I know, have been made to know, how such response to such a one appears...as a judgment of that man being unworthy...and by response another man is seeking to show himself "more" worthy. An expert.
> 
> Some well understand how the disciple is manifestly hamstrung in this, and rightly so. Some well understand this place. By seeming to make an enemy of another in speaking what one sees, and has seen. And few have gone any distance who do not know the basest of accusations against the Lord "So, you're saying you're better than me?" It is always the Lord who suffers this, and not we, ourselves. And it is enough.
> 
> But, to such a man all I am given to say, even in this silly analogy of eateries...he says to me and you together, as brothers, both hungry, on the very same ground...with the very same application for both of us, and to both of us....regardless of how much we may think we know, have learned, have seen, have attained "I have meat to eat that you know not of".
> 
> There's more being presented to us both than we yet know.



Simple things perplex you and yet you not only claim to understand the impossible but talk as if you live it.
Theatrical Play style. No real word results. 
Priceless


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> They did. You left. The conversation continued and now you brought it back up 8 months later.



I didn't bring it up; it seems to be your fall-back position.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=10086646&highlight=thesis#post10086646


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I didn't bring it up; it seems to be your fall-back position.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=10086646&highlight=thesis#post10086646


I stick with the facts and stay to the end. Guilty


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Light.



Yammers on and on about the in-discernible and when asked sincerely to describe his personal experiences with the One we get a single 40 watt word.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I stick with the facts and stay to the end. Guilty



Please remind me; which are the gods who, when their disciples disobey the rules set down by that god, and for which disobedience there is established a penalty, pay the penalty for the disobedient disciple and treat the disciple as though he had not been disobedient.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Please remind me; which are the gods who, when their disciples disobey the rules set down by that god, and for which disobedience there is established a penalty, pay the penalty for the disobedient disciple and treat the disciple as though he had not been disobedient.



Here is a few to sift through. Ill try to find some more. 

The Aztec gods sacrificed themselves so that humankind could live. (The Legend of the Five Suns.)

In a way, the Buddha sacrificed himself for enlightenment, and imparted that to humanity. He gave up his wife and child, his wealth and power as a prince- and he wandered the world seeking an understanding of the reasons for human suffering. He finally meditated under the Bodhi tree for several days and nights. Each night, Maya, the embodiment of the world's illusions, rose before him and offered him a seduction. It offered him wealth and power- it offered him food and drink- it offered him lust and pretty girls- it offered him prestige and the admiration of people. Finally it asked him what gave him the gall to think he could achieve enlightenment- was he proud? He just touched the ground- and the illusion disappeared (because it was just a projection of his own ego all along)... and he emerged enlightened. So in a way, he sacrificed himself to gain that wisdom and share it with the rest of humanity-- all because he wanted to understand the roots of human suffering and alleviate it.

In Greek mythology, Prometheus created humanity from mud. He felt bad that his creation was compelled to sacrifice their meat to the Gods in fire. He taught them to wrap the bones and fat in a cloth and burn that as an offering to the Gods, keeping the meat for themselves. Zeus was angry- and he took back the gift of fire from humanity. Prometheus did not want to see his people suffer, so he stole fire back from the Gods and gave it to the people. He was chained to a rock, as punishment. Every day, an eagle flew down to eat his liver- and every night it grew back because he was immortal. But thanks to his sacrifice, humankind got to keep their fire, even though they had disprespected the Gods with that trick.

Penelope also sacrificed herself for humanity. She was the Greek Goddess of Spring. Hades, the God of Death, saw her picking flowers and fell in love with her. He kidnapped her to the land of the dead. Her mother, who was the Goddess of the earth, fell into despair and cast an endless winter upon the land. Many people, crops and animals died. Penelope had fallen in love with Hades, but she convinced him to allow her to return for half the year to spend it with her mother, in order to save the human race from her grief. The seasons turn because Penelope rises in the Spring and makes her mother, Demeter happy. Her happiness ripens into summer. In the fall, Penelope returns to her husband in the land of death, and her mother begins to grief. He grief causes winter, until her daughter returns again in spring.


----------



## bullethead

This doesn't ring a bell at all, but may be worth the read if you want to see where the writers of the gospels got their ideas for Jesus.

Dionysus: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Killed and Resurrected after Three Days

by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S

Disk with Dionysus and 11 signs of the zodiac; 4th cent. BCE; Brindisi, ItalyThe Greek god of wine, Dionysus or Bacchus, also called Iacchus, has been depicted as having been born of a virgin mother on December 25th; performing miracles such as changing water into wine; appearing surrounded by or one of 12 figures; bearing epithets such as "Father" and "Savior"; dying; resurrecting after three days; and ascending into heaven.

Dionysus shares the following attributes in common with the Christ character as found in the New Testament and Christian tradition.

Dionysus was born of a virgin on "December 25th" or the winter solstice.
He is the son of the heavenly Father.
As the Holy Child, Bacchus was placed in a cradle/crib/manger "among beasts."
Dionysus was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
Dionysus rode in a "triumphal procession" on a donkey.
He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
The god traveled into the underworld to rescue his loved one, arising from the land of the dead after three days.
Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th  and ascended into heaven.
Bacchus was deemed "Father," "Liberator" and "Savior." 
Dionysus was considered the "Only Begotten Son," "King of Kings," "God of Gods," "Sin Bearer," "Redeemer,"  "Anointed One" and the "Alpha and Omega."
He was identified with the Ram or Lamb.
His sacrificial title of "Dendrites" or "Young Man of the Tree" indicates he was hung on a tree or crucified.
"Early Christian art is rich with Dionysiac associations, whether in boisterous representations of agape feasting, in the miracle of water-into-wine at Cana, in wine and vine motifs alluding to the Eucharaist, and most markedly...in the use of Dionysiac facial traits for representations of Christ." 

â€”Dr. Thomas F. Mathews, The Clash of the Gods, 45

Dionysus as the Sun

In studying religion and mythology, it is wise at to keep in mind that in the ancient world many gods were confounded and compounded, deliberately or otherwise. Some were even considered interchangeable, such as the Egyptian gods Osiris, Horus and Ra. In this regard, ancient Greek historian Plutarch (35, 364E) states, "Osiris is identical with Dionysus," the Greek son of God. Dionysus, also known as Bacchus or Iacchus, is likewise identified with the god Aion and referred to as "Zeus Sabazius" in other traditions. (Graves, R., 335) Hence, we would expect him to share at least some of all these gods' attributes, including being born of a virgin at the winter solstice (Aion), and dying and rising from the dead (Osiris).

"Bacchus, Apollo, the Sun, are one deity."

Moreover, in Seven Books Against the Heathen (3.33), early Christian writer Arnobius (284-305) remarks that the Pagans "maintain that Bacchus, Apollo, the Sun, are one deity" and "the sun is also Bacchus and Apollo." (Roberts, VI, 472-3) We would expect, therefore, Dionysus's attributes to reflect solar mythology as well.

Dionysus riding a quadriga chariot

Dionysus returns from India riding a quadriga chariot
Mosaic pavement, 3rd cent. ad/ce
Sousse, Tunisia
(Patrick Hunt)

Apollo riding in his sun chariot

December 25th/Winter Solstice

As with Jesus, December 25th and January 6th are both traditional birth dates in the Dionysian myth and simply represent the period of the winter solstice. Indeed, the winter-solstice date of the Greek sun and wine god Dionysus was originally recognized in early January but was eventually placed on December 25th, as related by ancient Latin writer Macrobius (c. 400 AD/CE). Regardless, the effect is the same: The winter sun god is born around this time, when the shortest day of the year begins to become longer.

"Macrobius transfers this feast to the day of the winter solstice, December 25."

The ancient Church father Epiphanius (4th cent. ) discussed the birth of the god Aion, son of the Greek goddess Persephone or Kore ("Maiden"), at the time of the winter solstice. In this regard, Christian theologian Rev. Dr. Hugh Rahner (139-140) remarks:

We know that Aion was at this time beginning to be regarded as identical with Helios and Helios with Dionysus...because [according to Macrobius] Dionysus was the symbol of the sun... He is made to appear small at the time of the winter solstice, when upon a certain day the Egyptians take him out of the crypt, because on this the shortest day of the year it is as though he were a little child.... Macrobius transfers [this feast] to the day of the winter solstice, December 25.

Dionysus is thus equivalent to Aion and was also said to have been born of Persephone, the virgin maiden. Esteemed mythologist Joseph Campbell (MI, 34) confirms this "celebration of the birth of the year-god Aion to the virgin Goddess Kore," the latter of whom he calls "a Hellenized transformation of Isis," the Egyptian mother goddess who was likewise called the "Great Virgin" in inscriptions predating the Christian era by centuries.[1]

Virgin Birth
According to the most common tradition, Dionysus was the son of the god Zeus and the mortal woman Semele. In the Cretan version of the same story, which the pre-Christian Greek historian Diodorus Siculus follows, Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Persephone, the daughter of Demeter also called Kore, who is styled a "virgin goddess."

In the common myth about the birth of Dionysus/Bacchus, Semele is mysteriously impregnated by one of Zeus's bolts of lightning--an obviCensoredous miraculous/virgin conception.

Semele, Zeus and the divine child Bacchus	Semele immolated by the sky-god father-figure Zeus, who takes the divine child Bacchus (Bernard Salomon, Metamorphose figurée, 1557)
Concerning Dionysus's epithet "twice begotten," in the third century Church father Minucius Felix (Commodius, XII) remarked to his Pagan audience:

Ye yourselves say that Father Liber was assuredly twice begotten. First of all he was born in India of Proserphine [Persephone] and Jupiter [Zeus]... Again, restored from his death, in another womb Semele conceived him again of Jupiter... (Roberts, IV, 205)

"The virgin conceived the ever-dying, ever-living god of bread and wine, Dionysus."

In another account, Jupiter/Zeus gives Dionysus's torn-up heart in a drink to Semele, who becomes pregnant with the "twice born" god this way, again a miraculous or "virgin" birth. Indeed, Joseph Campbell explicitly calls Semele a "virgin":

While the maiden goddess sat there, peacefully weaving a mantle on which there was to be a representation of the universe, her mother contrived that Zeus should learn of her presence; he approached her in the form of an immense snake. And the virgin conceived the ever-dying, ever-living god of bread and wine, Dionysus, who was born and nurtured in that cave, torn to death as a babe and resurrected... (Campbell, MG, 4.27)

This same direct appellation is used by Cambridge professor and anthropologist Sir Dr. Edmund Ronald Leach:

Dionysus, son of Zeus, is born of a mortal virgin, Semele, who later became immortalized through the interCensoredvention of her divine son; Jesus, son of God, is born of a mortal virgin, Maryâ€¦ such stories can be dupliCensoredcated over and over again. (Hugh-Jones, 108)

Using the scholarly Greek term parthenos, meaning "virgin," in The Cult of the Divine Birth in Ancient Greece (95) Dr. Marguerite Rigoglioso concludes: "Semele was also likely a holy parthenos by virtue of the fact that she gave birth to Dionysus via her union with Zeus (Hesiod, Theogony 940)."

These learned individuals had reason to consider Dionysus's mother a virgin, as, again, he was also said to have been born of Persephone/Kore, whom, once more from Epiphanius, was herself deemed a "virgin," or parthenos. In this regard, professor emeritus of Classics at the University of Pennsylvania Dr. Donald White (183) says, "As a title 'Parthenos' was appropriate to both Demeter and Persephone..."

Persephone and Hades; Attic red-figured kylix, c. 440-430 BC.; Vulci, Italy (Photo: Marie-Lan Nguyen)The fact that Persephone is associated with parthenogenesis, the scholarly term for "virgin birth," lends credence to the notion that Dionysus was virgin-born. As related further by Rigoglioso in Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity (111):

Persephone's connection with the parthenogenetic pomegranate is attested in text and iconography. In speaking directly about the Eleusinian Mysteries, Clement of Alexandria (Exhortation to the Greeks 2:16) informs us that the pomegranate tree was believed to have sprung from the drops of the blood of Dionysusâ€¦

Although Dionysus is depicted as being the product of a "rape" by Zeus, the story is little different from the impregnation of the Virgin Mary by Yahweh without her consent, especially in consideration of the identification of Dionysus's very blood with parthenogenesis. In this regard, Rigoglioso also states, "I contend that Persephone's eating of the pomegranate was the magical action that instigated her ability to conceive parthenogenetically."

Also, in the museum in Naples has been kept an ancient marble urn showing the birth/nativity of Dionysus, with two groups of three figures on either side of the god Mercury, who is holding the divine baby, and a female figure who is receiving him.[2]



This depiction resembles the gospel story of "wise men" or dignitaries, traditionally held to number three, approaching Joseph, the divine child and Mary.

Miracles

Dionysus holding a drinking cup, surrounded by grapes and vines. (Red-figure amphora by the Berlin Painter, c. 490-480 BCE; Vulci, Italy; Louvre, Paris)The miracles of Dionysus are legendary, as is his role as the god of wine, echoed in the later Christian story of Jesus multiplying the jars of wine at the wedding feast of Cana (Jn 2:1-9). Concerning this miracle, biblical scholar Dr. A.J. Mattill remarks:

This story is really the Christian counterpart to the pagan legends of Dionysus, the Greek god of wine, who at his annual festival in his temple of Elis filled three empty kettles with wine-no water needed! And on the fifth of January wine instead of water gushed from his temple at Andros. If we believe Jesus' miracle, why should we not believe Dionysus's? (Leedom, 125)

Dionysus's miracle of changing water to wine is recounted in pre-Christian times by Diodorus (Library of History, 3.66.3). As the god of the vine, Dionysus is depicted in ancient texts as traveling around teaching agriculture, as well as doing various other miracles, such as in Homer's The Iliad, dating to the 9th century BCE, and in The Bacchae of Euripides, the famous Greek playwright who lived around 480 to 406 BCE.

"Dionysus's blood is the wine of the sacrifice."

It is further interesting that the Communion as practiced today within Catholicism also had a place within the cult of Dionysus, as Campbell points out:

Dionysus-Bacchus-Zagreus-or, in the older, Sumero-Babylonian myths, Dumuzi-absu, Tammuz-...whose blood, in this chalice to be drunk, is the pagan prototype of the wine of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is transubstantiated by the words of consecration into the blood of the Son of the Virgin. (Campbell, MG, 4.23)

Epithets
In an Orphic hymn, Phanes-Dionysus is styled by the Greek title Protogonos or "first-born" of Zeus, also translated at times as "only-begotten son," although the term Monogenes would be more appropriately rendered as the latter. He is also called "Soter" or "Savior" in various inscriptions, including a bronze coin from the Thracian city of Maroneia dating to circa 400-350 BCE.[3]  Like Jesus in his aspect as the Father, Dionysus is called Pater, or "father" in Greek.

"Dionysus is 'first-born,' 'Savior' and 'Father.'"

The title "King of Kings" and other epithets may reflect Dionysus's kinship with Osiris: During the late 18th to early 19th dynasties (c. 1300 BCE), Osiris's epithets included, "the king of eternity, the lord of everlastingness, who traverseth millions of years in the duration of his life, the firstborn son of the womb of Nut, begotten of Seb, the prince of gods and men, the god of gods, the king of kings, the lord of lords, the prince of princes, the governor of the world whose existence is for everlasting." (Budge, liii)

Death/Resurrection

Dionysus's death and resurrection were famous in ancient times, so much so that Christian father Origen (c. 184-c. 254) felt the need to address them in his Contra Celsus (IV, XVI-XVII), comparing them unfavorably, of course, to those of Christ. By Origen's time, these Dionysian mysteries had already been celebrated for centuries. Dionysus/Bacchus's resurrection or revival after having been torn to pieces or otherwise killed earned him the epithet of "twice born."



Moreover, it was said that Dionysus/Bacchus "slept three nights with Proserpine [Persephone],"[4]  evidently referring to the god's journey into the underworld to visit his mother. Like Jesus, the god is claimed also to have "ascended to heaven," such as by Church father Justin Martyr (First Apology, 21; Roberts I, 170). Note that Dionysus is depicted here as an adult, rising out of the underworld after death, with a horse-driven chariot so typical of a sun god. One major astrotheological meaning of this motif is the sun's entrance into and exit from the cave (womb) of the world at the winter solstice.

Hence, in Dionysus we have yet another solar hero, born of a virgin on "December 25th" or the winter solstice, performing miracles and receiving divine epithets, being killed, giving his blood as a sacrifice, resurrecting from the dead after three days in Hades/CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, and ascending into heaven. These motifs have all been claimed of the gospel figure of Jesus Christ since antiquity and have to do not with the adventures of a "historical" Jewish savior but with the ubiquitous solar mythos and ritual


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Please remind me; which are the gods who, when their disciples disobey the rules set down by that god, and for which disobedience there is established a penalty, pay the penalty for the disobedient disciple and treat the disciple as though he had not been disobedient.



So lets be clear here..
Are you talking about a god that made a sacrifice for his disciples?
Or
Are you talking about a god that sacrificed himself/herself for their disciples?

I mean if I have to come up with your exact specifications I probably cannot meet each and every one exactly as written because 1. I don't think Jesus is an accurate example of what you described and 2. The writers had to tweak the stories of other dieties a little in order to make it their own but they borrowed the majority of previously written stories enough to meet the core of your guidelines.

As I see it according to the biblical story the God of Abraham sacrificed his human son. Jesus was not a god while he was sacrificed so he couldn't have sacrificed himself for anyone. He only became a god afterwards. Jesus was not a god but a sacrifice made by a god. That eliminates your ground rules.

There are plenty of gods that made sacrifices for their disciples in order to save them from their own disobedience.
I gave a few examples above.


----------



## bullethead

After finally making humans that were functional, the Aztec gods realized that they'd need sunlight to keep them alive. They asked for volunteers to become the suns (for some reason there needed to be two), knowing that the gods who became suns would die after throwing themselves into a fire. Nanahuatzin sacrificed himself first and had the honor of becoming the sun. Tecciztecatl, who was a coward and couldn't force himself into the fire until Nanahuatzin had, became the second sun, but annoyed at his cowardess the remaining gods threw a rabbit at his sun to dim it so he'd be less honored, and therefore he's now the moon.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> So lets be clear here..
> Are you talking about a god that made a sacrifice for his disciples?
> Or
> Are you talking about a god that sacrificed himself/herself for their disciples?
> 
> I mean if I have to come up with your exact specifications I probably cannot meet each and every one exactly as written because 1. I don't think Jesus is an accurate example of what you described and 2. The writers had to tweak the stories of other dieties a little in order to make it their own but they borrowed the majority of previously written stories enough to meet the core of your guidelines.
> 
> As I see it according to the biblical story the God of Abraham sacrificed his human son. Jesus was not a god while he was sacrificed so he couldn't have sacrificed himself for anyone. He only became a god afterwards. Jesus was not a god but a sacrifice made by a god. That eliminates your ground rules.
> 
> There are plenty of gods that made sacrifices for their disciples in order to save them from their own disobedience.
> I gave a few examples above.



Honestly, I feel a little like Rocky chasing a chicken.  I don’t recall your having used your non-unique statements at a time when “cut and paste religion”, as you are now discussing it, was implied.  Your statements, which I have seen, referenced beliefs that are of a systematic nature, i.e.:


> If what you say is true then believers in all gods everywhere have the same evidence. Why is yours any different?
> Why do you think that the Christian god does that for Christians but not Islamists and Allah does that very same thing for Islamists but not Christians and neither of those gods do that for the Hindus but Vishnu takes care of them by helping them become something that they absolutely could not do on their own yet he won't help anyone that is not a Hindu.
> These gods HAVE to exist based on your experiences because there are literally hundreds of millions of people just like you that has that same feeling.
> If they are wrong wouldn't you be wrong for the same reasons? Why would so many live for a lie?


And that is what I have addressed.

While I understand that the cut and paste thing (this doctrine, or ceremony, or passage, or whatever is similar to this one which is its likely predecessor) can include some subjects that may be interesting discussions to some, they tend to be more collage like than I care to try to follow; and they are usually sociologically or anthropologically based which is a minor turn off for me.  I am not saying that such things are not at times pertinent items of discussion; only that they are not the subject which I have addressed now or, to my recollection, in the past.  Besides, I looked at the Aztec thing and it doesn’t look to me as though it is going anywhere.

None the less, your statement concerning “exact specifications” is valid.  However, I do believe that most faith systems include articulated rules for behavior, or attitudes to be honed, or goals to be achieved along with some gain or loss (usually connect to an afterlife) based on success or failure.  They also include worship or veneration of someone or something connected with the establishment of the method of gain or loss.

I will not be posting for a day or two (just can’t tell how long) but I would appreciate more information on one thing.  You said:


> As I see it according to the biblical story the God of Abraham sacrificed his human son. Jesus was not a god while he was sacrificed so he couldn't have sacrificed himself for anyone. He only became a god afterwards. Jesus was not a god but a sacrifice made by a god. That eliminates your ground rules.


After you answer I may slap my forehead.  Most believe that Christ is eternally deity, but the belief that Jesus was not deified until after He was sacrificed  is ringing a very faint bell.  Could you identify a doctrine or group with which that belief is associated?

To try to clarify my original question.  As I alluded to above, most faiths/religions have requirements that must be followed.  When not obeyed, atonement must be made — an act of penance, reparation, loss of reward, punishment, etc.  Only in “christianity” is that atonement made by God through Jesus the Christ and credited to the offender.  (beware of the generalizations, just trying to avoid laying down rabbit trails)


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Honestly, I feel a little like Rocky chasing a chicken.  I don’t recall your having used your non-unique statements at a time when “cut and paste religion”, as you are now discussing it, was implied.  Your statements, which I have seen, referenced beliefs that are of a systematic nature, i.e.:
> 
> And that is what I have addressed.
> 
> While I understand that the cut and paste thing (this doctrine, or ceremony, or passage, or whatever is similar to this one which is its likely predecessor) can include some subjects that may be interesting discussions to some, they tend to be more collage like than I care to try to follow; and they are usually sociologically or anthropologically based which is a minor turn off for me.  I am not saying that such things are not at times pertinent items of discussion; only that they are not the subject which I have addressed now or, to my recollection, in the past.  Besides, I looked at the Aztec thing and it doesn’t look to me as though it is going anywhere.
> 
> None the less, your statement concerning “exact specifications” is valid.  However, I do believe that most faith systems include articulated rules for behavior, or attitudes to be honed, or goals to be achieved along with some gain or loss (usually connect to an afterlife) based on success or failure.  They also include worship or veneration of someone or something connected with the establishment of the method of gain or loss.
> 
> I will not be posting for a day or two (just can’t tell how long) but I would appreciate more information on one thing.  You said:
> After you answer I may slap my forehead.  Most believe that Christ is eternally deity, but the belief that Jesus was not deified until after He was sacrificed  is ringing a very faint bell.  Could you identify a doctrine or group with which that belief is associated?
> 
> To try to clarify my original question.  As I alluded to above, most faiths/religions have requirements that must be followed.  When not obeyed, atonement must be made — an act of penance, reparation, loss of reward, punishment, etc.  Only in “christianity” is that atonement made by God through Jesus the Christ and credited to the offender.  (beware of the generalizations, just trying to avoid laying down rabbit trails)



If Christ was a deity from the beginning  explain how he could die on a cross.
Nevertheless, 
Here is a link for you read over for the time you are away. I know how a copy/paste irks you and others but a c/p allows me to put the material right on here instead of me relying on a person to follow a link but... I'll just go with the link here and rely on the honor system. 


https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-did-jesus-become-god/


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> If Christ was a deity from the beginning  explain how he could die on a cross.
> Nevertheless,
> Here is a link for you read over for the time you are away. I know how a copy/paste irks you and others but a c/p allows me to put the material right on here instead of me relying on a person to follow a link but... I'll just go with the link here and rely on the honor system.
> 
> 
> https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-did-jesus-become-god/




Jesus was always God... 

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."




...but He was not always manifested as the God/man.(keyword-manifested)

Heb.2:9
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> If Christ was a deity from the beginning  explain how he could die on a cross.
> Nevertheless,
> Here is a link for you read over for the time you are away. I know how a copy/paste irks you and others but a c/p allows me to put the material right on here instead of me relying on a person to follow a link but... I'll just go with the link here and rely on the honor system.
> 
> 
> https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-did-jesus-become-god/



Man, I'm glad you didn't paste all of that. I found it an interesting read although I'm not a Trinitarian. I've read comparisons of Oneness vs the Trinity that could follow some of this.
In Oneness, Jesus is only with God at the beginning in Word(mind) only. Later God himself becomes man through incarnation. God stays Jesus from this point forward.(oneness)
The Holy Spirit is just a way of expressing God's power.
If I was a God, I could send my spirit to do things such as impregnate a virgin. It would still be me, not a 1/3 part of me. Oneness explains it better than the Trinity.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Eventually through unity and oneness, we shall be like Jesus. When we see him as he is.

What do ya'll think  it means to see Jesus as he is?

How close will we become to total unity with Jesus who has total unity with God?


----------



## 1gr8bldr

In regards to Jesus being God, ask yourself why did John tell us he was not the light? If John had meant John 1 -14 to say that Jesus was God... then he would also be saying "I am not God". The truth of the misinterpretation of these verses can be seen if one wants to. John was trying to parallel Jesus with the new creation. That no one is a new creation if not through Jesus. But this parallel is ruined later by interpreters who inserted he and him prematurely ruining Johns parallel. God is what he does, otherwise we would not know him. He speaks things into existence with his word. He first spoke the word and created the light. Light was Gods first creation. Jesus was God's first new creation. The word used as he and him is also the same greek word of "IT" . What is this "it". It is the light.The light is the subject, not Jesus. Proof John says "the light shines in darkness, he was not the light, and the true light was coming. It was entirely about the light that John was speaking of and how it is assumed that without the light that warms us, everything grows from, the light that we have to have to exist, not so much that nothing would grow, but that we depend on it for life. Then John starts to roll the parallel to Jesus, introduction "true light" was coming into the world. Now he makes the play that just like we require the light/sun of the first creation, we require the light/Jesus for the new creation. But the translators knowing whom the parallel was about, ruined the parallel by inserting he and him prematurely. For those who blow this off.... why then did John say he was not the light?  Google John 1 bible hub. Read the greek literal translation which also has he and him, but click the word and see the definition, he, she it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Hey Art, I appreciate the link, interesting reading although much though about it as far as the bases they work from. They seem to gloss over that Christ simply means "anointed by God"   OT saints were looking forward to God's anointed to save them as had Moses, Jesus being a prophet likened to Moses[Acts 2, something?]


----------



## bullethead

1gr8bldr said:


> In regards to Jesus being God, ask yourself why did John tell us he was not the light? If John had meant John 1 -14 to say that Jesus was God... then he would also be saying "I am not God". The truth of the misinterpretation of these verses can be seen if one wants to. John was trying to parallel Jesus with the new creation. That no one is a new creation if not through Jesus. But this parallel is ruined later by interpreters who inserted he and him prematurely ruining Johns parallel. God is what he does, otherwise we would not know him. He speaks things into existence with his word. He first spoke the word and created the light. Light was Gods first creation. Jesus was God's first new creation. The word used as he and him is also the same greek word of "IT" . What is this "it". It is the light.The light is the subject, not Jesus. Proof John says "the light shines in darkness, he was not the light, and the true light was coming. It was entirely about the light that John was speaking of and how it is assumed that without the light that warms us, everything grows from, the light that we have to have to exist, not so much that nothing would grow, but that we depend on it for life. Then John starts to roll the parallel to Jesus, introduction "true light" was coming into the world. Now he makes the play that just like we require the light/sun of the first creation, we require the light/Jesus for the new creation. But the translators knowing whom the parallel was about, ruined the parallel by inserting he and him prematurely. For those who blow this off.... why then did John say he was not the light?  Google John 1 bible hub. Read the greek literal translation which also has he and him, but click the word and see the definition, he, she it.


Your insight and knowledge is always a welcomed breath of fresh air.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Jesus was always God...
> 
> John 1:1
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...but He was not always manifested as the God/man.(keyword-manifested)
> 
> Heb.2:9
> "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."


I would agree if it were not for the verses that say he was not god.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Honestly, I feel a little like Rocky chasing a chicken.  I don’t recall your having used your non-unique statements at a time when “cut and paste religion”, as you are now discussing it, was implied.  Your statements, which I have seen, referenced beliefs that are of a systematic nature, i.e.:
> 
> And that is what I have addressed.
> 
> While I understand that the cut and paste thing (this doctrine, or ceremony, or passage, or whatever is similar to this one which is its likely predecessor) can include some subjects that may be interesting discussions to some, they tend to be more collage like than I care to try to follow; and they are usually sociologically or anthropologically based which is a minor turn off for me.  I am not saying that such things are not at times pertinent items of discussion; only that they are not the subject which I have addressed now or, to my recollection, in the past.  Besides, I looked at the Aztec thing and it doesn’t look to me as though it is going anywhere.
> 
> None the less, your statement concerning “exact specifications” is valid.  However, I do believe that most faith systems include articulated rules for behavior, or attitudes to be honed, or goals to be achieved along with some gain or loss (usually connect to an afterlife) based on success or failure.  They also include worship or veneration of someone or something connected with the establishment of the method of gain or loss.
> 
> I will not be posting for a day or two (just can’t tell how long) but I would appreciate more information on one thing.  You said:
> After you answer I may slap my forehead.  Most believe that Christ is eternally deity, but the belief that Jesus was not deified until after He was sacrificed  is ringing a very faint bell.  Could you identify a doctrine or group with which that belief is associated?
> 
> To try to clarify my original question.  As I alluded to above, most faiths/religions have requirements that must be followed.  When not obeyed, atonement must be made — an act of penance, reparation, loss of reward, punishment, etc.  Only in “christianity” is that atonement made by God through Jesus the Christ and credited to the offender.  (beware of the generalizations, just trying to avoid laying down rabbit trails)


Bottom line is that while they all differ in specifics the end results are the same.
Believers of each and every religion credit their god(s) for everything from creation to baseball scores...and they will provide you with detailed information how that god or gods is specifically is responsible for their mothers miraculous healing..why their prayers are answered, how the deity stepped in to alter their life and add in another thousand "proofs". The details differ but the end results are the same.
It doesn't matter that your book says your god sent a son or if that another god was chained to a rock and had his liver eaten daily by a giant eagle. As long as whoever believes in either that their god did it to benefit them the result is the same.
The stories are varied and the tangible results are the same, but in each and every case the only absolute constant thing that we can count on is the absent god. 
 All the diners have different help. They all have varied recipies and they all have loyal customers. But there is still no Mel at Mel's diner. Just the illusions of Mel. As long as their bellies are full of what they need the customers keep raving about Mel.
Your Mel kept the family business going, Another Mel started his diner after moving in from another country, another Mel, started as a dishwasher and then bought the place.
You claim your Mel gets up the earliest, the next Mel makes his recipies from scratch, that other Mel brought a taste from his home country but in each and every case they all make a good meal in the end and that is why they all have their regular customers. As long as those customers get their filling meal the  back story doesn't matter. The uniqueness of the story isnt the issue it is the uniqueness of the end results which are not unique at all.


----------



## Israel

1gr8bldr said:


> In regards to Jesus being God, ask yourself why did John tell us he was not the light? If John had meant John 1 -14 to say that Jesus was God... then he would also be saying "I am not God". The truth of the misinterpretation of these verses can be seen if one wants to. John was trying to parallel Jesus with the new creation. That no one is a new creation if not through Jesus. But this parallel is ruined later by interpreters who inserted he and him prematurely ruining Johns parallel. God is what he does, otherwise we would not know him. He speaks things into existence with his word. He first spoke the word and created the light. Light was Gods first creation. Jesus was God's first new creation. The word used as he and him is also the same greek word of "IT" . What is this "it". It is the light.The light is the subject, not Jesus. Proof John says "the light shines in darkness, he was not the light, and the true light was coming. It was entirely about the light that John was speaking of and how it is assumed that without the light that warms us, everything grows from, the light that we have to have to exist, not so much that nothing would grow, but that we depend on it for life. Then John starts to roll the parallel to Jesus, introduction "true light" was coming into the world. Now he makes the play that just like we require the light/sun of the first creation, we require the light/Jesus for the new creation. But the translators knowing whom the parallel was about, ruined the parallel by inserting he and him prematurely. For those who blow this off.... why then did John say he was not the light?  Google John 1 bible hub. Read the greek literal translation which also has he and him, but click the word and see the definition, he, she it.



I have never understood this passage to be anything but that of the apostle John speaking of John "the baptist" and Jesus Christ. 

Am I mistakenly taking it that you are saying the "John" in those references are John the apostle? In which case your hypothetical "I am not God" as counterpoint found in "He was not that light"..was John the apostle (and writer) referencing and confessing this of himself?


----------



## Israel

'And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee;

Young's literal is often a bit clumsy to the English ear, but I find it hews closest to the Greek in many cases


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Bottom line is that while they all differ in specifics the end results are the same.
> Believers of each and every religion credit their god(s) for everything from creation to baseball scores...and they will provide you with detailed information how that god or gods is specifically is responsible for their mothers miraculous healing..why their prayers are answered, how the deity stepped in to alter their life and add in another thousand "proofs". The details differ but the end results are the same.
> It doesn't matter that your book says your god sent a son or if that another god was chained to a rock and had his liver eaten daily by a giant eagle. As long as whoever believes in either that their god did it to benefit them the result is the same.
> The stories are varied and the tangible results are the same, but in each and every case the only absolute constant thing that we can count on is the absent god.
> All the diners have different help. They all have varied recipies and they all have loyal customers. But there is still no Mel at Mel's diner. Just the illusions of Mel. As long as their bellies are full of what they need the customers keep raving about Mel.
> Your Mel kept the family business going, Another Mel started his diner after moving in from another country, another Mel, started as a dishwasher and then bought the place.
> You claim your Mel gets up the earliest, the next Mel makes his recipies from scratch, that other Mel brought a taste from his home country but in each and every case they all make a good meal in the end and that is why they all have their regular customers. As long as those customers get their filling meal the  back story doesn't matter. The uniqueness of the story isnt the issue it is the uniqueness of the end results which are not unique at all.





We are no where near "bottom line".


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Israel said:


> I have never understood this passage to be anything but that of the apostle John speaking of John "the baptist" and Jesus Christ.
> 
> Am I mistakenly taking it that you are saying the "John" in those references are John the apostle? In which case your hypothetical "I am not God" as counterpoint found in "He was not that light"..was John the apostle (and writer) referencing and confessing this of himself?


I am speaking of John the baptist, repeating what John the apostle wrote. As I look back through my post, I see why the confusion. I did a poor job conveying my thoughts by trying to paraphrase and minimize the story. Often times, the more words, the more rabbit trails thus the point gets lost, yet I needed more distinction between John and John


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> We are no where near "bottom line".



The trails of clumsy rabbits all lead to one hew, I mean hole.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> If Christ was a deity from the beginning  explain how he could die on a cross.


This smells kinda like a cross trail.



> Nevertheless,
> Here is a link for you read over for the time you are away. I know how a copy/paste irks you and others but a c/p allows me to put the material right on here instead of me relying on a person to follow a link but... I'll just go with the link here and rely on the honor system.



I don't really mind links per se; it's cut and paste that is claimed as original work that irks me the most.  Second is cut and paste that does not include a link to the source.  You are right that most don't follow links, but hey, they probable would[n't] read anyway.



> https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-did-jesus-become-god/


Sure ‘nuff, it was a forehead slap.  For some reason, I was thinking that you were drawing from your past experience that you have now rejected, which would include both the physical and the metaphysical point of view (my bad).  As I understand it, the Westar Institute (a.k.a. the Jesus Seminar, although I think that is the name of their first study, could be wrong about that) only grants “fellowship” to those who agree to restrict their scholarly work to the limitations of the historical critical method (may include other xxxx criticisms), which means that the bible, along with other sources, are first stripped of everything that reflects the metaphysical/spiritual.  It’s very similar to requiring God be proven to exist by the same methods that show ice and water to be made up of the same substance.

That’s how you get this particular redaction of Acts 2:22-36:



> In Acts in a speech put into the mouth of Peter we find these words (2:22–36):
> "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst . . . you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless man . . . This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses . . . Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."


Or this statement;


> There is widespread agreement, for example, that the story of the ascension is a mythical story and not an historical event.


which is true of those who reject all things metaphysical.

Nothing wrong with such work, I suppose.  If you can get the money to support it, and an audience to listen, why not set out to show that “If there is no supernatural, then nothing is supernatural.”


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Bottom line is that while they all differ in specifics the end results are the same.
> Believers of each and every religion credit their god(s) for everything from creation to baseball scores...and they will provide you with detailed information how that god or gods is specifically is responsible for their mothers miraculous healing..why their prayers are answered, how the deity stepped in to alter their life and add in another thousand "proofs". The details differ but the end results are the same.
> It doesn't matter that your book says your god sent a son or if that another god was chained to a rock and had his liver eaten daily by a giant eagle. As long as whoever believes in either that their god did it to benefit them the result is the same.
> The stories are varied and the tangible results are the same, but in each and every case the only absolute constant thing that we can count on is the absent god.
> All the diners have different help. They all have varied recipies and they all have loyal customers. But there is still no Mel at Mel's diner. Just the illusions of Mel. As long as their bellies are full of what they need the customers keep raving about Mel.
> Your Mel kept the family business going, Another Mel started his diner after moving in from another country, another Mel, started as a dishwasher and then bought the place.
> You claim your Mel gets up the earliest, the next Mel makes his recipies from scratch, that other Mel brought a taste from his home country but in each and every case they all make a good meal in the end and that is why they all have their regular customers. As long as those customers get their filling meal the  back story doesn't matter. The uniqueness of the story isnt the issue it is the uniqueness of the end results which are not unique at all.



Ahh, tag team chickens.

So, if there is no difference between a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, etc., then the uniqueness of the God of Abraham is not shown.  I would not argue with that.  There certainly should be a difference, but if not ...


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> This smells kinda like a cross trail.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really mind links per se; it's cut and paste that is claimed as original work that irks me the most.  Second is cut and paste that does not include a link to the source.  You are right that most don't follow links, but hey, they probable would[n't] read anyway.


Fair enough but i never intend to take credit for someone else's work, i post it because it is better said than I can say it.






hummerpoo said:


> Sure ‘nuff, it was a forehead slap.  For some reason, I was thinking that you were drawing from your past experience that you have now rejected, which would include both the physical and the metaphysical point of view (my bad).  As I understand it, the Westar Institute (a.k.a. the Jesus Seminar, although I think that is the name of their first study, could be wrong about that) only grants “fellowship” to those who agree to restrict their scholarly work to the limitations of the historical critical method (may include other xxxx criticisms), which means that the bible, along with other sources, are first stripped of everything that reflects the metaphysical/spiritual.  It’s very similar to requiring God be proven to exist by the same methods that show ice and water to be made up of the same substance.
> 
> That’s how you get this particular redaction of Acts 2:22-36:


When stripped down the Bible's accuracy is shown to be lacking.
It is only the unprovable claims of supernatural that create a god, which is why no gods ever exist outside of such writings.




hummerpoo said:


> Or this statement;
> 
> which is true of those who reject all things metaphysical.
> 
> Nothing wrong with such work, I suppose.  If you can get the money to support it, and an audience to listen, why not set out to show that “If there is no supernatural, then nothing is supernatural.”



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. With all the supposed  witnesses to the ascension it seems it was not that big of a deal enough for anyone to record it as it happened.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Ahh, tag team chickens.
> 
> So, if there is no difference between a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, etc., then the uniqueness of the God of Abraham is not shown.  I would not argue with that.  There certainly should be a difference, but if not ...


In the end they all go to a better place that their god has set aside for them. They all have rules in order to get there or to be turned away. We are talking at least three "heavens"  with the examples you used. How they get differs, end results are the same.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



Yep.


----------



## Israel

1gr8bldr said:


> I am speaking of John the baptist, repeating what John the apostle wrote. As I look back through my post, I see why the confusion. I did a poor job conveying my thoughts by trying to paraphrase and minimize the story. Often times, the more words, the more rabbit trails thus the point gets lost, yet I needed more distinction between John and John



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Israel said:


> Thanks for the clarification.


LOL, the last time I made this pitch here, likely over a year ago, someone also pointed out the same exact thing that you did.


----------



## EverGreen1231

Israel said:


> This may sound contentious, but my hope is that you hear it, nonetheless.
> 
> Is it, as it often seems, we may set out in hope to prove "christianity" (and here, I believe Walt1 answered soberly) is in whatever sense, true? But, if that be so, is that what a believer is sent for? Here, in this time and place, what a believer is set for?
> If (as I hope I discern) in your question is the more fundamental question "If Jesus presented Himself as alive to you..."?
> 
> This matter of christianity, (for which I acknowledge Walt's answer) is often (and perhaps only to me) more an appeal to join a team, a faction (perhaps) that remains more tribal in appeal..."come to our winning side".
> 
> Now I would be wrong to deny the gain to a soul in seeing this (the Lord, alive), and yes, there is a recruitment to a brotherhood of saints in whose company is found much encouragement and comfort. But this is always, and only by the Lord's presence discovered, not by the mere signing up (so to speak) with a credo whose particulars do seem to vary in the many "flavors" of christianity proffered.
> 
> It is a seeming cart and horse affair. But to one thing are we not called...and that, in its outworking in and through each member of this body, is the manifestation of Jesus Christ as Lord and King, whose Kingdom is open to any and all who believe, and in whose name alone is such entrance granted?
> I trust.



Another beautiful post, Israel. I too sometimes make the mistake of trying to "prove" christianity rather than allowing The Lord to do His work. Something must be in place before the "proving." The cart shouldn't go before the horse. I too, trust.


----------



## EverGreen1231

I've thought a lot about the matter, lately. It seems that, at some times, all men doubt the existence of the deity; and, at all times, some men doubt the existence of the deity. It's our nature; to search; to question; to not know, for certain.

Hope, everyone's been alright.


----------



## ambush80

EverGreen1231 said:


> I've thought a lot about the matter, lately. It seems that, at some times, all men doubt the existence of the deity; and, at all times, some men doubt the existence of the deity. It's our nature; to search; to question; to not know, for certain.
> 
> Hope, everyone's been alright.



Can you know for certain?

That's my biggest problem with religion.  It requires that its adherents believe in the infallibility of their particular texts.


----------



## EverGreen1231

ambush80 said:


> Can you know for certain?
> 
> That's my biggest problem with religion.  It requires that its adherents believe in the infallibility of their particular texts.



That which I would, that do I not.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Can you know for certain?
> 
> That's my biggest problem with religion.  It requires that its adherents believe in the infallibility of their particular texts.


Where I have come to live requires none such. I have never found inquisition as to whether I believe in talking donkeys perhaps because I cannot but already accept that dust can talk. And dust can even talk to the maker of dust. (and actually, always is doing just that)

Even one of their own prophets calls himself star dust.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Where I have come to live requires none such. I have never found inquisition as to whether I believe in talking donkeys perhaps because I cannot but already accept that dust can talk. And dust can even talk to the maker of dust. (and actually, always is doing just that)
> 
> Even one of their own prophets calls himself star dust.



Why do you take this for granted?  That's all I've asked of you.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Why do you take this for granted?  That's all I've asked of you.



I have left this on hold, not ignored, neither forgotten.
That I could see the only answer available to me, would have, of times past in my recollection, seemed to you as above all lame:



> All the talk about the work of the cross and the divinity of Jesus is unfounded.
> 
> Atheism isn't "the way" but reason and rationality won't get you to deism, not in any argument I've ever heard. Perhaps you've got a better argument than I've ever heard before.
> 
> What makes you believe in Jesus' divinity or his ability to talk to you from the grave? What's the undeniable proof in the puddin'?


Ambush^^^^^^^^




> You


Israel^^^^^^



> Lame


Ambush^^^^^



> Yeah, I know. I thought so too. I was even a little embarrassed about it, thought "man, what are you trying to do...just come up with a quick answer in a discussion...something terse and cloaked in some hint at an arcane understanding that makes you look clever...when it really appears, as you say, just 'lame'?"
> 
> 
> But then I began to consider what I thought so lame an answer.
> 
> At first it was in the very simple...and shallow perception..."Jesus said this would happen "to me" in the presentation of the gospel...I would be resisted" So, to that, in whatever measure you find me and my words lame, I have already been told "don't be discouraged when this happens...don't let yourself be shaken" yeah, Jesus...that's right! This stuff is part and parcel of your experience. So yeah...in whatever measure I may sense Ambush "putting me to the test"...he is a necessary part of proving your word, to me, and even, thereby, shows again "Jesus you really do know what you are talking about, always."
> 
> Well, I know that helps me...but to you...well perhaps just looks like a bunch of circular logic.
> Then...later...in consideration a few of your words came back to me. Things, if handled a certain way by one who didn't hold you in their heart...would allow a "triumph" of sorts. But, I was put to shame in that consideration. But out of that shame came a clarity...would I try to judge you...or see you as you are...a man just like me? Then I saw the shame that prohibited me was precisely the grace being shown me...to keep me from knowing shame if I pursued that course.
> 
> But Lord...that silly one word answer he will answer as "stupid, insufficient, a ruse, a feint...lame".
> So, what? Bear the accusation. Do you think yourself more than that? Cleverer?
> 
> In the most general terms...the generic "you"...all the yous out there that populate this globe, all the trees walking I see...that are not the single "me" I perceive...one of those "yous" has come to me in a manner and with words so different than all others...and the experience of me of all the others...that has caused me to notice. Claims of himself seemingly outrageous, and claims to knowing me (and all men) that are equally absurd in scope..."all men?"..."really"? "At all times?"
> "For he knew what is in the heart of man".
> 
> That he has shown himself at least knowing of mine in a completeness I can only confess in whatever measure I know today, at this moment...I say, "Jesus is Lord". My maker knows me...I am known...of my maker. I cannot hide...even if wanting to, even when found trying to.
> 
> 
> But, what of "you"? What of the one who comes asking bread...and I seem to have none to give that satisfies him? I eat, and am full...but, this man, this opposer, is he honest broker?
> Shall I hide? Shall I seek some end to his demands? Shall I pretend at sleep and maybe he will go away? He despises my bread, or at least seems to...what need have I of such a one in my eating?
> Look, isn't this good enough to discard him...he calls my brother (our brother!) one who has taken the leap into the absurd.
> Yes, that's true...but is he not also the one who confessed to a wretched plane? Will you not care to leave him there?
> 
> And what of this, despite your engagement of him...he acknowledges the logic of that brother whose leap into the "absurd" gives him a good night's sleep? Would you discard smoking flax? Do you despise bruised reeds?
> 
> Yeah...but.
> I look so stupid to him!
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> So what?


Israel^^^^^^

So why do I not now have the reluctance to answer with the only answer I have ever had to your question?  
(And if you are given to think about it, it is, though seemingly obverse to another answer given described as "lame", it is nonetheless, the same answer)



> "Why do you take that for granted?"



Because, I am me.


Now, you could say, (now, would you say?) "he withheld for whatever reason" in fear of being called "lame" again.

But it is far too late for that. What (might you say) has made it far too late? Patience.
How does patience make it far too late?

I thank you for posting the Vids with Jordan Peterson. I am enjoying them greatly. He says some very worthwhile things, and in the first I find Joe Rogan also presenting some things worthy of consideration.


"Performative contradiction"

If you have any doubt that this is the signal matter Jesus addressed always (or that he was/is compelled to wait for Jordan Peterson to elucidate), I would suggest you reconsider his words.
"speak truth"


What is the only "logical" outcome for a speaker of truth in a system totally given to "performative contradiction"?
But more to the point, what must be, cannot be otherwise when such a system takes as its apriori it is _the_ truth?
Anything seen to undermine, to in any way raise question, or (actually) be so bold as to say "this is truly _all_ wrong", would be met...how? Open arms? (Remember this system is not willing to give an inch) Reconsideration? Or, rejection and expulsion? (From the system)

But, it is not enough to merely set those parameters. Of mere, right/wrong. The system "not willing to give an inch" is refuted by One who comes saying, again, always saying..."I come in representation of a "system" based all and only upon giving, and the God of that, not to mere inches, but of all things in all things..." What then must such a speaker endure (if he not be found to be "performatively contradictory")...what would be the "all" he could give in that system of lie, to show his total consistency in speaking of a system of (total) gift. What would he be "allowed" to withhold...if anything? What would truth be required to show itself of all truth (if it represent the 'system' of all gift) in the system that is indeed 'all take' to indeed, ultimately, all be taken?

Do you see? Can you see? If you can see this at all?
We speak of the wisdom of God. (in whom is no "performative contradiction") And, if it satisfies you as to His being (in Jordan Peterson's lexicon, the "all that is not known" but ascribed by lessers perhaps as the "all else" to _self_) but can be seen as _reality_ indeed _the _reality (would reality, by any definition, be subject to "performative contradiction"?...well, not if it be _real_...)

Why then allow for "performative contradiction"...which is just a fancy way of saying sin. Why allow for a thing that does not know itself...and cannot know itself...of itself? And therefore must then be 'caught' in all manner of _performative contradiction_?
For along with no "performative contradiction" in reality (It's more than OK for the sake of our speaking that God be known as "reality"..._ultimate_ reality..."true" reality, at least for me) is a thing called mercy.

Now, you might say, (any man might say) "but look, if things are as you say, that this sin thing is source of all suffering among man, and it is allowed, has been "allowed" of reality just to the end that mercy can be shown (as a man might parade his own 'piety')...this is an insufferable conclusion...the suffering under the evil of sin is so great, such a reality must be cruel!"
A cruel Reality making man (or allowing man) to suffer such blindness (to self, of self) just so Reality can jump out, flip on the light, and holler "surprise!"...look at the gift I got you!"

Yeah...it would be...if the gift were of so paltry a nature so as not to consume all the heretofore perceived suffering. But the gift has in it, the very "stuff" of which makes suffering a very different thing in perception, indeed, as Jordan Peterson says...the full weight of reality "behind you" to now make of suffering a very different thing, indeed. For the thing not able to "know itself" of itself, has been wrong about everything...even to what it believes it has suffered.


----------



## hummerpoo

Ultimate Reality, Ineffable Transcendence, Holy God ...
If it quacks like a duck, it might be a duck; it could be a duck; but what do I know of ultimate, or ineffable, or holy?
I do know of Reality, and/or Transcendence, and/or God in that I see afar, dimly; and that by a mechanism which is expressed as Ultimate/Ineffable/Holy.


----------



## Israel

I stopped only in the above knowing a limit of posting can be reached.

If the gift is not found sufficient to not merely exonerate for "performative contradiction" but also suffuse, infuse, perfuse with delight enough to 'put' suffering in an inferior place of heart (where once it reigned), who am I to make a man see?


This is where the "you" response engendered the "lame" response. For you have (at least in times past) claimed to not see the worthiness of the gift (yes the gift, that "poison pill" to the system of lie it swallowed in death, it gave to death, it rejected "to death" so that death might swallow...and in the swallowing...die) Again...speaking of the wisdom of God (reality)...the perfect plan to undo the lie of all death...(feed it a pure dose of life and truth...that it Oh, so gladly ate!)

If you do indeed "like" Jordan Peterson, and are able to accept some, or much of what he says, then his ascribing to to some mythos' the ring of truth (as he does unabashedly...which I also like) then I cannot dismiss also (in you) as I hold for myself...that ability to recognize that "ring" when it sounds.

And this is where the "you" comment, once described as lame now takes on even more depth...even and especially because you are able to share your appreciation of a man (Jordan Peterson) not ashamed to describe himself as religious.
For how does the "you" affect me? Is it not even as Peterson describes, as men in conversation...going from "point to point" so to speak (if they speak from their heart..."their truth"...and he even uses the word "spirit"!) a coming to know one another in multiple deaths and rebirths (letting go of former to see the present...even when "former" once appeared precious)

Yes, it would have (you discern now whether I speak truth) in a former time, in previous discussions...been more "convenient" to me to dismiss you as less than honest broker. More convenient for me to think (and oh, what "performative contradiction" lay there) "I (Israel) am_ true seeker_, and therefore if I perceive resistance from Ambush in any manner it must be because he is not. I am true, Ambush, false."
(Have you ever felt this from a 'believer'?)

But you see, this Christ, whom you (seem) to have doubts about speaking...especially in what is called "today" tells me very certain things about relating amongst men...all the "yous" I find outside my skin. There is an inescapable balance I have been made to know, though everything inside my skin scream against it...and it is this....all the "yous" are just as real as I am. What I withhold (reserve to myself) as being more real for "you"...I find my own hold of reality (God) slipping. Oh, I will not deny I "live a lot" in my own head (believer's will instantly get this)...but when I am "called out" by you...how must I come to not be found in "performative contradiction"? Do you see? Inwardly I hold this gift as given to "all men", for I would be found inwardly instantly accused of performative contradiction, for it is the only way a man "like me" can receive it. The moment I "inwardly" believe I am something special to have "laid hold" of it because of some innate superiority...a funny thing (though really very very unfunny) happens to that gift, or at least my perception of it. It fades in my inward sight. Something else begins to get bigger, and that thing, even seeming delightful (Oh how easily I am given to think myself more real...better!) has always had terrible consequences. (This has only come of experience) So yes, you could very rightly say "This man is only given to self interest! Even if he claim it be "enlightened" self interest. All the while talking about Christ the "giver" this man is a taker, through and through!" Yes!

I am, in every way, cannot but admit in every way "I must see LIFE!"...or I die. But the way...of life...found in Christ is now found very different among all takers. For this life...which I must see, cannot live without seeing...speaks this "All are just as real as you, if you deny that (can you see) you are in performative contradiction...for the "Me" (Jesus) that you now claim as life for yourself...(I know) is not me." Words are failing. But to me, for me, for Jesus to be real (for He is and was willing to be made to me as one of the "yous") I cannot deny the reality of the "yous".
The only way I may continue in Christ (reality) is that by the acceptance of a "you" into myself as real, I cannot disqualify any other you. Otherwise, performatively, I am liar.

I cannot "use" the gift (Like an anarchist/anti capitalist using an iPhone) to abnegate the very thing I am found in use of.

And this is where Jordan Peterson's touching on_ being_ is so very welcome. I deny my own being...if I deny the validity of yours...being 'allowed' to be you. If I say "God, why do you suffer such atheists (speaking in the most general sense now, and not of you) and resistors to all that is good and right to be (and cause me to 'suffer' so in their contradictions, and resistances...LOL)...well do you see? The only way this gift is available to me, was made indeed, "necessary" for me...is only because "I am the 'them' ". And so, when I said "you" (lame response) it was precisely because you are as needful to me as Christ himself. (does this sound heretical?) Do I care?
To dismiss you, I dismiss Christ!

And you might well ( do you?) ask...how can you know this?
I tell you, only Jesus Christ has ever told me this. Only Jesus Christ has told me that how I measure to the "yous" will be measured to me, if I am stingy or impatient (as I am surely wont to be of "myself") I will suffer a something. Who then can make this be? Who then can 'implement' such a thing? Who is able to see the inside "of me" of the "yous" to do such a thing?
The greatest "you" of all, the "you" of all "yous"...God. Yes, the all that I don't know, but can be made known...if I just accept the "you" as real.

Funny huh? The "all else"...the all that is "not me" has spoken.

"Have patience!" He spoke, and speaks to me. (But I don't know how to! I speak back...) "I will teach you" he spoke and speaks to me (how does that work? I answer) "I will show you"....and on and on.

Experience. Experiences. Realities to me. And if I am (if we are) to speak truth with one another (SPEAK TRUTH! Jordan Peterson says is bedrock...more or less...echoing Another I have heard) He calls it the "collective wisdom of our spirits" more or less if I heard him rightly...if we relate truly spirit to spirit (which I cannot help now but "take for granted").

You see how the patience has "paid off" for me...(though I know it is surely not my own...but also know I could never convince anyone else of that)


You posted two wonderful videos *(though I haven't finished the second) that speak as much to me that you posted them, (and your esteem of Peterson) as what is found in them. You would rightly say, perhaps as God might say to me..."well look at you big boy, you granted me to be as real as you, ain't that just so "big" of you!"

But see, for a man once so familiar with shame the hearing of anything "from the outside" that is true...is a thrill beyond imagining. It means someone is not ashamed to talk to me.

But finding out He never has been...well to that all I can do as fellow traveller is extend the same hope that has been so richly rewarded, (even) through you...by the working of His patience...keep asking, seeking, knocking.
The matter of the question of God "are you real?" May find a curious response from Him "First off, are you?"


----------



## bullethead

Lame kept it all so much more palatable.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> Ultimate Reality, Ineffable Transcendence, Holy God ...
> If it quacks like a duck, it might be a duck; it could be a duck; but what do I know of ultimate, or ineffable, or holy?
> I do know of Reality, and/or Transcendence, and/or God in that I see afar, dimly; and that by a mechanism which is expressed as Ultimate/Ineffable/Holy.



Yes. It is a thing for us, a concept, a matter of words and limited understandings (even jailed by those very words)...till we see them with flesh applied, and in the seeing, then see them with flesh removed, not fully understanding how that bridges that gap, but then we find ourselves changing, changing, changing. Somehow. We wake, we sleep, first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. A faith is at work. And thanks be to God we are subject to it.


We just followed a man home. And just because he told us we were welcome to, and he was made believable to us. OH! Jesus! What have you done???!!!!!

What you have done.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Lame kept it all so much more palatable.



I believe you.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I believe you.


A three word Short and simple answer from you.
Thank you.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> A three word Short and simple answer from you.
> Thank you.



I could tell you 'what I knew' when I was found out by the faith of the Son of God...but that is actually immaterial, for it has never been about what I know or knew, even if we are given to know things.
And you help me remember that.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I could tell you 'what I knew' when I was found out by the faith of the Son of God...but that is actually immaterial, for it has never been about what I know or knew, even if we are given to know things.
> And you help me remember that.


You really use a lot of words for things that you dont want to say.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> You really use a lot of words for things that you dont want to say.



Be patient. You will get all you need.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Be patient. You will get all you need.


Use your decoder ring and Drink your Ovaltine


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I stopped only in the above knowing a limit of posting can be reached.
> 
> If the gift is not found sufficient to not merely exonerate for "performative contradiction" but also suffuse, infuse, perfuse with delight enough to 'put' suffering in an inferior place of heart (where once it reigned), who am I to make a man see?
> 
> 
> This is where the "you" response engendered the "lame" response. For you have (at least in times past) claimed to not see the worthiness of the gift (yes the gift, that "poison pill" to the system of lie it swallowed in death, it gave to death, it rejected "to death" so that death might swallow...and in the swallowing...die) Again...speaking of the wisdom of God (reality)...the perfect plan to undo the lie of all death...(feed it a pure dose of life and truth...that it Oh, so gladly ate!)
> 
> If you do indeed "like" Jordan Peterson, and are able to accept some, or much of what he says, then his ascribing to to some mythos' the ring of truth (as he does unabashedly...which I also like) then I cannot dismiss also (in you) as I hold for myself...that ability to recognize that "ring" when it sounds.
> 
> And this is where the "you" comment, once described as lame now takes on even more depth...even and especially because you are able to share your appreciation of a man (Jordan Peterson) not ashamed to describe himself as religious.
> For how does the "you" affect me? Is it not even as Peterson describes, as men in conversation...going from "point to point" so to speak (if they speak from their heart..."their truth"...and he even uses the word "spirit"!) a coming to know one another in multiple deaths and rebirths (letting go of former to see the present...even when "former" once appeared precious)
> 
> Yes, it would have (you discern now whether I speak truth) in a former time, in previous discussions...been more "convenient" to me to dismiss you as less than honest broker. More convenient for me to think (and oh, what "performative contradiction" lay there) "I (Israel) am_ true seeker_, and therefore if I perceive resistance from Ambush in any manner it must be because he is not. I am true, Ambush, false."
> (Have you ever felt this from a 'believer'?)
> 
> But you see, this Christ, whom you (seem) to have doubts about speaking...especially in what is called "today" tells me very certain things about relating amongst men...all the "yous" I find outside my skin. There is an inescapable balance I have been made to know, though everything inside my skin scream against it...and it is this....all the "yous" are just as real as I am. What I withhold (reserve to myself) as being more real for "you"...I find my own hold of reality (God) slipping. Oh, I will not deny I "live a lot" in my own head (believer's will instantly get this)...but when I am "called out" by you...how must I come to not be found in "performative contradiction"? Do you see? Inwardly I hold this gift as given to "all men", for I would be found inwardly instantly accused of performative contradiction, for it is the only way a man "like me" can receive it. The moment I "inwardly" believe I am something special to have "laid hold" of it because of some innate superiority...a funny thing (though really very very unfunny) happens to that gift, or at least my perception of it. It fades in my inward sight. Something else begins to get bigger, and that thing, even seeming delightful (Oh how easily I am given to think myself more real...better!) has always had terrible consequences. (This has only come of experience) So yes, you could very rightly say "This man is only given to self interest! Even if he claim it be "enlightened" self interest. All the while talking about Christ the "giver" this man is a taker, through and through!" Yes!
> 
> I am, in every way, cannot but admit in every way "I must see LIFE!"...or I die. But the way...of life...found in Christ is now found very different among all takers. For this life...which I must see, cannot live without seeing...speaks this "All are just as real as you, if you deny that (can you see) you are in performative contradiction...for the "Me" (Jesus) that you now claim as life for yourself...(I know) is not me." Words are failing. But to me, for me, for Jesus to be real (for He is and was willing to be made to me as one of the "yous") I cannot deny the reality of the "yous".
> The only way I may continue in Christ (reality) is that by the acceptance of a "you" into myself as real, I cannot disqualify any other you. Otherwise, performatively, I am liar.
> 
> I cannot "use" the gift (Like an anarchist/anti capitalist using an iPhone) to abnegate the very thing I am found in use of.
> 
> And this is where Jordan Peterson's touching on_ being_ is so very welcome. I deny my own being...if I deny the validity of yours...being 'allowed' to be you. If I say "God, why do you suffer such atheists (speaking in the most general sense now, and not of you) and resistors to all that is good and right to be (and cause me to 'suffer' so in their contradictions, and resistances...LOL)...well do you see? The only way this gift is available to me, was made indeed, "necessary" for me...is only because "I am the 'them' ". And so, when I said "you" (lame response) it was precisely because you are as needful to me as Christ himself. (does this sound heretical?) Do I care?
> To dismiss you, I dismiss Christ!
> 
> And you might well ( do you?) ask...how can you know this?
> I tell you, only Jesus Christ has ever told me this. Only Jesus Christ has told me that how I measure to the "yous" will be measured to me, if I am stingy or impatient (as I am surely wont to be of "myself") I will suffer a something. Who then can make this be? Who then can 'implement' such a thing? Who is able to see the inside "of me" of the "yous" to do such a thing?
> The greatest "you" of all, the "you" of all "yous"...God. Yes, the all that I don't know, but can be made known...if I just accept the "you" as real.
> 
> Funny huh? The "all else"...the all that is "not me" has spoken.
> 
> "Have patience!" He spoke, and speaks to me. (But I don't know how to! I speak back...) "I will teach you" he spoke and speaks to me (how does that work? I answer) "I will show you"....and on and on.
> 
> Experience. Experiences. Realities to me. And if I am (if we are) to speak truth with one another (SPEAK TRUTH! Jordan Peterson says is bedrock...more or less...echoing Another I have heard) He calls it the "collective wisdom of our spirits" more or less if I heard him rightly...if we relate truly spirit to spirit (which I cannot help now but "take for granted").
> 
> You see how the patience has "paid off" for me...(though I know it is surely not my own...but also know I could never convince anyone else of that)
> 
> 
> You posted two wonderful videos *(though I haven't finished the second) that speak as much to me that you posted them, (and your esteem of Peterson) as what is found in them. You would rightly say, perhaps as God might say to me..."well look at you big boy, you granted me to be as real as you, ain't that just so "big" of you!"
> 
> But see, for a man once so familiar with shame the hearing of anything "from the outside" that is true...is a thrill beyond imagining. It means someone is not ashamed to talk to me.
> 
> But finding out He never has been...well to that all I can do as fellow traveller is extend the same hope that has been so richly rewarded, (even) through you...by the working of His patience...keep asking, seeking, knocking.
> The matter of the question of God "are you real?" May find a curious response from Him "First off, are you?"



It took you a while to get there but you finally did.  How do you hear God?  Are you sure it's not in your head?

Also, I'm quite certain that Peterson doesn't believe in an actual resurrection.  His belief in God doesn't require him to believe in anything that contradicts science.  He understands the value of myth.  So do I.  He understands that the notion of God arose from psychological predispositions that were evolved.  I get intuitions that I don't know where they come from.  I could call that God talking to me.  Heck, I can't even pinpoint where my thoughts come from. I could easily say they come from God. But I don't simply say "It must be God" because that's seriously jumping the gun.  The idea of God exists in my thoughts, which as I said,  I don't know where they come from.  Until it's confirmed, it's just wishful thinking.

P.S.  I knew that you would like Peterson.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> It took you a while to get there but you finally did.  How do you hear God?  Are you sure it's not in your head?
> 
> Also, I'm quite certain that Peterson doesn't believe in an actual resurrection.  His belief in God doesn't require him to believe in anything that contradicts science.  He understands the value of myth.  So do I.  He understands that the notion of God arose from psychological predispositions that were evolved.  I get intuitions that I don't know where they come from.  I could call that God talking to me.  Heck, I can't even pinpoint where my thoughts come from. I could easily say they come from God. But I don't simply say "It must be God" because that's seriously jumping the gun.  The idea of God exists in my thoughts, which as I said,  I don't know where they come from.  Until it's confirmed, it's just wishful thinking.
> 
> P.S.  I knew that you would like Peterson.



Ambush, I hear everyone "in my head"...(although there have been a few times words were so concise, so phrased as in a conversation...much more/different than an experience of "remembering scriptures" that I would be hard pressed to not say "did anyone else hear that?")

But this is where we hear...isn't...when we "hear", where we see, when we see...etc. To tell you Jesus said "be careful how you hear" might mean little at this point to you, I don't know...nevertheless, my coming to realize in receiving his word as truth, His instructions are always necessary. 

But, that being said (and yes, I did like many things Peterson said) this matter of "paying attention" which I believe he emphasized strongly in the Rogan discussion, is not unlike Jesus' instruction at all. It requires, if you will, a staying in the moment for clarity, a seeing and hearing (one might say) to discern "what is really going on". I would make a leap to say "Be still and know that I am God" is an end of that, the end (if you can receive it) in fact. 

I also especially liked his ability to see that all relationships, even in "mere" discussions, are a participation in a death and life cycle where either "old" notions or appraisals (usually, or at least, often of motive) must be "updated" to an end to continuance, or this cycle abandoned, and relationship broken. On the small scale they are "this guys just a conniving liar, I'll have no more to do with him" or, on larger, when pressed, nations simply go to war. (When finding the demands of change to "accept" the being of another become greater (in perceptions) than any seen value in continuance of allowing mutual being)

The whole of the matter is that we change (little deaths and lifes) as we encounter the "what's 'out' there". If I accept his premise (which I easily do, and have) that "God" is all I don't know, this doesn't exempt in any way, or diminish the exercise of a desire to know Him. Now, here, it's easy to say (as one might say another _could_ say) "But I want rainbow colored unicorns to exist" that does not mean that they will (for me).

But here is where things take a turn. Or, at least might be seen to. In that matter of desire...and this is where we may be found to interject "of ourselves" (ascribing motive) when dealing with one another. And please recall that for me, now, this is where rubber meets road, where the test of whether I really desire to know a "you" (and what is God if not "ultimate you"?) is either a curiosity for collecting of some info...some mere relief (there could be benefit to "knowing" someone with a gazillion dollars)...or something so deep as to be even unnamable of motive. I don't know that we can ever rightly make those discernments of one another...even though we may seek to.

I can easily admit to the experience of a shallowness of motive for myself, there have been various times I have approached this "knowing" with nothing but (later revealed) the most craven of interests. The "sugar daddy" in the sky, the desire to appear as a great collector of wisdom or knowledge "about Him", even the satisfaction of my most weak desire for self affirmation as demonstrated in the extreme of a tribalism that could be easily seen (mostly by all except myself). Who doesn't want to be...in the in-crowd? In whatever sense that is seen...the smart ones, the good ones, the right ones, the "Holy" ones?

But here is where Jesus blows this all up (or has, at least for me). And has helped me to understand the truth of a certain thing (of many things about which I have been quite emphatically...wrong). "You shall seek me and you shall find me when you seek for me with all your heart"


I assumed I knew when I was being "whole hearted". I thought I could judge the sincerity of myself. And if able there...it's a very small step to judging others...in their sincerity of motive...no? We shouldn't forget, if we are to talk about truth, and where it might be found, how very often Jesus speaks about judging others. And that is what we do...don't we? Kinda look past the actions and words and try to discern a thing that will tell us where this other "is coming from" because actually we have learned (perhaps because we do so well know it in ourselves) there's few things better to throw one "off our track" than obfuscating with words and (even) deeds. So, here is where Peterson also mentions a thing that is really an echo "speak truth!"...always..."speak truth". Wow! This will surely color our interactions...won't it? Don't be afraid to reveal yourself, "your" truth (at least as much as you see of it).

I wouldn't have the temerity to say these things but for that patience I am told to have. We have had much "uncommon ground" (have we not, or so it would seem, no?) to appear perhaps as men at a total impasse. Men across the table, speaking "at" one another, it might seem. To say I have had "an impulse" to go to war with you, though at times quite attractive, has always been found a forbidden thing, I would be a liar to not admit it. 

And I might also be found a liar if not saying I was already arrayed in battle garb...and indeed already at war, cunningly trying to hide aggressions with words fashioned of a false piety. See, this is where I have to abandon all sense of even knowing my own motives, I don't of myself, know myself. There are "things" I might like to think of myself, but they are always found things willing to place their finger on my side of the balance. I am very biased...toward myself. 

And here one would find, if they cared to, every reason to say "Then you are the lousiest disciple of the One you claim to follow, in whom you say is truth...without room for any bias, if as you claim, truth is transcendent." I shouldn't even be talking to you, let alone as any voice at all about anything...when you admit to being little more than what appears as hypocrite. And so "biased toward yourself". You're just an empty husk. Your words just add confusion.
(If I agree, might you say "he's wallowing?")


But I think the wiser might be inclined to say "Look at how much credit he yet takes to himself!"


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Ambush, ....



I recognize your struggle to make sense of the world.  I'm dealing with the same struggle.   I don't see the difference between wishing for unicorns and wishing for a flying Jesus.  

I just want to know what's true.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I recognize your struggle to make sense of the world.  I'm dealing with the same struggle.   I don't see the difference between wishing for unicorns and wishing for a flying Jesus.
> 
> I just want to know what's true.



There are implicit admissions in that. And to, in any way imply a patronizing or condescension in mutual agreement, would be a bad thing. An evil thing. A lie.

If we are (both) struggling to, as you say, make sense of the world, or find sense in the world...then we both are admitting we don't see it, yet have a "sense" it should be there...that is a _sense_ for sense to the discerning of some form of truth, and that it can be known, and, in that discerning agree we will recognize it "when we see it".  

But aren't we then faced with quite a conundrum? If I admit to not seeing the sense of the world, that it is absent from me (at least at present)...for by "seeking it", I am making a de facto admission "I don't have it", nor do I yet see it, and more to the point...if I find (to me) the world bereft of a yet known sense (to me)...where could I ever expect, how could I ever expect, being "in the world of _no_ sense"...that I have the requisite 
truth-o-meter to recognize this thing (that makes sense of the world) that I don't (at least as yet) see anywhere?

Now, I understand (or believe I do)...that the progress from there is not necessarily to Jesus Christ for any man.
A man might agree (or not) with the paragraph above and still say "OK, I can agree with that...but then that does not mean I am open to "other" nonsense just to fill the gaps". Such a man might say perhaps, "then I must be content in this place of not knowing, yet always seeking"
(I think Peterson may have aptly called that inhabiting the place of doubt...walking that edge of chaos and fascist order...or some such)

And understand also, I am not at all assuming that just because you posted some vids of him you agree entire with all of his words. I know I don't, but I do "like" much of what he says. For me it often appeared he is (almost) working backward from the "mythos" as substantiation that God is, as upheld by a seemingly observed universal desire for him to be, or acknowledgement of some form...that He is. But, I could be wrong in that appraisal. For if that is true, it is no more than any man wishing for that unicorn. Regardless of the prevalence of that desire.  But then, that would also not necessarily testify against God's being, either, for as maker (if assumed) the placing of that desire to "know Him", know truth of the absolute, could certainly be a "built in thing". 

If a man can accept this in any way he also has a question "Is Creator knowable?" or "Is creator one who makes himself unknowable and is then found to be playing the cruelest trick of all...(at least as far as man knows...cruel). To create a totally unfulfillable desire with full knowing of never intending to requite it. Where a man finds his "hat hung" (and I believe he must have his eyes opened to this) makes all the difference. 

To those who say "creator" is just chemicals, and are absolutely sure in all their considerations of otherwise that this alone must be so...well, talking chemicals is still a marvel...at least to me, if no other. And I can't help but think in their knowing "of something" that is "self knowing chemicals"...that even there, it testifies of something too great for me to ever comprehend. 

How chemicals could believe "they are". That's as much a mystery to me as anything else.

And yet...in one very true sense, that is also what I believe...except for the knowing part. I am persuaded that comes from something above the chemicals...otherwise...if we really don't want to be caught in "performative contradiction"...well who has ever tried to reason with potassium? Or carbon?


Wouldn't that seem kinda odd? I would guess...but only not...if there were no such thing as reason, anyway.
For if by reason, I try to reason away reason as a true thing...transcendent over all, well again...there's that phrase...performative...


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> There are implicit admissions in that. And to, in any way imply a patronizing or condescension in mutual agreement, would be a bad thing. An evil thing. A lie.
> 
> If we are (both) struggling to, as you say, make sense of the world, or find sense in the world...then we both are admitting we don't see it, yet have a "sense" it should be there...that is a _sense_ for sense to the discerning of some form of truth, and that it can be known, and, in that discerning agree we will recognize it "when we see it".
> 
> But aren't we then faced with quite a conundrum? If I admit to not seeing the sense of the world, that it is absent from me (at least at present)...for by "seeking it", I am making a de facto admission "I don't have it", nor do I yet see it, and more to the point...if I find (to me) the world bereft of a yet known sense (to me)...where could I ever expect, how could I ever expect, being "in the world of _no_ sense"...that I have the requisite
> truth-o-meter to recognize this thing (that makes sense of the world) that I don't (at least as yet) see anywhere?
> 
> Now, I understand (or believe I do)...that the progress from there is not necessarily to Jesus Christ for any man.
> A man might agree (or not) with the paragraph above and still say "OK, I can agree with that...but then that does not mean I am open to "other" nonsense just to fill the gaps". Such a man might say perhaps, "then I must be content in this place of not knowing, yet always seeking"
> (I think Peterson may have aptly called that inhabiting the place of doubt...walking that edge of chaos and fascist order...or some such)
> 
> And understand also, I am not at all assuming that just because you posted some vids of him you agree entire with all of his words. I know I don't, but I do "like" much of what he says. For me it often appeared he is (almost) working backward from the "mythos" as substantiation that God is, as upheld by a seemingly observed universal desire for him to be, or acknowledgement of some form...that He is. But, I could be wrong in that appraisal. For if that is true, it is no more than any man wishing for that unicorn. Regardless of the prevalence of that desire.  But then, that would also not necessarily testify against God's being, either, for as maker (if assumed) the placing of that desire to "know Him", know truth of the absolute, could certainly be a "built in thing".
> 
> If a man can accept this in any way he also has a question "Is Creator knowable?" or "Is creator one who makes himself unknowable and is then found to be playing the cruelest trick of all...(at least as far as man knows...cruel). To create a totally unfulfillable desire with full knowing of never intending to requite it. Where a man finds his "hat hung" (and I believe he must have his eyes opened to this) makes all the difference.
> 
> To those who say "creator" is just chemicals, and are absolutely sure in all their considerations of otherwise that this alone must be so...well, talking chemicals is still a marvel...at least to me, if no other. And I can't help but think in their knowing "of something" that is "self knowing chemicals"...that even there, it testifies of something too great for me to ever comprehend.
> 
> How chemicals could believe "they are". That's as much a mystery to me as anything else.
> 
> And yet...in one very true sense, that is also what I believe...except for the knowing part. I am persuaded that comes from something above the chemicals...otherwise...if we really don't want to be caught in "performative contradiction"...well who has ever tried to reason with potassium? Or carbon?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that seem kinda odd? I would guess...but only not...if there were no such thing as reason, anyway.
> For if by reason, I try to reason away reason as a true thing...transcendent over all, well again...there's that phrase...performative...



Talking, self knowing chemicals are indeed a mystery.  Why are you persuaded that Jesus is behind them?  Your maker is very much presumed.  That's all.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Talking, self knowing chemicals are indeed a mystery.  Why are you persuaded that Jesus is behind them?  Your maker is very much presumed.  That's all.


That's back to the "I am me, you are you" thing, which is fine, I can no more _explain_ that than I can anything else.
You have to say "Your maker is very much presumed" from where you sit in you, and I am made to say "What else could that be but perfect?"

I had to be persuaded to be the me I am. And still do.
I need persuasion toward a thing that for me, in whatever "present" I find myself, is always different, and I have learned (and am learning) greater.

What if I told you, that (I think)...like you, there are times I could sense such of the chaos in so deep a way as all that "presumption" (as described by you) seems lost? Those times when what I call "my faith", you call "your presumption" leaves me (or is at least sensed to be nowhere to be found) and I flail like a ribbon tied to a post in a gale. 
(Is it OK to speak of "experiences" we have in these bodies, while these bodies sit in a jon boat catching crappies?)

What if said that at those times life is simply too much to bear? Could you possibly believe me?

I understand that a man might say "You don't know what you are talking about, you're just being dramatic, you don't know at all what it means to despair of life...at all"
Such a man (who answers thus) would, could, might, probably think he has measured a suffering to himself in such grandeur he couldn't possible allow that another man could even come close to understanding. But I say this to you of "my suffering" believing that you can grasp it, you have sensed it, you do...know it.

Another man might say: "Yes, I know something of that experience, the terrors of seeing oneself so isolated, so alone....even to the feeling entirely cut off from what was once such a comfort...perhaps a wife, a child,...whatever are those things that offered help to that man, or hope to that man, as though they were like nothing toward anything of help to him now in that gale. In fact...he's so cut off he can't even begin to say anything to them, for where he presently inhabits in his flailing, even words seem an insufferable vanity"

If that (answering man) was so disposed...even to agree to that commonness of experience, would it be (if he were addressing a man who claimed to "have faith") too much a stretch to imagine such a man saying "Well then, if you still have had such experiences...what use then is Christ? Seems to me "your answer" (Christ) as opposed to my agnosticism is no better." Such a man might well think "if I can really find the truth, (surely not like 'this other guy') this experience of storms will surely stop!" "I'll have hit bedrock, I'll have, no matter what, a thing immovable, unshakeable of truth...that even the worst storm I have known, or can possibly conceive...will not move me". 

Yet, how much rests upon "possibly conceive"!

Now, if a man knows nothing of this...but has only all his life known smooth sailing, of course this sounds absurd. "What need have I of anything...sailing for me is always a relaxation, I really don't know what you are talking about...in fact, I think you are crazy...look how easy I sail!" But, to be honest here (can we be honest here?) I think I would have a pretty hard time believing such a man. Oh, I believe that for whatever reasons he might try to "hide" his storms (after all, isn't it fun in one sense to sail past a guy trying to get his sheets all squared away as they flap willy nilly in the wind...while you have your vessel all trimmed out and cruising smoothly...just as though you hollered (which in truth your comportment might indeed be hollering, as you relax, beer in hand) "too bad you're such a lousy sailor, learn better next time...must suck to be you".

I think we christians might not be as unfamiliar (at least I am not) with the "fun" of this as we may care to admit. It's cool to look all cool, especially if one sees anything of this life in competition with one another. Then, it's doubly cool to have (if you could have it) all the other boats in some sort of disarray as you cruise past, proving your mastery of what now befuddles most others. Don't we like that...at least a little bit?

You don't have to believe me here, of course. You don't have to believe we (might be) given to parade, "christian" or otherwise. You can surely say "I believe there are people "not like that", and that you are just trying to generalize, to ameliorate in some sense, the obvious guilt you have in being such a peacock" 
And who knows...maybe you'd be right. 
Maybe you do know some good simple folks, or even are one, who has never_ enjoyed _any _display_ of self assurance.

Obviously a man like me would just be a contamination to them, or in their midst. I wouldn't be fit to speak a word to them. But, I could sure learn from them. I think they must be the "kind" of people that would stop their boat and ask "hey do you need any help? May I be of assistance?" And have not one interest in showing me what they "know" over what I do not, just an interest that a sailor might enjoy doing what was given as gift to do, safely. And, I don't think they'd have to say a thing about their knowledge of stormy waters, they'd show it as they cruised up so gently next to my rocking vessel, tossed about in threatening wave, without even the slightest bump of hulls.
It would be like "I didn't even notice our having come together". 

But you sure showed up when I need you most, especially when I was totally convinced "ain't no one knows how to do this without going under".  Just ain't no one...no one at all..."Out there".


They might ask "didn't you hear your own screams for help?"

No, I didn't, I truly didn't, I don't know what I'm doing or have done...at all.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> That's back to the "I am me, you are you" thing, which is fine, I can no more _explain_ that than I can anything else.
> You have to say "Your maker is very much presumed" from where you sit in you, and I am made to say "What else could that be but perfect?"
> 
> I had to be persuaded to be the me I am. And still do.
> I need persuasion toward a thing that for me, in whatever "present" I find myself, is always different, and I have learned (and am learning) greater.
> 
> What if I told you, that (I think)...like you, there are times I could sense such of the chaos in so deep a way as all that "presumption" (as described by you) seems lost? Those times when what I call "my faith", you call "your presumption" leaves me (or is at least sensed to be nowhere to be found) and I flail like a ribbon tied to a post in a gale.
> (Is it OK to speak of "experiences" we have in these bodies, while these bodies sit in a jon boat catching crappies?)
> 
> What if said that at those times life is simply too much to bear? Could you possibly believe me?
> 
> I understand that a man might say "You don't know what you are talking about, you're just being dramatic, you don't know at all what it means to despair of life...at all"
> Such a man (who answers thus) would, could, might, probably think he has measured a suffering to himself in such grandeur he couldn't possible allow that another man could even come close to understanding. But I say this to you of "my suffering" believing that you can grasp it, you have sensed it, you do...know it.
> 
> Another man might say: "Yes, I know something of that experience, the terrors of seeing oneself so isolated, so alone....even to the feeling entirely cut off from what was once such a comfort...perhaps a wife, a child,...whatever are those things that offered help to that man, or hope to that man, as though they were like nothing toward anything of help to him now in that gale. In fact...he's so cut off he can't even begin to say anything to them, for where he presently inhabits in his flailing, even words seem an insufferable vanity"
> 
> If that (answering man) was so disposed...even to agree to that commonness of experience, would it be (if he were addressing a man who claimed to "have faith") too much a stretch to imagine such a man saying "Well then, if you still have had such experiences...what use then is Christ? Seems to me "your answer" (Christ) as opposed to my agnosticism is no better." Such a man might well think "if I can really find the truth, (surely not like 'this other guy') this experience of storms will surely stop!" "I'll have hit bedrock, I'll have, no matter what, a thing immovable, unshakeable of truth...that even the worst storm I have known, or can possibly conceive...will not move me".
> 
> Yet, how much rests upon "possibly conceive"!
> 
> Now, if a man knows nothing of this...but has only all his life known smooth sailing, of course this sounds absurd. "What need have I of anything...sailing for me is always a relaxation, I really don't know what you are talking about...in fact, I think you are crazy...look how easy I sail!" But, to be honest here (can we be honest here?) I think I would have a pretty hard time believing such a man. Oh, I believe that for whatever reasons he might try to "hide" his storms (after all, isn't it fun in one sense to sail past a guy trying to get his sheets all squared away as they flap willy nilly in the wind...while you have your vessel all trimmed out and cruising smoothly...just as though you hollered (which in truth your comportment might indeed be hollering, as you relax, beer in hand) "too bad you're such a lousy sailor, learn better next time...must suck to be you".
> 
> I think we christians might not be as unfamiliar (at least I am not) with the "fun" of this as we may care to admit. It's cool to look all cool, especially if one sees anything of this life in competition with one another. Then, it's doubly cool to have (if you could have it) all the other boats in some sort of disarray as you cruise past, proving your mastery of what now befuddles most others. Don't we like that...at least a little bit?
> 
> You don't have to believe me here, of course. You don't have to believe we (might be) given to parade, "christian" or otherwise. You can surely say "I believe there are people "not like that", and that you are just trying to generalize, to ameliorate in some sense, the obvious guilt you have in being such a peacock"
> And who knows...maybe you'd be right.
> Maybe you do know some good simple folks, or even are one, who has never_ enjoyed _any _display_ of self assurance.
> 
> Obviously a man like me would just be a contamination to them, or in their midst. I wouldn't be fit to speak a word to them. But, I could sure learn from them. I think they must be the "kind" of people that would stop their boat and ask "hey do you need any help? May I be of assistance?" And have not one interest in showing me what they "know" over what I do not, just an interest that a sailor might enjoy doing what was given as gift to do, safely. And, I don't think they'd have to say a thing about their knowledge of stormy waters, they'd show it as they cruised up so gently next to my rocking vessel, tossed about in threatening wave, without even the slightest bump of hulls.
> It would be like "I didn't even notice our having come together".
> 
> But you sure showed up when I need you most, especially when I was totally convinced "ain't no one knows how to do this without going under".  Just ain't no one...no one at all..."Out there".
> 
> 
> They might ask "didn't you hear your own screams for help?"
> 
> No, I didn't, I truly didn't, I don't know what I'm doing or have done...at all.



I believe I said to you once, and I'm paraphrasing here,  that whatever you might have done in the past, you don't seem like that bad of a guy.  That was me encouraging you to untangle your rigging.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I believe I said to you once, and I'm paraphrasing here,  that whatever you might have done in the past, you don't seem like that bad of a guy.  That was me encouraging you to untangle your rigging.



Thanks. I don't know, but thanks.

Had I known, I think I would have done things differently. But "had I known" means I wouldn't have been who I was, then...the one who "didn't know".

And, if I wasn't "who I was then", then surely I couldn't be who I am ...now. Who thinks he would have done things differently, had he only known...then.

So...what don't I know now that would change me...in the now?
Just everything.
The everything must change me.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Thanks. I don't know, but thanks.
> 
> Had I known, I think I would have done things differently. But "had I known" means I wouldn't have been who I was, then...the one who "didn't know".
> 
> And, if I wasn't "who I was then", then surely I couldn't be who I am ...now. Who thinks he would have done things differently, had he only known...then.
> 
> So...what don't I know now that would change me...in the now?
> Just everything.
> The everything must change me.



I sincerely hope you know better now than you did then.  Per Peterson: "New Sprouts"

I can honestly say that simply by virtue of being conscious, at no time do I ever feel like I'm getting dumber, only sometimes stagnating.


----------



## Israel

That's what appears the obvious conundrum. The "then" is particularly seen as the time I thought I "knew better"...which has in every way always led to a place of realization..."I did not".
Nevertheless, your hope extended in kind words is not diminished, nor despised.


----------

