# Why I Am The Way  I Am



## TheBishop (Feb 2, 2012)

I grew up a Roman Catholic.  For 18 years, church and Sunday school every weekend.  My parents philosophy was if I lived under their roof, I played by their rules.  Fine, I love my folks, I complained, but obeyed their wishes. 

I have always been a dreamer and a thinker.  If I am unoccupied my mind tends to wonder, and ponder over all life’s mysteries.  The more I learned, the more I dwelled, the more things I have been taught about god just didn't make sense.  I became disenchanted with religion, and the god of the bible. The contradictions were too much for my mind to bear.  

I once asked a priest, "Why won't god reveal himself."  His reply was typical, "Just look at the beauty of the world around you."  So I did, and that’s when I knew the bible was not the way to go. 

I started with the belief in an omnipotent, all knowing, and loving god. 

My first question was evil.  Like many it doesn't really jive with such an entity that I had been taught.  If he was all three than evil could and would not exist. If he created all, which I accepted (and still do in a way), than his power I could not question.  What about his knowledge then?  Maybe he can’t see all? No, if the he has the power to create all, then he has the power to see all. So that left all loving.  

So again I took the priest advice and looked at the world.  Evil's existence is undeniable, but so is goods. If I accept gods has the power and knowledge, but deny he is all loving what does that make him? Apathetic.  

I felt I was on to something.  I looked at the church, the bible and religion in general.  The catholic church was a brutal organization.  It's exsistence is fraught with the lust for power, money, and control.  Certainly a diety such as I was taught would not allow such a monstrosity, _unless_ he didn't care.   

Then I looked at the bible.  The contradictions with a deity such as I was taught, are highlighted, not dispelled by this very book.  Never mind the dirty fingerprints of man that are throughout its print, but the message's delivery just didn't sit well with me. First there are striking similarities with stories of the bible and many other cultures deities.  That threw up one of many red flags.  Why a deity that created a blueprint for the afterlife would not is more distinct? 

Then the very fact of numerous, interpretations, disagreements, and sects that follow the same book.  It seemed that not only people of different religions could not agree but neither could anyone with the same god!  Again, such a deity I was supposed to praise could surely come up something that could not be misconstrued.  

So I turned to nature.  If the entity I was looking for was out there, he had to be available to me there.  I looked at life cycles, the universe, death, trees, birds, human nature, our evolution, and all the clues to our existence that seems to be scattered in the vastness.  The things I saw reinforced the path I was/am on.  The conclusion I have drawn is this:

1. God is a possibility, but one yet to be defined correctly.  

2.  Like all living things we exist solely to ensure the betterment and continuation of our species.  If we were created by an entity, he did it in such a manner that left no easy trace, but a command embedded in the fiber of all life: Adapt, survive, and procreate.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 2, 2012)

OK.  Here is why I am the way I am:


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I grew up a Roman Catholic.  For 18 years, church and Sunday school every weekend.  My parents philosophy was if I lived under their roof, I played by their rules.  Fine, I love my folks, I complained, but obeyed their wishes.
> 
> I have always been a dreamer and a thinker.  If I am unoccupied my mind tends to wonder, and ponder over all life’s mysteries.  The more I learned, the more I dwelled, the more things I have been taught about god just didn't make sense.  I became disenchanted with religion, and the god of the bible. The contradictions were too much for my mind to bear.
> 
> ...



Where did you get this notion?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where did you get this notion?



Deductive reasoning. Is it not the goal of all living things?


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 2, 2012)

Good post Bishop. Well written.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Deductive reasoning. Is it not the goal of all living things?



Yes, I would say part of the goal.

I guess a better question would have been why or how we came to be like that. What gives us the drive to want to better humanity, what makes us care?

It would have to be something universal wouldn't it?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I would say part of the goal.
> 
> I guess a better question would have been why or how we came to be like that. What gives us the drive to want to better humanity, what makes us care?
> 
> It would have to be something universal wouldn't it?



Our very nature. Organisms have long sought to make their owns lives better, more confortable, and enjoyable. We are no different. Through countless generations we have evolved our societies to help our species survive better, longer, and more confortably.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I would say part of the goal.
> 
> I guess a better question would have been why or how we came to be like that. What gives us the drive to want to better humanity, what makes us care?
> 
> It would have to be something universal wouldn't it?



As would One True creator. Hardly universal.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Our very nature. Organisms have long sought to make their owns lives better, more confortable, and enjoyable. We are no different. Through countless generations we have evolved our societies to help our species survive better, longer, and more confortably.



Why has your discription above, pushed you away from believing there is a God?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> As would One True creator. Hardly universal.



Strawman.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why has your discription above, pushed you away from believing there is a God?



1. God is a possibility, but one yet to be defined correctly. 


Never said I didn't believe in god, just in the broad definition of the word.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> 1. God is a possibility, but one yet to be defined correctly.
> 
> 
> Never said I didn't believe in god, just in the broad definition of the word.



Sorry, you did specify that.

So it's more of each religious text that you don't buy?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 2, 2012)

Its more than just that. Its their entire dogma.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 2, 2012)

Hello Bishop, I realize that the position you now hold was not an easy journey, lot of soul searching, pondering, observing etc. Therefore I wish to say that I respect your position. I have a similar story, you may be familiar, I think I have told it here before. I observed the church, observed the madness put only on  attendance, observed the struggle for power, observed so many things done for men to see. [Yet observed the hunger to know God, worship him, etc from many good folks] Long before I left the church, I was absent in heart. I began to see how much of what I have seen was a misrepresetative of God. I noticed this same thing in the early churches. Especially the oppression of the early Roman church. If you read Polycarps writings, you can see that he was the last humble leader. After him was ignatius. In all his writings, he would say things such as "submit to the bishop as if he were God", "Do nothing without the Bishops consent for he speaks the very words of Jesus". Poor folks back then were either oppressed by the Romans or ruled in the name of religion by the self serving leaders. Then I noticed something even more interesting, All the, or most with exception of but a few, of the leaders that God called to shepherd his people [OT] were doing the same thing. Instead of serving the people as God had called them to do, they had the people serve themselves. Even Solomon was a vicious oppresser of the people. So in every case, those who were supposed to represent God and his purpose, did not do so. Everything known about God was a misreprensentation. Here, I introduce Jesus, who although he could have tried to squeeze all he could out of this life, he humbled himself. Being called to be the king of the Jews, but unlike those before him who exalted themselves and made the people serve them, Jesus did the will of God. He was the first servant King. In obedience he served the people to the degree that he lay down his life, doing so by faith in what the scriptures said, that God would raise him from the dead. God was so pleased with him that he has sat him at his right hand, given him athority to rule and reign. For that brief period of Jesus life, we had a glimpse, a brief glimpse. How quickly things reverted back to the old ways of oppression, power and fame. Jesus showed us that God was a merciful God, not a God who wished to suppress us or whack us with a big stick everytime we fail him. But a God that is patient with us. Where Adam failed to represent God's image, Jesus did, revealing the invisiable God to the world. Where Adam was kicked out of the pressence of God in the garden, Jesus now enjoys as he has made a way, and has opened up a door for us. I really don't wish to sound like I'm preaching, I refrained from using any verses, I just have much to say in regards to this since I was in your shoes, just having a different position in the end. Good luck in your search for truth


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 2, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Bishop, I realize that the position you now hold was not an easy journey, lot of soul searching, pondering, observing etc. Therefore I wish to say that I respect your position. I have a similar story, you may be familiar, I think I have told it here before. I observed the church, observed the madness put only on  attendance, observed the struggle for power, observed so many things done for men to see. [Yet observed the hunger to know God, worship him, etc from many good folks] Long before I left the church, I was absent in heart. I began to see how much of what I have seen was a misrepresetative of God. I noticed this same thing in the early churches. Especially the oppression of the early Roman church. If you read Polycarps writings, you can see that he was the last humble leader. After him was ignatius. In all his writings, he would say things such as "submit to the bishop as if he were God", "Do nothing without the Bishops consent for he speaks the very words of Jesus". Poor folks back then were either oppressed by the Romans or ruled in the name of religion by the self serving leaders. Then I noticed something even more interesting, All the, or most with exception of but a few, of the leaders that God called to shepherd his people [OT] were doing the same thing. Instead of serving the people as God had called them to do, they had the people serve themselves. Even Solomon was a vicious oppresser of the people. So in every case, those who were supposed to represent God and his purpose, did not do so. Everything known about God was a misreprensentation. Here, I introduce Jesus, who although he could have tried to squeeze all he could out of this life, he humbled himself. Being called to be the king of the Jews, but unlike those before him who exalted themselves and made the people serve them, Jesus did the will of God. He was the first servant King. In obedience he served the people to the degree that he lay down his life, doing so by faith in what the scriptures said, that God would raise him from the dead. God was so pleased with him that he has sat him at his right hand, given him athority to rule and reign. For that brief period of Jesus life, we had a glimpse, a brief glimpse. How quickly things reverted back to the old ways of oppression, power and fame. Jesus showed us that God was a merciful God, not a God who wished to suppress us or whack us with a big stick everytime we fail him. But a God that is patient with us. Where Adam failed to represent God's image, Jesus did, revealing the invisiable God to the world. Where Adam was kicked out of the pressence of God in the garden, Jesus now enjoys as he has made a way, and has opened up a door for us. I really don't wish to sound like I'm preaching, I refrained from using any verses, I just have much to say in regards to this since I was in your shoes, just having a different position in the end. Good luck in your search for truth


----------



## bigreddwon (Feb 2, 2012)

Your story is much like mine Bishop.. except I'm a firm believer that there is no God and we have only this life to live. The church, the bible, the greed, power lust, the contradictions and the vague answers to any difficult questions drove me away at an early age. My family is  my 'faith' now.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Feb 2, 2012)

My ex-wife was raised Roman Catholic in France, and told me of the day she decided it was all a farce.

A seven year old girl had been brutally raped and killed in a neighboring village, and the priest, trying to comfort the children, said "it was god's will". 

My ex-wife questioned the priest, asking why would god allow a seven year old girl to be raped and tortured to death, the priest became angry, and yelled "how dare you challenge god's will!"

That was the day she became a non-believer.

It did not take such a terrible event for me, I just used common sense. The bible is a good history book, but the word of any "god", it's not.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I grew up a Roman Catholic.  For 18 years, church and Sunday school every weekend.  My parents philosophy was if I lived under their roof, I played by their rules.  Fine, I love my folks, I complained, but obeyed their wishes.
> 
> I have always been a dreamer and a thinker.  If I am unoccupied my mind tends to wonder, and ponder over all life’s mysteries.  The more I learned, the more I dwelled, the more things I have been taught about god just didn't make sense.  I became disenchanted with religion, and the god of the bible. The contradictions were too much for my mind to bear.
> 
> ...



Bishop - well written, but not original. Your story is the same story I hear time and time again when ears are shut and hearts are cold. It means nothing, just like anyone else's beliefs mean nothing. The truth is the truth, and you have been led astray. Keep looking.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Feb 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:
			
		

> It means nothing, just like anyone else's beliefs mean nothing. The truth is the truth, and you have been led astray. Keep looking.



True, but if you are only willing to accept one viewpoint, then you aren't really looking, are you?



			
				ted_BSR said:
			
		

> Your story is the same story I hear time and time again when ears are shut and hearts are cold.



Maybe open your mind and ears to something other than the only thing you are willing to hear, and you'll find you have been lead astray. Keep looking yourself.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 3, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> True, but if you are only willing to accept one viewpoint, then you aren't really looking, are you?*Why do you assume that people only have one viewpoint? I've had many viewpoints in my life, not just Christianity. Would you explain what your other viewpoints are?*
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe open your mind and ears to something other than the only thing you are willing to hear, and you'll find you have been lead astray. Keep looking yourself.



What have you discovered that makes you think you've not been lead astray? Have you been open to all viewpoints, including Christianity? just curious.  Would you explain what your viewpoints are other than being anti Christian?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 3, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> My ex-wife was raised Roman Catholic in France, and told me of the day she decided it was all a farce.
> 
> A seven year old girl had been brutally raped and killed in a neighboring village, and the priest, trying to comfort the children, said "it was god's will".
> 
> ...



Maybe she should've been open to another viewpoint than what the priest said.
Did she ever consider that possibly the person that raped and tortured the child may have come from satan? A priest....really? Some that do the same to children...she trusted? wow. Maybe common sense would tell you that, eh?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - well written, but not original. Your story is the same story I hear time and time again when ears are shut and hearts are cold. It means nothing, just like anyone else's beliefs mean nothing. The truth is the truth, and you have been led astray. Keep looking.



I agree....just any excuse will work...won't it?....satan is alive and well on planet earth.  Been there, done that.


----------



## RNC (Feb 3, 2012)

good luck with the deductive reasoning thing  ...  lol


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> True, but if you are only willing to accept one viewpoint, then you aren't really looking, are you?



Truth is by definition, exclusive, only one viewpoint can be correct.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> My ex-wife was raised Roman Catholic in France, and told me of the day she decided it was all a farce.
> 
> A seven year old girl had been brutally raped and killed in a neighboring village, and the priest, trying to comfort the children, said "it was god's will".
> 
> ...



It still amazes me how many people have turned away from Christ, not because of Christ, but because of people. It's sad.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> It did not take such a terrible event for me, I just used common sense. The bible is a good history book, but the word of any "god", it's not.



Where exactly do you get transcendent answers to lifes most important questions?

Take morals for an example.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where exactly do you get transcendent answers to lifes most important questions?
> 
> Take morals for an example.



He gotcha Strangelove!! There were no morals before the Bible was written and there is not a man or woman that has them that has not read the Bible.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> He gotcha Strangelove!! There were no morals before the Bible was written and there is not a man or woman that has them that has not read the Bible.



Another strawman bullet.

... and all the discussion we have had on morals.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Another strawman bullet.
> 
> ... and all the discussion we have had on morals.



I gotcha! Someone used the phrase "strawman" on here and you've made it your personal reply. If I am misrepresenting your reply to strangelove you are going to have to show me where.
What was the point of your question to strangelove then?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where exactly do you get transcendent answers to lifes most important questions?
> 
> Take morals for an example.



Again String, morals do not come from religion. I would consider it part of our nature. It goes back to the sub-concious drive to better and keep our species going.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I gotcha! Someone used the phrase "strawman" on here and you've made it your personal reply.


It's not my "personal reply" bullet, it is a type of arguement that you like to use a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 "straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"



> If I am misrepresenting your reply to strangelove you are going to have to show me where.
> What was the point of your question to strangelove then?



I'll have to get back to you later today on this one, gotta leave the office for a few hours.


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 3, 2012)

" I yam whats I yam, and that's all whats I yam."  Popeye the Sailor


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - well written, but not original. Your story is the same story I hear time and time again when ears are shut and hearts are cold. It means nothing, just like anyone else's beliefs mean nothing. The truth is the truth, and you have been led astray. Keep looking.



On the contrary. My eyes and ears are wide open.  Unlike the blind faithful, I have looked, have you?  I doubt it. You are being led astray everytime a preacher opens his mouth , or you crack that book so many cling to, open.  It is poison.  It has been for centuries.  One only need to look at the world around you to see that. Start looking, the truth is out there, and it isn't in any book....yet.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I agree....just any excuse will work...won't it?....satan is alive and well on planet earth.  Been there, done that.



No he is not.  Unless an all powerful, all knowing god, allows him to be. Then he wouldn't exactly be all loving if he did, and did not try to stop him.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 3, 2012)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> My ex-wife questioned the priest, asking why would god allow a seven year old girl to be raped and tortured to death, the priest became angry, and yelled "how dare you challenge god's will!"
> 
> That was the day she became a non-believer.



That story is a condemnation of the priest, and his inability to think.  Not God.  

Bishop, there is a way to see this which does not include evil as part of the plan.  What good would existence be to any of us if we were not free?  To have good, there must be evil, or good would be the mandate and we would not choose it, and we would not be free.....and good would not be good.  Are we "good" if we are forced to be?  I don't think so.

Here's the belief part.....God created men's hearts to be free.  That freedom comes with a choice between good and evil.  Some choose evil, and some don't.  That is a consequence of a God desiring men to be free rather than God creating good and evil.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It still amazes me how many people have turned away from Christ, not because of Christ, but because of people. It's sad.



It's not sad, its encouraging. The more people that turn from religion, the more hope I have for mankind.  If ALL religion ended tomorrow, and everyone just held humanity and it's betterment in the highest regard, the world would be a much more peacful place.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That story is a condemnation of the priest, and his inability to think.  Not God.
> 
> Bishop, there is a way to see this which does not include evil as part of the plan.  What good would existence be to any of us if we were not free?  To have good, there must be evil, or good would be the mandate and we would not choose it, and we would not be free.....and good would not be good.  Are we "good" if we are forced to be?  I don't think so.
> 
> Here's the belief part.....God created men's hearts to be free.  That freedom comes with a choice between good and evil.  Some choose evil, and some don't.  That is a consequence of a God desiring men to be free rather than God creating good and evil.



Free will has always been a good counter to the evil arguement.  One I don't buy in the slightest.  We still could be free, if our choice was our choice, but that choice does not have to include evil.  Yes good and evil are both neccessary to define one another, but they are not neccessary to human exsistence. We do not need to define them, we only do becuase they exsist.  

If this god was so loving and powerful revealing himself in a manner which leaves no doubt, and still gives a will to choose him, would be easy. So either it/he/she doesn't care, isnt't there, or can't, which is it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 3, 2012)

Do i understand that some people on here think you must be a Christian to have morals? Does that include mores & folkways too?
What about Hindus? As a Christian I find that strange to think we have a monopoly on morality.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 3, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do i understand that some people on here think you must be a Christian to have morals?



No.  There was a whole thread on this very topic.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Free will has always been a good counter to the evil arguement.  One I don't buy in the slightest.  We still could be free, if our choice was our choice, but that choice does not have to include evil.  Yes good and evil are both neccessary to define one another, but they are not neccessary to human exsistence. We do not need to define them, we only do becuase they exsist.



And there is no law of the universe that says we should exist.  But we do.

But, if you wanted to create a soul, would you imprison it or would you set it free?  Which would demonstrate love?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 3, 2012)

I found the thread. Thanks
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=608418&highlight=morals


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 3, 2012)

> I just used common sense.




Please don't throw the term "common sense" around as if the logical result of "common sense" is a belief that God does not exist.  Among a laundry list of other things, it's just flat out insulting to those of us who have also used "common sense" and come to the opposite conclusion.



> The bible is a good history book, but the word of any "god", it's not.



It cannot both be false and history.  If it's not true, then it is a wholesale work of fiction.

Bishop, thanks for sharing the story.  I think I already knew or figured most of that out.  But it's good to see all written out.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It's not my "personal reply" bullet, it is a type of arguement that you like to use a lot.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> 
> ...



I am well aware of what the term means.
Just where were you going with the "morals"?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That story is a condemnation of the priest, and his inability to think.  Not God.
> 
> Bishop, there is a way to see this which does not include evil as part of the plan.  What good would existence be to any of us if we were not free?  To have good, there must be evil, or good would be the mandate and we would not choose it, and we would not be free.....and good would not be good.  Are we "good" if we are forced to be?  I don't think so.
> 
> Here's the belief part.....God created men's hearts to be free.  That freedom comes with a choice between good and evil.  Some choose evil, and some don't.  That is a consequence of a God desiring men to be free rather than God creating good and evil.



Freedom would not include having your followers "spread the word" that includes believe this way now or burn for it forever later to anyone that will listen. It is a giant game. Your free but in the end you better believe to get the rewards. Hogwash.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Freedom would not include having your followers "spread the word" that includes believe this way now or burn for it forever later to anyone that will listen. It is a giant game. Your free but in the end you better believe to get the rewards. Hogwash.



Hogwash?  

Faith is the goal.  What good is a mandated faith?  It is not faith at all, really.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And there is no law of the universe that says we should exist.  But we do.
> 
> But, if you wanted to create a soul, would you imprison it or would you set it free?  Which would demonstrate love?



What is the price of this freedom?
In the end, according to your beliefs, what is the price for being allowed to choose your religion or no religion at all with all else being the same?
Two men, both Live a good life, caring, family man, faithful, honest, trustworthy, etc etc. One BY CHOICE believes in Jesus one By CHOICE does not. What is the price of that choice in your religion?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Hogwash?
> 
> Faith is the goal.  What good is a mandated faith?  It is not faith at all, really.



Not talking about faith here at all. I'm talking about the commands/rules that go along with the religion in order to spread the word to people that are free from it.

Basically I am "free" to choose whatever I like, but if I choose wrong I will pay for it.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

It amazes me to hear that someone whos been"good" all their life, will roast, just becuase they didn't not adhere to a certain faith.  That is not something I would consider the trademark of an all loving, and all powerful god.   Unless god is a narcissist.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Not talking about faith here at all. I'm talking about the commands/rules that go along with the religion in order to spread the word to people that are free from it.
> 
> Basically I am "free" to choose whatever I like, but if I choose wrong I will pay for it.



It's not really "free" if there is a price, is it?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 3, 2012)

I am not getting into the he11 discussion with you fellas.  I would end up getting clobbered from both sides.  But, I would like to ask, does the idea of he11 prohibit you from believing?  That is to say, if we believed everybody went to heaven, would that change a thing?

It is Bishop's thread, and I didn't intend to drag it away from the OP.  I was simply saying that the idea of freedom addresses the problem of evil.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> It's not really "free" if there is a price, is it?



Like health care, people think it is expensive now, wait till they see what it costs when it is "free"!

But yes your right, the promise of having it any way you want as long as it is MY way really isn't a gift is it???


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I am not getting into the he11 discussion with you fellas.  I would end up getting clobbered from both sides.  But, I would like to ask, does the idea of he11 prohibit you from believing?  That is to say, if we believed everybody went to heaven, would that change a thing?
> 
> It is Bishop's thread, and I didn't intend to drag it away from the OP.  I was simply saying that the idea of freedom addresses the problem of evil.



It is not just about h3ll. It is the whole round and round set of contradictions that lead me to believe none of it is true.

Despite the incredible imagination and writing talent of humans Man cannot cover all the basis of his God's shortcomings so they introduce words like "faith" "free will" "God's will" "Devil".....all designed to END a conversation and let the person hanging on cop-outs. A legitimate answer would shed light on how ridiculous these shortcomings are and because those answers expose that weakness they avoid them by giving those cop-out words.

MY God is capable of anything, he created everything, he always was,is,and always will be! He is THE most powerful all knowing, all caring, all loving force to everything that has been or will ever be. He made us in his image and loves us enough to give us complete free will to say,do and believe as we wish with no penalty for our choices...........Oh wait.......hold on, errrr....well we kinda gotta do exactly as he says or he won't let us come home. He kinda created us so he had someone to worship him but he did it in a way that put all of mankind on the Outhouse list. The first two of he created ruined it for the rest of us and we all must spend mankinds existence making it right.Yes I understand there is much confusion about him but he left man to sort it all out and sit back and watch as we kill and kill and kill each other for centuries for no other reason than we cannot agree who in blazes he REALLY is! I understand something so mighty could clear it all up with the snap of his fingers but NAHHHHH why do that. That would take away from that gift of Free Will. We are supposed to GUESS at what he wants done, how he wants it done and darnit, we BETTER get it right or we will pay for his "gift" for all of eternity. Oh yeah and why we are trying to survive here on earth, along with all the daily hazards, trials and tribulations, Luckily for me, MY GOD allows a totally EVIL slightly less powerful Nemesis lurk around in the shadows who's sole purpose is to trick us into doing something stupid or believing in something different JUST when we thought we had it all figured out and ruin our chances of staying in the good grace. Oh Sure MY GOD could wipe him out with a press of the button on his remote, but AAAAAHHH, that would be TOO easy and then how in the heck would I explain ALL the bad things that STILL exist after the one responsible is not around to blame??

I mean really? Is this the best work we can expect?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It is not just about h3ll. It is the whole round and round set of contradictions that lead me to believe none of it is true.
> 
> Despite the incredible imagination and writing talent of humans Man cannot cover all the basis of his God's shortcomings so they introduce words like "faith" "free will" "God's will" "Devil".....all designed to END a conversation and let the person hanging on cop-outs. A legitimate answer would shed light on how ridiculous these shortcomings are and because those answers expose that weakness they avoid them by giving those cop-out words.
> 
> ...



Bullet your using logic. The devil gave us logic, and we are not suppose to use it.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Again String, morals do not come from religion.


I never said it does.



> I would consider it part of our nature. It goes back to the sub-concious drive to better and keep our species going.



Where does this notion of the sub-concious come from? Do you really think a drive to better each other and to keep our species going comes from premordial slim that some say formed us?

Morals are instrinsic and we seem to both agree on that. My question is how they became instrinsic in humanity.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Despite the incredible imagination and writing talent of humans Man cannot cover all the basis of his God's shortcomings so they introduce words like "faith" "free will" "God's will" "Devil".....all designed to END a conversation and let the person hanging on cop-outs. A legitimate answer would shed light on how ridiculous these shortcomings are and because those answers expose that weakness they avoid them by giving those cop-out words.



Where in your entire comment did you explain how free will is a cop out?  It is not.  It is the way of explaining how evil and good can both exist within creation without the creator necessarily creating both.  It is an explanation.  A priest telling a girl that little girls being raped are all part of God's plan is a cop-out.  Let's not lump everything in the same boat here.

You don't like the faith, I get that.  But you defining those characteristics God must have does no more for your argument than any religion defining God's characteristics.

You say "If God was 'x' then he would 'y'."  Okay Bullet....prove it.  Prove that a God's existence would mean he had to fit into your criteria.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It is not just about h3ll. It is the whole round and round set of contradictions that lead me to believe none of it is true.
> 
> Despite the incredible imagination and writing talent of humans Man cannot cover all the basis of his God's shortcomings so they introduce words like "faith" "free will" "God's will" "Devil".....all designed to END a conversation and let the person hanging on cop-outs. A legitimate answer would shed light on how ridiculous these shortcomings are and because those answers expose that weakness they avoid them by giving those cop-out words.


Introduce? Really? Tell me, when did those words get introduced?

Those are legitimate answers, you just don't like them, so you introduce words like "cop-out"


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> It amazes me to hear that someone whos been"good" all their life


Why did you put the word good in parenthesis? Do you not believe in good?



> will roast, just becuase they didn't not adhere to a certain faith.  That is not something I would consider the trademark of an all loving, and all powerful god.   Unless god is a narcissist.


Would it be better if someone were to adhere to all faiths? Remember truth is exclusive.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Where in your entire comment did you explain how free will is a cop out?  It is not.  It is the way of explaining how evil and good can both exist within creation without the creator necessarily creating both.  It is an explanation.  A priest telling a girl that little girls being raped are all part of God's plan is a cop-out.  Let's not lump everything in the same boat here.
> 
> You don't like the faith, I get that.  But you defining those characteristics God must have does no more for your argument than any religion defining God's characteristics.
> 
> You say "If God was 'x' then he would 'y'."  Okay Bullet....prove it.  Prove that a God's existence would mean he had to fit into your criteria.



The priest is supposed to be God's representative here on Earth. How he is any closer to God than someone else is beyond me but for the sake of of the religious hierarchy I guess there has to be levels to the ladder up to God. Anyway, he speaks for God, he said it is God's will, so it must be God's will. Everyone else "bought it" and the ones that didn't aren't worthy.

I hold God to the same standards as I hold anyone else. If he has expectations of me I also have expectations of him. I am not expecting anything more than he has claimed he is capable of. No excuses, just results.
Unfortunately I cannot make provable standards out of an imaginary being that does not exist. Your right we cannot hold the standards the same when comparing real to nonexistent.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> *The priest is supposed to be God's representative here on Earth*. How he is any closer to God than someone else is beyond me but for the sake of of the religious hierarchy I guess there has to be levels to the ladder up to God. Anyway, he speaks for God, he said it is God's will, so it must be God's will. Everyone else "bought it" and the ones that didn't aren't worthy.
> 
> I hold God to the same standards as I hold anyone else. If he has expectations of me I also have expectations of him. I am not expecting anything that he has claimed he is capable of. No excuses, just results.
> Unfortunately I cannot make provable standards out of an imaginary being that does not exist. Your right we cannot hold the standards the same when comparing real to nonexistent.



"We" are all supposed to be Gods representatives.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Introduce? Really? Tell me, when did those words get introduced?
> 
> Those are legitimate answers, you just don't like them, so you introduce words like "cop-out"



How do you know what God's will is? How does the Priest?

If the Priest said God could do nothing to stop it then it would not look good for God so ya gotta make up a  feel good cop-out when you don't know what to say. "It was meant to be", "They are better off", "God needed her there more than we need her here". "It was her time"....


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> "We" are all supposed to be Gods representatives.



Then why the need for clergy?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why did you put the word good in parenthesis? Do you not believe in good?
> 
> Becuase the term can be ambiguous.
> Would it be better if someone were to adhere to all faiths? Remember truth is exclusive.



A god who's loving, would not be so petty, that it would decide who roasts and who doesn't just by the name it is called.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> A god who's loving, would not be so petty, that it would decide who roasts and who doesn't just by the name it is called.



Bishop, we either hold our God to higher standards or accept it's limitations. We don't make excuses.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then why the need for clergy?



For people to help run the needs of a church, not because they are on some type of pedelstool. Church leaders, because they are in leadership, are no closer to God than the church goers.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> A god who's loving, would not be so petty,* that it would decide *who roasts and who doesn't just by the name it is called.



God doesn't decide, you do.

Did you catch post #54?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why did you put the word good in parenthesis? Do you not believe in good?
> 
> 
> Would it be better if someone were to adhere to all faiths? Remember truth is exclusive.



I believe that a god that tells someone to kill their son is not good.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I believe that a god that tells someone to kill their son is not good.



Thats not the whole story now is it ambush?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> For people to help run the needs of a church, not because they are on some type of pedelstool. Church leaders, because they are in leadership, are no closer to God than the church goers.



Those Bishops have some pretty fancy work clothes and get a lot of rings kissed just for running the church. Pedestal is an understatement. There would be no need for clergy if it were not for being God's middle men.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> On the contrary. My eyes and ears are wide open.  Unlike the blind faithful, I have looked, have you?  I doubt it. You are being led astray everytime a preacher opens his mouth , or you crack that book so many cling to, open.  It is poison.  It has been for centuries.  One only need to look at the world around you to see that. Start looking, the truth is out there, and it isn't in any book....yet.



You've indicated that you have not completely given up on there being a God, but you have ruled out the Christian God , based on the words and actions of men, who, at least on the surface, claimed to be followers of Jesus. 

Further, you place a high degree of reliance on the nature of men to do good things, to take care of their family, to refrain from evil actions against others. 

Does it really make sense that man is by nature "good", when clearly we see evil all around us; infidelity, theft, murder, deceit, all manner of abuse?

The point is, if there is no God or He exists, but is merely uninvolved, it makes a case against man being basically "good". Otherwise, where does the evil, that men do, originate? 

Doesn't it make more sense that men choose between good and evil based on their worldview? The one who sees the world as his oyster does exactly as he pleases, with disregard for others. The one who sees the world as an interdependent community of many, seeks the common good. Ultimately, he reasons, he is best served by being part of the community. Still, as a species, as mankind, it would make me wonder whether mankind was (1) "good" and, therefore, worthy of my trust or (2) basically evil and unworthy of my trust, except for some who are fighting against their evil nature. In fact, it should be apparent that all of us have an evil nature, otherwise, why is it so necessary and sometimes difficult for us to strive against it?

Let me bottom line this. If there is a God, who is by His nature "good", but man (whom God created) has, by free will, chosen evil, the model expressed in the Christian Bible seems to follow and explain why things are the way they are.
If this makes sense to you, I would suggest you read two books by Lee Strobel, first, A Case For A Creator and then, should you find the first intriguing, A Case For Christ. 

Why? Because most people who are logical, reasoning, mildly curious, or intellectually challenged by the subject, possibly, would appreciate Lee's approach to this matter.

In any event, thanks for taking the time to read this.

gtparts


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

All of those "good" / "bad" things exist in nature. Theft, infidelity,abuse, murder. We place different values on them but they are no different.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Those Bishops have some pretty fancy work clothes and get a lot of rings kissed just for running the church. Pedestal is an understatement. There would be no need for clergy if it were not for being God's middle men.


 
I understand your thought perfectly.  Christ had much to say to those religious leaders of His day that adorned themselves with robes, said long prayers in the marketplace and put the burden of the law around others necks without understanding the heart of the matter. This is what any eye can see, where we might shout, "hypocrite"!, but the inner life of Christ is so much better. It holds out freedom without the heavy burden of the law, something that religion gets all tripped up over.
Look deeper.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Feb 3, 2012)

> Please don't throw the term "common sense" around as if the logical result of "common sense" is a belief that God does not exist. Among a laundry list of other things, it's just flat out insulting to those of us who have also used "common sense" and come to the opposite conclusion.



None of my posts are meant to be insulting to anyone, and quite frankly, I read the same "laundry list" as you do from both sides. I don't believe anyone on this forum is intentionally trying to insult anyone else.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> I understand your thought perfectly.  Christ had much to say to those religious leaders of His day that adorned themselves with robes, said long prayers in the marketplace and put the burden of the law around others necks without understanding the heart of the matter. This is what any eye can see, where we might shout, "hypocrite"!, but the inner life of Christ is so much better. It holds out freedom without the heavy burden of the law, something that religion gets all tripped up over.
> Look deeper.



But I have looked deeper. It is/was those things you touched on that got me thinking, the more I thought the more I asked, the more I asked the muddier the waters got. One led me to dig deep into the other and it has led me to believe the entire religion is based off of man made ideals for the benefit of man. Some believers get inner peace to keep them from going insane from the thought of death and the church gets rich off of those people with no certainty that anything they claim is true.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The priest is supposed to be God's representative here on Earth. How he is any closer to God than someone else is beyond me but for the sake of of the religious hierarchy I guess there has to be levels to the ladder up to God. Anyway, he speaks for God, he said it is God's will, so it must be God's will. Everyone else "bought it" and the ones that didn't aren't worthy.
> 
> I hold God to the same standards as I hold anyone else. If he has expectations of me I also have expectations of him. I am not expecting anything more than he has claimed he is capable of. No excuses, just results.
> Unfortunately I cannot make provable standards out of an imaginary being that does not exist. Your right we cannot hold the standards the same when comparing real to nonexistent.



You really have no idea who God is, do you? Your statement that, "I hold God to the same standards as I hold anyone else", simply shows you seem to believe that, if God exists, you are on equal footing with Him. 
Funny, but God has already responded to someone who expressed a similar notion, a better man than you or me. Might want to read Job, chapters 39 through 42 in the NLT. 

Here's a link.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 38- 42&version=NLT


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

gtparts said:


> You really have no idea who God is, do you? Your statement that, "I hold God to the same standards as I hold anyone else", simply shows you seem to believe that, if God exists, you are on equal footing with Him.
> Funny, but God has already responded to someone who expressed a similar notion, a better man than you or me. Might want to read Job, chapters 39 through 42 in the NLT.
> 
> Here's a link.
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 38- 42&version=NLT



I am happy you believe what you do. Spare me the lines from your handbook though. God didn't say any of it, God didn't write any of it. The works of Mark Twain and any and every other writer of fiction holds just as much clout to me.

I'd like to have that conversation with God, I could use the 1000 female donkeys.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Thats not the whole story now is it ambush?




If I see my neighbor putting his tied up kid on an altar for sacrifice I'm not even calling the cops.  I will deal with right then and there.  The more he screams about "God told him to do it" the harder I'll hit him in the mouth.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

Who recorded that conversation between Job and God? We both know it was neither of them. What author wrote it all down?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If I see my neighbor putting his tied up kid on an altar for sacrifice I'm not even calling the cops.  I will deal with right then and there.  The more he screams about "God told him to do it" the harder I'll hit him in the mouth.



Castle Doctrine....give him a double tap and save the taxpayers some money.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> On the contrary. My eyes and ears are wide open.  Unlike the blind faithful, I have looked, have you?  I doubt it. You are being led astray everytime a preacher opens his mouth , or you crack that book so many cling to, open.  It is poison.  It has been for centuries.  One only need to look at the world around you to see that. Start looking, the truth is out there, and it isn't in any book....yet.



"I know you are, but what am I?" This is a great illustration of why I have lost interest in this sub forum. 

Never thought I would say it, but I miss Atlas, Six million dollar Ham, and who would ever say they missed Diogenes?!!!

Well, maybe just a little. You new guys are boring.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> "I know you are, but what am I?" This is a great illustration of why I have lost interest in this sub forum.
> 
> Never thought I would say it, but I miss Atlas, Six million dollar Ham, and who would ever say they missed Diogenes?!!!
> 
> Well, maybe just a little. You new guys are boring.



Were you gone for a while?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 3, 2012)

Ya'll keep bringing up free will like all Christians believe in it. If predestination is true then you can talk yourself blue. I think I believe in free will. It makes more common since and seems more logical but then I read some of the predestination stuff and it sounds believable too.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2012)

If everything is predestined then the free-will argument is wishful thinking. Same thing if switched around.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If everything is predestined then the free-will argument is wishful thinking. Same thing if switched around.



Free will exists in both your and my belief system...not such a cop out when we consider it like that.

How's that for finding common ground.......

And I don't think this forum is boring.  You guys all seem pretty cool.  If nothing else, I understand my faith a lot better when I have to defend it.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 3, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Ya'll keep bringing up free will like all Christians believe in it. If predestination is true then you can talk yourself blue. I think I believe in free will. It makes more common since and seems more logical but then I read some of the predestination stuff and it sounds believable too.



Did you read the recent one that went close to 1000 posts in the SD&S?  Good topic.  There are a lot of Calvinists on here.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Free will exists in both your and my belief system...not such a cop out when we consider it like that.
> 
> How's that for finding common ground.......
> 
> And I don't think this forum is boring.  You guys all seem pretty cool.  If nothing else, I understand my faith a lot better when I have to defend it.



Yes, sorta,kinda.....
In "my" system we all have the choice to believe as we want with no penalty for making the wrong choice. Everyone is on the same playing field.

In your system you still have that choice but your expected to pick the "right" one and pay for all eternity if you get it wrong. It is not exactly the gift of free will if your are penalized for your choice. Especially if the rules are not understandable or make sense to everyone. It's the fine print that gets ya!

We are not boring, we are just not on the same intellectual level as some that think we are boring. Notice I did not specify that we are below that level........


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Were you gone for a while?



You didn't miss me BH?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 4, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> "I know you are, but what am I?" This is a great illustration of why I have lost interest in this sub forum.
> 
> Never thought I would say it, but I miss Atlas, Six million dollar Ham, and who would ever say they missed Diogenes?!!!
> 
> Well, maybe just a little. You new guys are boring.





> Bishop - well written, but not original. Your story is the same story I hear time and time again when ears are shut and hearts are cold. It means nothing, just like anyone else's beliefs mean nothing. The truth is the truth, and you have been led astray. Keep looking.




Hypocrit.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 4, 2012)

gtparts said:


> You've indicated that you have not completely given up on there being a God, but you have ruled out the Christian God , based on the words and actions of men, who, at least on the surface, claimed to be followers of Jesus.
> 
> I never said that.  I have arrived were I am on my own accord.  It was the actions of no men, but the very nonsensical nature of the tales I had come to know.
> 
> ...



Your welcome, thanks for the well thought out post..


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> But I have looked deeper. It is/was those things you touched on that got me thinking, the more I thought the more I asked, the more I asked the muddier the waters got. One led me to dig deep into the other and it has led me to believe the entire religion is based off of man made ideals for the benefit of man. Some believers get inner peace to keep them from going insane from the thought of death and the church gets rich off of those people with no certainty that anything they claim is true.


 
I understand that also. And I'm glad you took the time to study and see certain things about faith and forgiveness for what they are. Can you imagine however, that man would put together such a plan that has him humbled to the point of his own death in the spiritual sence? 
*Galatians 2:20*


<SUP id=en-NASB-29102 class=versenum>20</SUP> I have been <SUP class=xref value='(A)'></SUP>crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but <SUP class=xref value='(B)'></SUP>Christ lives in me; and <SUP class=footnote value='[a]'></SUP>the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in <SUP class=xref value='(C)'></SUP>the Son of God, who <SUP class=xref value='(D)'></SUP>loved me and <SUP class=xref value='(E)'></SUP>gave Himself up for me.

Can you consider that the burden for man and his condition (sin) rests solely on Christ and can't be "manufactured" by the mind of man?

If you wrote the book, wouldn't you have made man his own "savior" (as much of other 'works' based religions do)?

You are still on this side of heaven, so my only counsel would be to never give up on the search.  Consider a study of Romans for how some of the peices work and fit together. 

And when you find time, consider the book "Heaven is real" by Todd Burpo.
http://heavenisforreal.net/

Peace


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> I understand that also. And I'm glad you took the time to study and see certain things about faith and forgiveness for what they are. Can you imagine however, that man would put together such a plan that has him humbled to the point of his own death in the spiritual sence?
> *Galatians 2:20*
> 
> 
> ...



Striper, There is no doubt that the Bible is one heck of an impressive piece of works(s). As a whole it is both inspiring and nonsensical. For every verse that makes total sense there is another one that is ridiculous. It is all about what an individual wants to get out of the Bible. I can read through and pick out the verses that are inspirational and plaster them all over my house and hang them in the church for reference and I and others will do well using them as guidance. NOBODY reads through and picks out the verses that are not only non-inspirational but are down right appalling! No doubt the Bible used ancient writings and kept those writings as original as possible. Without doing that it's credibility would suffer even greater, but because of the "other" things that are in those writings that are anything but holy, God-like, moral,just or inspirational the overall work while still impressive is not all that everyone wants to be portrayed. THE biggest reason I do not believe the Bible IS because I have read the Bible! It is not a complete book written by one author and the author is the God handing down his guidebook for all of his creation to read.
There are 2 sections. Old Testament and New Testament. Two completely different works written centuries apart and all of it a conglomeration of anonymous authors. Their stories were put together to make a book. NONE of it, and I mean absolutely NONE of it is the work of a God or the Son of a God. Neither actually wrote down anything. In fact the events that are written about are written by authors that were not there and it was written decades later! These people not only did not know Jesus, they were not there to witness anything that are writing about yet they "record" conversations word for word. The "events" are not even unique to the religion. At best the works within are a collection of folklore and fable over thousands of years mixed in with modern(at the time) events in order to make it all seem believable. I can totally see how it helps people and I can totally see the incredible talent of the writings within. I can appreciate the "good word" and I can appreciate the helpful messages. I can also see everything else in there. I can see the errors, inaccuracies, horror, incest,rape,fallibility, murder,racism, and just plain messed up morals too. i don't put any more clout into one or the other I just take it for what it is as a whole. To me it is not divine. It is not the work of a God. It is not even original. It is a great work but man is a talented species. There have been many a great story told before and since.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2012)

To me it is clear that the NT was a way of taking the OT and making the religion "better". There no doubt was a movement against the "old" religion and writing about the Son of God and trying to make the OT prophesy come true in those stories was a way to gain followers. The same thing happens within the denominations today. Yeah we ALL believe in Jesus, but I believe it happened a little different or I believe he meant this instead of that, and this verse does not mean that it means this..... All you need to do is a get few others to believe along with you and it spins off in another direction. No different than 2000 years ago.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 5, 2012)

Hey bullet, gordons post in another thread sez all...


gordon 2 said:


> ... don't stop asking questions that are serious to you. Ask them in different ways, see what works best for you.



I don't have all them tuff questions from the bible down to my satisfaction, I'm still a learner and a searcher. They just don't get in the way anymore.
I often take a single topic at a time and do an online search on it. Like coming on here, this helps me consider what some have to say on the side of unbelief, and others on the side of faith. Not every search got me answers, but was worth the inquiry to know the subject more. And some subjects I wouldn't let rest until there was an answer.  In those cases, the journey was well worth it.

In many cases, those struggle areas of scripture haven't gone away, but most have gotten "smaller" in light of the love that continues to make its way within. There is no "law" to that, and no formula when the heart stuff takes over. That can be a challenge to a technically minded guy like me! I guess that's why I get a blast out of many in the scientific community who have come to faith.  Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Ivan Panin, to name just a few.  Did faith solve all their intellectual concerns? Doubt it.  But answers did come to them in a way for them to see Him who is not visible with eyes of flesh.

Anyway, all I'm saying is don't throw it ALL out when you _can _tackle some points one by one and find some answers.  They'll likely come in a way you can't possibly imagine.  And if you'd like to sit & rant with someone who's been there, did that (well, honestly... _DOES_ that), the first round of suds is on me.

Peace


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 5, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Hypocrit.



Really?

Please expound on your one word comment that sums up my entire being. Keep in mind that you know very little about me, and such a comment implies intimate knowledge of me and my intentions.

I really want to sum you up with one word right now, but I will step back and reflect before I make comment on "The Bishop".


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 5, 2012)

Sorry Bishop, I couldn't wait. You stood up in front of a church you don't believe in, and dedicated your child to a god you don't believe in, and you call me a hypocrit?

Oh, but you did not dedicate anything? You were just there, trying to keep the peace? Why couldn't you stand up for what you believe in? Oh, I forgot, YOU are a hypocrit.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=619790


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

I do believe that The Bishop meant hypocrite for you posting the same type of post(s) that you are condemning.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yes, sorta,kinda.....
> In "my" system we all have the choice to believe as we want with no penalty for making the wrong choice. Everyone is on the same playing field.



Do you not believe in absolute truth?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Sorry Bishop, I couldn't wait. You stood up in front of a church you don't believe in, and dedicated your child to a god you don't believe in, and you call me a hypocrit?



I read that thread, Bishop was being a good husband / father.  Not a hypocrit.

For example, I hate soccer with every ounce of  my soul, but if my kid played I would still go to every game to show support.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you not believe in absolute truth?



The concept of absolute truth is a good one but I am not sure everyone agrees what absolute truth is.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I do believe that The Bishop meant hypocrite for you posting the same type of post(s) that you are condemning.



There ya go ted!


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I read that thread, Bishop was being a good husband / father.  Not a hypocrit.
> 
> For example, I hate soccer with every ounce of  my soul, but if my kid played I would still go to every game to show support.



Thanks JB.  

Soccer is a terrible game isn't it?


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 6, 2012)

Just wanted to let everyone know that I almost stepped on a 2ft copperhead in my backyard in west central Ga today. I introduced him to an iron rake. Never seen that in early Feb.

 Ah shoot, wrong forum. Oh well, trying to lighten things up. Anyway, watch your step because it has been my experience that even in the warmer winter months, serpents dont talk to let you know they are near.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Sorry Bishop, I couldn't wait. You stood up in front of a church you don't believe in, and dedicated your child to a god you don't believe in, and you call me a hypocrit?
> 
> Oh, but you did not dedicate anything? You were just there, trying to keep the peace? Why couldn't you stand up for what you believe in? Oh, I forgot, YOU are a hypocrit.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=619790



Your right Ted, you are quite boring.  We covered that whole hypocrit thing in that post. I know you reached a different conclusion than I, but it seems it was split between believers and non believers.  No consensus was ever made.

But that was a fun thread, wasn't it?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Soccer is a terrible game isn't it?



Yes.  Thankfully, I have been able to shelter my children from it.  My boy plays baseball, basketball, and football so there is no room for soccer.  My daughter is young, but she is already booking her time up with dance....so I think I may have dodged the bullet.

I guess I am too much of a narrow minded country boy to understand the game.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  Thankfully, I have been able to shelter my children from it.  My boy plays baseball, basketball, and football so there is no room for soccer.  My daughter is young, but she is already booking her time up with dance....so I think I may have dodged the bullet.
> 
> I guess I am too much of a narrow minded country boy to understand the game.



I played them all. Indoor soccer atleast has a wall, and checking, .


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> Just wanted to let everyone know that I almost stepped on a 2ft copperhead in my backyard in west central Ga today. I introduced him to an iron rake. Never seen that in early Feb.
> 
> Ah shoot, wrong forum. Oh well, trying to lighten things up. Anyway, watch your step because it has been my experience that even in the warmer winter months, serpents dont talk to let you know they are near.



 Glad it turned out well for ya bro. I can't stand a snake, don't know why, there's just something about a critter that goes all over the place with no arms or legs.


----------



## pjmax (Feb 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> ...I really want to sum you up with one word right now...



I'd say "boring" is off the table.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The concept of absolute truth is a good one but I am not sure everyone agrees what absolute truth is.



Does that mean that you think it is real?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Does that mean that you think it is real?



Never really thought about it.
If you have a question for me or want to take this somewhere just say what you want to say instead of philosophizing.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Never really thought about it.
> If you have a question for me or want to take this somewhere just say what you want to say instead of philosophizing.



Geez bullet, just trying to have a conversation. Why the heck is everybody so on edge around here?

And I do have a question for you, I have asked it twice now and you still have not answered me, except for " Never really thought about it". How in the world can you come in here and talk theology everyday and "never really thought about" if absolute truth is real?

The point of my question was, that if you believe absolute truth is real, how you reconcile that with this statement...



bullethead said:


> Yes, sorta,kinda.....
> In "my" system *we all have the choice to believe as we want with no penalty for making the wrong choice*. Everyone is on the same playing field.



In "your" system, people may believe whatever they want with no problems, whether it be truth or nonsense.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Geez bullet, just trying to have a conversation. Why the heck is everybody so on edge around here?
> 
> And I do have a question for you, I have asked it twice now and you still have not answered me, except for " Never really thought about it". How in the world can you come in here and talk theology everyday and "never really thought about" if absolute truth is real?
> 
> ...



Right because when it is all over we will be under 6ft of dirt or in a Vase on one of the kids mantles.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Your right Ted, you are quite boring.  We covered that whole hypocrit thing in that post. I know you reached a different conclusion than I, but it seems it was split between believers and non believers.  No consensus was ever made.
> 
> But that was a fun thread, wasn't it?



I did not really think that thread was fun. It was disturbing that you could rationalize your actions until you got the "answer" that you wanted. We reached seperate conclusions, but in the end, one of us is right. Believers or not, I think the truth is pretty obvious.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I do believe that The Bishop meant hypocrite for you posting the same type of post(s) that you are condemning.



Thanks for the insight BH. The Bishop quoted my posts out of order. One of those quotes mentioned that nobody's beliefs really means anything as it relates to the truth (my own included), so I don't really see how my comments were hypocritical.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I read that thread, Bishop was being a good husband / father.  Not a hypocrit.
> 
> For example, I hate soccer with every ounce of  my soul, but if my kid played I would still go to every game to show support.



How does a "good" father or husband lie about his beliefs to his wife, children, and a bunch of people that he stands up in front of????

That does not compute.

Even if I disagree with him, I would tell him to stand up for what he believes, and I would defend his right to do so.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> There ya go ted!



Got it, see my reply to BH. #112


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Thanks JB.
> 
> Soccer is a terrible game isn't it?



And see my reply to JB. #113 The only person you are fooling is yourself.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 6, 2012)

And now, for soccer. The majority of the world sees the game differently than you Bishop. The majority of the world calls it the beautiful game.  The majority of the world plays it over all other sports. Your opinion on the matter (just like mine) does not influence the majority of the world's outlook on it.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> How does a "good" father or husband lie about his beliefs to his wife, children, and a bunch of people that he stands up in front of????
> 
> That does not compute.
> 
> Even if I disagree with him, I would tell him to stand up for what he believes, and I would defend his right to do so.



Thats not even close to the truth and you know it. Libel, sir will not destroy my character only yours.  Anyone can go back, read that thread, and see that what you say is false.  Stop now, your un-christian like behavior will only continue to make you look foolish.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Thats not even close to the truth and you know it. Libel, sir will not destroy my character only yours.  Anyone can go back and read that thread and see that what you say is false.  Stop now, your un-christian like behavior will only continue to make you look foolish.



I don't see it the way you do Bishop. Like I said, it seems pretty stright forward.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I don't see it the way you do Bishop. Like I said, it seems pretty stright forward.



I guess we can add disingenuous to hypocrit then.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I guess we can add disingenuous to hypocrit then.



Bishop - you can add whatever derogatory remark you like. I am stickin' to my guns. You put that thread on the World Wide Web for everyone to see, and it don't look like you want it to.

Well, tough.

Own it.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop - you can add whatever derogatory remark you like. I am stickin' to my guns. You put that thread on the World Wide Web for everyone to see, and it don't look like you want it to.
> 
> Well, tough.
> 
> Own it.



What are you even talking about?  I know what I did and what was said.  For fun I went back and read it agian. I am not ashamed.  It is you that is being completey dishonest about what actually happened. Again sir, the libel you spat only makes your character more foolish not mine.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 7, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> What are you even talking about?  I know what I did and what was said.  For fun I went back and read it agian. I am not ashamed.  It is you that is being completey dishonest about what actually happened. Again sir, the libel you spat only makes your character more foolish not mine.



Bishop - I wasn't there. I could not possibly be dishonest about what actually happened. I am only stating my opinion about what you related. You stood up in front of a room full of people that you believe are wrong, and participated in the dedication of your child to a god and religion that you do not believe in, and you are calling me a hypocrite. I "spat" no libel. I regurgitated what you related about the situation and gave my opinion on the matter. Stop calling me sir, stop threatening me with libel. You did what you did as related by your own words, what is so hard to understand about it?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 7, 2012)

FWIW, the reason I started posting on this forum was because I got so mad when I read how people acted about Bishop going to his daughter's dedication.  It was appalling.  By almost any standard, the man did the right thing.

Now, to get completely off topic........

Ted, I usually agree with you, but soccer??????  Maybe I'm backwoods enough to not care what the world thinks.  I hate the game, and think any sport that is categorized as "beautiful" must be lame. It's not really the sport that bothers me, it's the enlightened attitutde the players and fans seem to have.

In high school, the baseball team and the soccer team were natural rivals because our seasons coincided.  so, after months of pranks we would eventually have it out over a game of rugby.  The soccer players, in all their conceit, figured we couldn't hang with them because of the running.....guess who always won?  It's nto scientific or anything....just saying baseball is awesome and soccer stinks!!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2012)

Bishop did the right thing as a Father. When his children get older and IF they decide they do or do not want to be a part of religion or want to discuss religion then THAT is the time to make his stance known.

I have attended all of my children's church functions. I have had two Son's graduate from a Catholic High School. I never exploded into flames just by passing through the doors of either. Being there for your kids overrides any personal feelings a parent has. If it didn't no Father would give his daughter's hand away to the jerk she want's to marry. The fact that Bishop did not make a stink when his family needed him says more about character then  is needed.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> How does a "good" father or husband lie about his beliefs to his wife, children,



This is the libel I speak of.  Besides when we talked about Santa were did I lie to my wife and kids? Your statement paints me as a malicious lyer to my wife and kids. You put it out there knowing that is not the truth.  You participated in that thread, and you know nothing of the sort took place. Stop pretending you are in the right here, you are not.

It's O.k. Ted I know your reaching.  I'm going to do the christian-like thing and forgive you. I guess I was wrong calling you out.  I didn't know you'd be so sensitive, and self righteous.  You are a believer, and I am an unbeleiver, therefore below you, unworthy of of discussing... how did you put it...



> Bishop - well written, but not original. Your story is the same story I hear time and time again when ears are shut and hearts are cold. It means nothing, just like anyone else's beliefs mean nothing. The truth is the truth, and you have been led astray. Keep looking.




Oh yeagh my unoriginal, unlistening, uncaring, and meaningless position.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Bishop did the right thing as a Father. When his children get older and IF they decide they do or do not want to be a part of religion or want to discuss religion then THAT is the time to make his stance known.



Are you just stating your opinion, or are you stating this as universal?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> FWIW, the reason I started posting on this forum was because I got so mad when I read how people acted about Bishop going to his daughter's dedication.  It was appalling.  By almost any standard, the man did the right thing.
> 
> Now, to get completely off topic........
> 
> ...



Where I went to school, if you weren't popular before you made the baseball team, you were afterwards. The baseball team was more popular than any other sport in the school, especially soccer.... I think we had a soccer team.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Bishop did the right thing as a Father......Being there for your kids overrides any personal feelings a parent has. If it didn't no Father would give his daughter's hand away to the jerk she want's to marry. The fact that Bishop did not make a stink when his family needed him says more about character then  is needed.



X2.



bullethead said:


> When his children get older and IF they decide they do or do not want to be a part of religion or want to discuss religion then THAT is the time to make his stance known..



I think that passing on our belief system is a priviledge of parenting.  I teach my kids my belief system in religion, politics, sports, hunting, fishing, everything.  For me at least, it is how the world continues on, by carrying one generation's knowledge to the next.

Hopefully, 200 years from now my descendants will still hate soccer.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where I went to school, if you weren't popular before you made the baseball team, you were afterwards. The baseball team was more popular than any other sport in the school, especially soccer.



Yep, same here!  The football team was big, but everybody made it on that team, baseball was a very tough sport to make the team.  So, wearing the jersey to school on game day was something special, plus, the hottest girls were big baseball fans.....that helped


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where I went to school, if you weren't popular before you made the baseball team, you were afterwards. The baseball team was more popular than any other sport in the school, especially soccer.... I think we had a soccer team.





JB0704 said:


> Yep, same here!  The football team was big, but everybody made it on that team, baseball was a very tough sport to make the team.  So, wearing the jersey to school on game day was something special, plus, the hottest girls were big baseball fans.....that helped



I played football. Even though the coaches told us not to hang out with the "booter-[homosexuals]" I did.  They had cool parties, cool girlfriends and listened to cool music.  Never got into baseball.  I should have.  I always had a good, indestructible arm which I now use for tennis.


DERAIL!!!!!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> X2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yep, same here!  The football team was big, but everybody made it on that team, baseball was a very tough sport to make the team.  So, wearing the jersey to school on game day was something special, plus, the hottest girls were big baseball fans.....that helped


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 7, 2012)

The only thing is some bad traits like prejudice, racism, aggression, etc. can also get passed on to future generations. I'm not as prejudiced as my Dad and my grown girls are not prejudiced at all. That's where lying and not being truthful has helped them. My Dad on the other hand didn't hold nothing back and I had to learn tolerance on my own. I did try to steer them to be Republicans but that didn't turn out.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I played football. Even though the coaches told us not to hang out with the "booter-[homosexuals]" I did.  They had cool parties, cool girlfriends and listened to cool music.  Never got into baseball.  I should have.  I always had a good, indestructible arm which I now use for tennis.
> 
> 
> DERAIL!!!!!!!



Tennis! Tennis! Thats worse than soccer!  Who hits a ball and wants to to keep in play? I liked to pretend that the green fence of the tennis court was the green monster. Everybody would get mad when I would send one over, fling my racket, and  then trot around the court! 

Baseball is the sport! The only thing that sucked about baseball was practice interfered with my sight fishin!


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 7, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Tennis! Tennis! Thats worse than soccer!  Who hits a ball and wants to to keep in play? I liked to pretend that the green fence of the tennis court was the green monster.



I like tennis too, problem is that there is a lot of "protocol" and I tend to get a bit...well..."roudy" when I mess up.  I used to fling rackets and profanities far and wide when I attempted the sport for recreation.  Nobody want an obnoxiuos tennis partner.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 7, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> The only thing is some bad traits like prejudice, racism, aggression, etc. can also get passed on to future generations. I'm not as prejudiced as my Dad and my grown girls are not prejudiced at all. That's where lying and not being truthful has helped them. My Dad on the other hand didn't hold nothing back and I had to learn tolerance on my own. I did try to steer them to be Republicans but that didn't turn out.



I was raised by some deeply religious racists.  But, I was in public school and was taught the values of the civil rights movement, Dr. King, etc.  So, the "sins" of my father were not really passed along to me either.  I also tended to be the "rebel" of the family, so anything he did I was opposite.

Sorry about your kids being democrats.  My ex-wife gets mad that I am "programming" my son to be a republican.  I tell her she is wrong, that I am training the first libertarian president, but she doesn't know what that means.  Hopefully something I teach him will stick.  He is young, we will see.....


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I was raised by some deeply religious racists.  But, I was in public school and was taught the values of the civil rights movement, Dr. King, etc.  So, the "sins" of my father were not really passed along to me either.  I also tended to be the "rebel" of the family, so anything he did I was opposite.
> 
> Sorry about your kids being democrats.  My ex-wife gets mad that I am "programming" my son to be a republican.  I tell her she is wrong, that I am training the first libertarian president, but she doesn't know what that means.  Hopefully something I teach him will stick.  He is young, we will see.....



Teach him the fundamentals of rights, the basis of liberty, and history.   Shower him with writingins and lectures, of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James madison,  Milton Friedman, and the like.  If no one else these four gentlmen use a common sense approach to complex issues.  He will undoubtedly fall in-line with libertarian philosophy.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 7, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Teach him the fundamentals of rights, the basis of liberty, and history.   Shower him with writingins and lectures, of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James madison,  Milton Friedman, and the like.  If no one else these four gentlmen use a common sense approach to complex issues.  He will undoubtedly fall in-line with libertarian philosophy.



That's the plan.  For every history section he goes through I assign "supplemental reading."  Had a long talk with him the other day about property rights.  At 11, he can articulate the flaws of socialism, and understands why government bailouts and stimulus packages are against everything that is good in this world.  A bit of overkill, even indoctrination I suppose, but I would rather him learn now than when he graduates college and has half his paycheck siezed.

I have a history professor in the family who gave me several books on the founders.  I don't have a lot of Thomas Paine, but I got TONS on Jefferson.  I want the kid ready to function in this world of "moochers."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 7, 2012)

It's income tax time, let's all teach our kids how to doctor up a 1040, since we've got to be honest with them it's our duty.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2012)

Thomas Paines the  "The Rights of Man" and "Common Sense" Can be found on-line.  Very insightful pieces.  They have alot to do with the French Rev. but as it relates to America, the origin of rights, and the foundations of a just and righteous government.  A fellow member turned me on to it.  I can say I read it and felt that it was a more articulate presentation of the things I already knew.  100% in line with true liberal (true meaning of the word/not the misrepresentation it has today) philosophy.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 7, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's income tax time, let's all teach our kids how to doctor up a 1040, since we've got to be honest with them it's our duty.



The real lesson is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  One is good, and one gets you in jail.



TheBishop said:


> Thomas Paines the "The Rights of Man" and "Common Sense" Can be found on-line. Very insightful pieces. They have alot to do with the French Rev. but as it relates to America, the origin of rights, and the foundations of a just and righteous government. A fellow member turned me on to it. I can say I read it and felt that it was a more articulate presentation of the things I already knew. 100% in line with true liberal (true meaning of the word/not the misrepresentation it has today) philosophy.



I will look them up, thanks!  I know I have read common sense somewhere along the way.  But those guys were some of the greatest thinkers in history, IMHO.  I will make sure my boy reads them.  I know Jefferson and Paine would view God differently than I do, but that doesn't matter when it comes to governing philosophy.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I will look them up, thanks!  I know I have read common sense somewhere along the way.  But those guys were some of the greatest thinkers in history, IMHO.  I will make sure my boy reads them.  I know Jefferson and Paine would view God differently than I do, but that doesn't matter when it comes to governing philosophy.



Yeagh they were diests, with a more individualistic approach to belief.  Both held their religious views close to their hearts.  They understood the dangers of mixing religion and politics. Both however reference god and creator when citing a source for our life, and the granter of rights as a result thereof. Thomas Jefferson held jesus in great regard, as a moral, and virtueous, teacher.  He saw him not as a savior, but more as something we now view Jefferson.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Tennis! Tennis! Thats worse than soccer!  Who hits a ball and wants to to keep in play? I liked to pretend that the green fence of the tennis court was the green monster. Everybody would get mad when I would send one over, fling my racket, and  then trot around the court!
> 
> Baseball is the sport! The only thing that sucked about baseball was practice interfered with my sight fishin!



Bah.  it only counts as a home run if you use a Wiffle bat.



JB0704 said:


> I like tennis too, problem is that there is a lot of "protocol" and I tend to get a bit...well..."roudy" when I mess up.  I used to fling rackets and profanities far and wide when I attempted the sport for recreation.  Nobody want an obnoxiuos tennis partner.



I'm not allowed in ALTA for those same reasons.  You can cuss all you want at the courts we play at in the 'Hood.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where I went to school, if you weren't popular before you made the baseball team, you were afterwards. The baseball team was more popular than any other sport in the school, especially soccer.... I think we had a soccer team.



Dat's right.
I always liked baseball guys more than any other sports guys....
My bros played baseball and gave me an excuse to go...hehehe.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh they were diests, with a more individualistic approach to belief.  Both held their religious views close to their hearts.  They understood the dangers of mixing religion and politics. Both however reference god and creator when citing a source for our life, *and the granter of rights as a result thereof*. Thomas Jefferson held jesus in great regard, as a moral, and virtueous, teacher.  He saw him not as a savior, but more as something we now view Jefferson.



What reference do you use as the "granter of rights"? Do you just use an arbitrary granter?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are you just stating your opinion, or are you stating this as universal?



Whatever way makes you happiest.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Whatever way makes you happiest.





Would you like me to stop trying to have a conversation with you?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Would you like me to stop trying to have a conversation with you?



Not at all, you seem like a cool guy but you never want to go into the depth of hardcore subjects but instead want to nitpick whether or not a statement is opinion or universal.
For the record the statement was of my own opinion.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Not at all, you seem like a cool guy but you never want to go into the depth of hardcore subjects but instead want to nitpick whether or not a statement is opinion or universal.
> For the record the statement was of my own opinion.



Instead of going indepth about a "hardcore subject" I like to "head it off at the pass" and pick out the smuggled in assumptions that make the argument seem legit.

I can't do that in this particular instance because you stated that it was your opinion, so the assumptions don't really matter. That is where the original question came from.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Instead of going indepth about a "hardcore subject" I like to "head it off at the pass" and pick out the smuggled in assumptions that make the argument seem legit.
> 
> I can't do that in this particular instance because you stated that it was your opinion, so the assumptions don't really matter. That is where the original question came from.



What is your opinion on it?


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 7, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> This is the libel I speak of.  Besides when we talked about Santa were did I lie to my wife and kids? Your statement paints me as a malicious lyer to my wife and kids. You put it out there knowing that is not the truth.  You participated in that thread, and you know nothing of the sort took place. Stop pretending you are in the right here, you are not.
> 
> It's O.k. Ted I know your reaching.  I'm going to do the christian-like thing and forgive you. I guess I was wrong calling you out.  I didn't know you'd be so sensitive, and self righteous.  You are a believer, and I am an unbeleiver, therefore below you, unworthy of of discussing... how did you put it...
> 
> ...



Your powers of rationalization amaze me. You have also put quite a few words in my mouth, and many implied thoughts and feelings.

Your belief that I am wrong does not make it so. My belief that you are wrong does not make it so. The truth is out there somewhere.

It is laughable that you say I am so sensitive and self righteous. If the pot ever called the kettle black, you take the cake.

Forgive me of nothing, I have only stated my opinion and stuck to my beliefs.

I'll leave the last word for you if you would like.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 7, 2012)

Note to all:
Please back off making personal comments about and to each other on this thread.
No one wants to delete the thread or lock it but it could happen.
Discuss and/or debate the issues!

.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What is your opinion on it?



All I will say on the matter is what I would have done, and it is not what Bishop did.

I don't believe people of opposite faiths should be married.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> All I will say on the matter is what I would have done, and it is not what Bishop did.
> 
> I don't believe people of opposite faiths should be married.



So being in that situation you would not have attended for your family/children. ??

What happens when people are of the same faith when married and then one changes their mind regarding religion? Would you immediately divorce the person despite a wonderful marriage otherwise?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What happens when people are of the same faith when married and then one changes their mind regarding religion? Would you immediately divorce the person despite a wonderful marriage otherwise?



Happened in my first marriage.  But I didn't leave, she did.  I was willing to fulfill my promise regardless of how miserable my life was.   It was a disaster to start with, but not having a common basis made things difficult.  

It wasn't the seperation of beliefs that made the marriage fail, it just expedited the process.


----------



## WELLS8230 (Feb 8, 2012)

I disagree!


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 8, 2012)

WELLS8230 said:


> I disagree!



With what?  There are over 150 posts in this thread....


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Happened in my first marriage.  But I didn't leave, she did.  I was willing to fulfill my promise regardless of how miserable my life was.   It was a disaster to start with, but not having a common basis made things difficult.
> 
> It wasn't the seperation of beliefs that made the marriage fail, it just expedited the process.



That is understandable.
What I am asking string is if in every other way his marriage was as wonderful as can be yet his wife changed her mind on her beliefs, would he stick with her....
Just a yes or no answer is sufficient. No need for the "I would take her to counseling and talk to our pastor and try to make it work out that she changes her mind..." For this instance all that has been done, she is the love of your life in every other way except religious beliefs. Would you look her in the eyes and dump her because of the Bible and or Jesus?????


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So being in that situation you would not have attended for your family/children. ??


No, and they wouldn't have attended either, I am the man of my house. If my wife decides tomorrow that she is converting to Islam and wants to dedicate my son to Alah, it's not going to happen.



> What happens when people are of the same faith when married and then one changes their mind regarding religion?


Then they, as a couple, have a "long row to hoe".



> Would you immediately divorce the person despite a wonderful marriage otherwise?



No, but how in the world could there be a wonderful mariage otherwise?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> That is understandable.
> What I am asking string is if in every other way his marriage was as wonderful as can be yet his wife changed her mind on her beliefs, would he stick with her....
> Just a yes or no answer is sufficient. No need for the "I would take her to counseling and talk to our pastor and try to make it work out that she changes her mind..."


I find it hard to believe that a faithful Christian and a faithful Islamist can be "happily" married, if they care at all about their professed faith.



> For this instance all that has been done, she is the love of your life in every other way except religious beliefs. Would you look her in the eyes and dump her because of the Bible and or Jesus?????


She is not the love of my life if she doesn't have a relationship with Christ.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I find it hard to believe that a faithful Christian and a faithful Islamist can be "happily" married, if they care at all about their professed faith.
> 
> 
> She is not the love of my life if she doesn't have a relationship with Christ.



Extremes brother!! Your thinking extreme!

Over the course of a year your wife is questioning you about the Bible and Jesus just as is done on here. She has not jumped ship to another religion it is just that she is slowly falling away from the religion she currently believes in. She still believes in God but she is slowly going towards Deism. Your Gonna tell Her She Is Not The Love Of Your Life If She Does Not Have A Relationship With Christ??

I triple dogg dare you to tell her that today.
Look her in the eyes and say for all we've loved and all we've shared together as a couple and family I would dump you in a heartbeat if I ever found out you did not believe in Christ. That belief will be the least of your problems!!!!! If not immediately, then down the road. There is not a woman that wants her man to put anyone above her and out of principal will test your will there!!


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What happens when people are of the same faith when married and then one changes their mind regarding religion? Would you immediately divorce the person despite a wonderful marriage otherwise?


 
I would still see her as my one and only "earthly-woman-love" on this planet, but it would break my heart if she turned around on her beliefs. We share so much joy by communication what God is doing in our lives, what we learn from Him daily, sharing the ups and downs and how we reconcile the tuff roads ahead.  A marriage that shares faith is a gift beyond words.

My 2 pesos.  


1 Corinthians 7:12-16


 <SUP id=en-NASB-28500 class=versenum>*12*</SUP> But to the rest <SUP class=xref value='(A)'></SUP>I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not <SUP class=footnote value='[a]'></SUP>divorce her. 
<SUP id=en-NASB-28501 class=versenum>*13*</SUP> And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not <SUP class=footnote value='[b]'></SUP>send her husband away. <SUP id=en-NASB-28502 class=versenum>*14*</SUP> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through <SUP class=footnote value='[c]'></SUP>her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are <SUP class=xref value='(B)'></SUP>holy. 
<SUP id=en-NASB-28503 class=versenum>*15*</SUP> Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such _cases_, but God has called <SUP class=footnote value='[d]'></SUP>us <SUP class=footnote value='[e]'></SUP><SUP class=xref value='(C)'></SUP>to peace. 
<SUP id=en-NASB-28504 class=versenum>*16*</SUP> For how do you know, O wife, whether you will <SUP class=xref value='(D)'></SUP>save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Extremes brother!! Your thinking extreme!
> 
> Over the course of a year your wife is questioning you about the Bible and Jesus just as is done on here. She has not jumped ship to another religion it is just that she is slowly falling away from the religion she currently believes in. She still believes in God but she is slowly going towards Deism. Your Gonna tell Her She Is Not The Love Of Your Life If She Does Not Have A Relationship With Christ??


Yep, part of the reason she is the love of my life is because of her relationship with Christ, and our relationship with Christ as a married couple.



> I triple dogg dare you to tell her that today.
> Look her in the eyes and say for all we've loved and all we've shared together as a couple and family I would dump you in a heartbeat if I ever found out you did not believe in Christ.


I never said I would divorce her.



> That belief will be the least of your problems!!!!! If not immediately, then down the road. *There is not a woman that wants her man to put anyone above her *and out of principal will test your will there!!



I promise you my wife knows that I put Christ and my relationship with Him before ANYTHING, that doesnt mean that I am a bad husband to her, she does the same thing. 

It makes our marriage all the more better, if I know that we are both seeking Christ first, before anything, that our marriage will last.

As a matter of fact, if you could ask her, she would tell you that she loves the fact I put Christ before her, she knows she will be loved and taken care of under those circumstances.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> With what?  There are over 150 posts in this thread....


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2012)

I know a hundred or so married couples that one or the other attends church, but the other doesn't.
I'm glad for the Christian who is strong enough to be faithful to the Lord irregardless of their mates faithfulness.
I'm also thankful for the husband and wife who are at least good enough to not stand in the way of the one who wants to attend church and be faithful.

It isn't good for a believer to be married to an unbeliever, but sometimes thats just the way it is.
Often, the unbeliever will come to trust the Lord through their believing spouse.

I now a couple, husband is Methodist, wife is something else.  They attend different churches on the Lord's day.  Weird but it works for them.  I don't know if it would for me.  I kinda need to be with my family on that day.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I promise you my wife knows that I put Christ and my relationship with Him before ANYTHING, that doesnt mean that I am a bad husband to her, she does the same thing.
> 
> It makes our marriage all the more better, if I know that we are both seeking Christ first, before anything, that our marriage will last.
> 
> As a matter of fact, if you could ask her, she would tell you that she loves the fact I put Christ before her, she knows she will be loved and taken care of under those circumstances.


 
Ditto and amen!, and not too calmly said


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Ditto and amen!, and not too calmly said



Add my ditto and amen.
It's to my wife, and my, advantage that we each put Christ ahead of the other.  It makes life sweeter.''



.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I find it hard to believe that a faithful Christian and a faithful Islamist can be "happily" married, if they care at all about their professed faith.
> 
> 
> She is not the love of my life if she doesn't have a relationship with Christ.



There is a wide range of types of Christians and Muslims.  Most of them are not fundamentalists.  We just happen to live in a geographic area, posting on an esoteric website that seems to draw fundamentalists.  Most normal people view their particular religion as a cultural thing, like the weird clothes that they wear or the food they eat.  It's the traditionalists who insist on "standing behind their guns" on religion that can't fathom getting along with someone different.  It's very sad to an objective observer. 



JB0704 said:


> Happened in my first marriage.  But I didn't leave, she did.  I was willing to fulfill my promise regardless of how miserable my life was.   It was a disaster to start with, but not having a common basis made things difficult.
> 
> It wasn't the seperation of beliefs that made the marriage fail, it just expedited the process.



I loved this sweet little blonde girl from Birmingham.  But she and her family were SBC fundamentalists (though I guess she wasn't too fundamentalist since we lived together for a couple of years). I could just see the fireworks coming.  No child of mine is going to Bible study.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> There is a wide range of types of Christians and Muslims.  Most of them are not fundamentalists.  We just happen to live in a geographic area, posting on an esoteric website that seems to draw fundamentalists.  Most normal people view their particular religion as a cultural thing, like the weird clothes that they wear or the food they eat.  It's the traditionalists who insist on "standing behind their guns" on religion that can't fathom getting along with someone different.  It's very sad to an objective observer.
> 
> I loved this sweet little blonde girl from Birmingham.  But she and her family were SBC fundamentalists (though I guess she wasn't too fundamentalist since we lived together for a couple of years). I could just see the fireworks coming. * No child of mine is going to Bible study*.





Seems also to be the trend of atheists.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> There is a wide range of types of Christians and Muslims.  Most of them are not fundamentalists.


I believe in what I believe in, and I don't take it lightly. I believe in gravity as well, I watch my step in high places.

"It's ok if you "believe" that hogwash as long as you really know that it aint true"- universalist atheist.



> Most normal people view their particular religion as a cultural thing, like the weird clothes that they wear or the food they eat.


That is absolutely absurd. See above.




> It's the traditionalists who insist on "standing behind their guns" on religion that can't fathom getting along with someone different.  It's very sad to an objective observer.


I never said that I couldn't get along with someone of a different faith, doesn't bother me one bit. I simply stated I wouldn't want to marry a person of a different faith, to many conflicting principals.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 8, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I could just see the fireworks coming.  No child of mine is going to Bible study.



Yep, Ambush, we all have hills to die for.

My ex began to hold everything the church ever did against me, even when it was stuff I was adamantly opposed to.  I am a relatively "liberal" Christian, but the fact that I even called myself a Christian became a reason for argument.

But, the marriage was doomed from the beginning, really.  Truthfully, I came home one day and all her stuff was gone, she said I could have the kid.  So, I did what all good Chrsitians would have done, I got on the phone, rounded up all my friends, and threw one heck of a party that night!!!


----------



## applejuice (Feb 8, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Most normal people view their particular religion as a cultural thing, like the weird clothes that they wear or the food they eat.  .




x2

Where you are raised and your parents religious affiliation decide what religion you are, usually.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2012)

applejuice said:


> x2
> 
> Where you are raised and your parents religious affiliation decide what religion you are, usually.



It is up the particular person to do their due diligence in finding out what they consider to be truth.


----------



## applejuice (Feb 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It is up the particular person to do their due diligence in finding out what they consider to be truth.



Yes sir

The only life you can control on this planet is your own, you choose your own path.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2012)

applejuice said:


> x2
> 
> Where you are raised and your parents religious affiliation decide what religion you are, usually.



Or just the opposite.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Seems also to be the trend of atheists.



She can study the Bible.  I will encourage her to read it, along with the Koran and the Bhagavadgītā.  Just like Daddy done. It's the atmosphere of a Bible study that I don't want her to be exposed to.  She will probably go to one when I tell her that they are denizens of cultism; just to spite me.  I hope by that time she will have realized how similar all of the religious texts she has read are to _Grimm's Faerie Tales_.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I believe in what I believe in, and I don't take it lightly. I believe in gravity as well, I watch my step in high places.
> 
> "It's ok if you "believe" that hogwash as long as you really know that it aint true"- universalist atheist.
> 
> ...



Sorry to tell you but you're in the minority, my friend.  I know it doesn't feel like it here in Woody Land, GA.  I suggest you limit your travel to rural areas and places with a generally low education level.  They really dig religion in those places; everywhere in the world.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It is up the particular person to do their due diligence in finding out what they consider to be truth.



If my evidence ever becomes: "I've witnessed unexplained miracles or I heard him talk to me or I just felt it in my heart." I will be seeing my psychiatrist friend thereafter.


----------



## Asath (Feb 8, 2012)

‘Why I am the way I am.’

Well, Bishop, did those 178 posts of utter argumentative nonsense help change your mind?  Or did they do what they did for my own mind  – cause me to redouble my contributions to any and all organizations striving to keep religious agendas out of the legislature and especially out of our schools.

I just read the entire thread, from start to finish in one sitting.  WOW!

This thread needs to be preserved in an archive someplace, to use as a case study in closed-minded bigotry and the politics of self-important mass hysteria.  Right here we see a microcosm of everything that is wrong in religious thought, and I thank you for allowing it to go on as long as it has.

It has been very enlightening.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> This thread needs to be preserved in an archive someplace, to use as a case study in closed-minded bigotry and the politics of self-important mass hysteria.  Right here we see a microcosm of everything that is wrong in religious thought, and I thank you for allowing it to go on as long as it has.



I must not have read that far into it.  Maybe my puddle isn't quite as deep as yours.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I must not have read that far into it.  Maybe my puddle isn't quite as deep as yours.



.. or, he read exactly what he wanted to read in this thread... surprising.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If my evidence ever becomes: "I've witnessed unexplained miracles or I heard him talk to me or I just felt it in my heart." I will be seeing my psychiatrist friend thereafter.



You don't need evidence, you don't believe in anything. Atheist get to make abitrary rules whenever they see fit.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> She can study the Bible.  I will encourage her to read it, along with the Koran and the Bhagavadgītā.  Just like Daddy done. It's the atmosphere of a Bible study that I don't want her to be exposed to.  She will probably go to one when I tell her that they are denizens of cultism; just to spite me.  I hope by that time she will have realized how similar all of the religious texts she has read are to _Grimm's Faerie Tales_.



This is very sad to an "objective observer".


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You don't need evidence, you don't believe in anything. Atheist get to make abitrary rules whenever they see fit.



You like to say that alot string but it could not be further from the truth. Just becuase someone does not beleive in a god, or your god, does not make their everyday life whimsical.   They do have beliefs, morals, ethics, and standards, and rules.  They do not dwell in chaos as you beleive.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> This is very sad to an "objective observer".



No its not.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You like to say that alot string but it could not be further from the truth. Just becuase someone does not beleive in a god, or your god, does not make their everyday life whimsical.  * They do have beliefs, morals, ethics, and standards, and rules.  *They do not dwell in chaos as you beleive.



All completely arbitrary. With no reference to moral framework, and feet firmly planted in mid air.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> All completely arbitrary.
> With no reference to moral framework, and feet firmly planted in mid air.



Almost everythings arbitrary, including christianity, How many different sects,  beliefs, interpretations, are there string? Your moral superiority is delusional.  Were there no moral men before the bible? What about cultures that have little or no interaction with religion, do they have no morality? Morality itself is arbitrary, even within similiar religious beliefs.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What is the price of this freedom?
> In the end, according to your beliefs, what is the price for being allowed to choose your religion or no religion at all with all else being the same?
> Two men, both Live a good life, caring, family man, faithful, honest, trustworthy, etc etc. One BY CHOICE believes in Jesus one By CHOICE does not. What is the price of that choice in your religion?



Your premise is false, right out of the gate. Neither man is good from God's perspective. Both are initially motivated by self-serving desires. Their behavior does not accurately make apparent the condition of their hearts. It is universal that man will try to conceal his wickedness to gain favor among other men and personal advantage. It is only when the one surrenders his will to become a follower of Christ, that he takes on goodness, the goodness of Christ, His righteousness. His motive for doing "good" is to help others and be pleasing to God.



bullethead said:


> Not talking about faith here at all. I'm talking about the commands/rules that go along with the religion in order to spread the word to people that are free from it.
> 
> Basically I am "free" to choose whatever I like, but if I choose wrong I will pay for it.



I can only reason that you do not believe in consequences. 

One person stops at the stop sign and then proceeds, thinking he is not observed, yet he is on video (or he doesn't see the LEO watching him). No legal infraction,... no consequences. He goes about his business unmolested because he has obeyed the law, the one of which he was fully aware. 

The second person thinks he is also unobserved, yet he rolls through without coming to a complete stop. Video shows (or the LEO was watching, but was himself not observed) a legal infraction. A citation is issued and the court collects a fine... an unpleasant consequence. He was also fully aware of the law, but he was in a hurry and thought he could get by without obeying.

Given that you at one time knew God's rules, how is it that you have such a problem with understanding the consequences that you have earned for yourself by disobeying?


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 9, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Almost everythings arbitrary, including christianity, How many different sects,  beliefs, interpretations, are there string? Your moral superiority is delusional.  Were there no moral men before the bible? What about cultures that have little or no interaction with religion, do they have no morality? Morality itself is arbitrary, even within similiar religious beliefs.



So, where does morality come from?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Your premise is false, right out of the gate. Neither man is good from God's perspective. Both are initially motivated by self-serving desires. Their behavior does not accurately make apparent the condition of their hearts. It is universal that man will try to conceal his wickedness to gain favor among other men and personal advantage. It is only when the one surrenders his will to become a follower of Christ, that he takes on goodness, the goodness of Christ, His righteousness. His motive for doing "good" is to help others and be pleasing to God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I fully understand and accept consequences.
LEO's are real.
Once I realized those were not God's rules but man's rules it was easy to not worry about the eternal consequences.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 10, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> So, where does morality come from?



Like everything else mankind made it up. Morallity is one of those things that has not been very consistent over time, cultures, regions, religions, ect... They keep changing as mankind progresses. Refined, is the word I like to use.  The only morals that have ever been consistent are the one that are most beneficial to mankinds survival.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Like everything else mankind made it up. Morallity is one of those things that has not been very consistent over time, cultures, regions, religions, ect... They keep changing as mankind progresses. Refined, is the word I like to use.  The only morals that have ever been consistent are the one that are most beneficial to mankinds survival.



I read somewhere that the only, single taboo that is shared by ALL cultures is brother and sister incest.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 10, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I read somewhere that the only, single taboo that is shared by ALL cultures is brother and sister incest.



I don't think thats true in Alabama, parts of tenn, Ky, and WV.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I don't think thats true in Alabama, parts of tenn, Ky, and WV.



Exceptions noted.  

Even in those places I still think you try not to get caught.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Like everything else mankind made it up. Morallity is one of those things that has not been very consistent over time, cultures, regions, religions, ect... They keep changing as mankind progresses. Refined, is the word I like to use.  The only morals that have ever been consistent are the one that are most beneficial to mankinds survival.



So morals are socially amd culturally driven. I think that can be true of "social morals". In Japan it is a terrible thing to leave your chopsticks stuck in a bowl of rice.

I guess to be more precise, I wonder if you believe in "absolute truth", "right and wrong", something that does not bend to the survival benefit of the parties involved, no matter what the source may be.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Like everything else mankind made it up. Morallity is one of those things that has not been very consistent over time, cultures, regions, religions, ect... They keep changing as mankind progresses. Refined, is the word I like to use.  The only morals that have ever been consistent are the one that are most beneficial to mankinds survival.



This statement confuses me. Did we make up volcanoes? How about the duck billed platypus? We made it up? You did say "everything".


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 10, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> This statement confuses me. Did we make up volcanoes? How about the duck billed platypus? We made it up? You did say "everything".



Take things literal much?


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 10, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Take things literal much?



Got to around here. Half the time the poster doesn't know what they are posting.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Take things literal much?



Everything but what is in the Bible it seems.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Everything but what is in the Bible it seems.



Doh, you got me! Good one BH!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Doh, you got me! Good one BH!



I'm not picking on anyone in particular. The Bible is described as being the literal & predestined word of God yet when it comes down to scripture showing how literal it is, the defenders say it is not. S-W-O-R-D means sword unless it means sword in a negative way then it means something else. It is too easy to pick and choose instead of taking it for what it really is.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm not picking on anyone in particular. The Bible is described as being the literal & predestined word of God yet when it comes down to scripture showing how literal it is, the defenders say it is not. S-W-O-R-D means sword unless it means sword in a negative way then it means something else. It is too easy to pick and choose instead of taking it for what it really is.



The bible is referred to as a sword, in the bible.

You know what is worse than you picking on me? When someone else picks on me and your reply is "Yeah! Good one!" That is really lame.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> The bible is referred to as a sword, in the bible.
> 
> You know what is worse than you picking on me? When someone else picks on me and your reply is "Yeah! Good one!" That is really lame.



I doubt Jesus told anyone to sell their robes and buy a Bible.
Lame is a metaphor for Cool in our younger generation's lingo so..............Thanks??


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> The bible is referred to as a sword, in the bible.



Like with you on Bishop, is it easier to point out the one word or statement where a technicality(yes, bible is referred to as sword)(and Bishop said "everything") makes a point and overlook the other instances where the actual point is valid(where sword ACTUALLY means sword)?
It is almost like a bait and switch to draw away the attention of the real point at hand.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I doubt Jesus told anyone to sell their robes and buy a Bible.



Yes, he told them to buy swords, until they said they already had a few, then he said "that's enough."

But, he also used sword as a metaphor in a few situations, I gave you verses later in the NT where the metaphor is laid out very specifically for all to understand.




bullethead said:


> Lame is a metaphor for Cool in our younger generation's lingo so..............Thanks??



I did not know that.  I use lame as lame....learned something.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I doubt Jesus told anyone to sell their robes and buy a Bible.
> Lame is a metaphor for Cool in our younger generation's lingo so..............Thanks??



Lamer still. Your arguements have turned to pointless jabs. If you choose to discuss, then I will. I have no interest in entertaining your dribble.


----------



## Asath (Feb 11, 2012)

“Atheist get to make abitrary rules whenever they see fit.”

Excuse me?  Let us begin again – Several thousand years ago, a whole bunch of superstitious folks, ignorant of everything from cosmology to geography to meteorology to chemistry to physics to basic math, decided to write a Book to tell the entire human race just what was what, in their wholly enlightened opinion.

Several thousand years later, the arbitrary assumptions they made and wrote down, unenlightened by a single actual fact, are still being followed and defended as though the Book they wrote was actually a work of non-fiction.

Now, who, exactly, made arbitrary rules, and when did they do so?  

And who, exactly, is still trying to defend those?

Be serious.  

“So, where does morality come from? “

Certainly not from the ancient superstitious control freaks who wrote this Book.  If the position taken is that morality did not exist prior to having been written down and codified into a set of laws, then it is simple to demonstrate written law that far predates this Book.  Further, a large part of this Book is a chronicle of vindictiveness, revenge, hatred, bias, and violence.  The ‘morality’ needs to be carefully cherry-picked out of the ‘context’ of scorn and favoritism.  

If you choose to ‘discuss,’ then do so.  What is the ‘lesson’ one is supposed to learn from stories of the ultimate revenge of God against those who fail to believe in the stories told on his behalf?  Stalin told such stories about himself, and actually delivered, in the here and now.  This Book portrays God as a totalitarian, jealous, paranoid egomaniac who will have His way or destroy any and all that dare to oppose Him.  THAT is what it says, time and again, throughout the writings.  There is no backing away from that fact, unless you failed to read the Book.

So, for those of us who see it simply as a book of myths and parables, some of which are useful, many of which are not, and many more of which are just plain silly, what exactly causes an apparently intelligent person to wish to swallow the entire thing whole, and defend it to the death?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Lamer still. Your arguements have turned to pointless jabs. If you choose to discuss, then I will. I have no interest in entertaining your dribble.



In the case I am referring to sword means sword, as in draw it from a sheath and stick someone through the ribs, sword. Both you and JB are tiptoeing around the fact that in that verse of Luke it means nothing but sword. It does not mean "truth", it does not mean "Bible", it does not matter if Jesus later tells them "that's enough". "That's enough Truth or Bible"??? In the context and without any metaphor it means sword as the word sword=weapon. Plain and simple.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> This statement confuses me. Did we make up volcanoes? How about the duck billed platypus? We made it up? You did say "everything".



I guess I should have been more specific.  I didn't realize something so simple would confuse you.  I guess I should have known better.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Both you and JB are tiptoeing around the fact that in that verse of Luke it means nothing but sword.





I have agreed with you twice that sword meant sword in the Luke reference (#205 in this thread, and another time in the Bible verse thread).  Just not the Mathew reference.  That's not tip toeing.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I have agreed with you twice that sword meant sword in the Luke reference (#205 in this thread, and another time in the Bible verse thread).  Just not the Mathew reference.  That's not tip toeing.



And what does that verse mean then? Is it talks of peace and love or Jesus rallying the troops?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And what does that verse mean then? Is it talks of peace and love or Jesus rallying the troops?



Again, if you read the entire chapter, they point out that there are already two swords.  He says that is enough. Then, when the swords were used for aggression, he stopped it.  It appears to me as if it was a self defense measure for the disciples, not him because he did not resist the arrest with their two swords.

Let me ask you, if you were rallying the troops to overthrow the gov't, would you say two swords was enough, particularly when you had twelve men?  That means at least ten were unarmed.  

It is not a metaphor there, but the "rallying the troops" explanation doesn't make sense either.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Again, if you read the entire chapter, they point out that there are already two swords.  He says that is enough. Then, when the swords were used for aggression, he stopped it.  It appears to me as if it was a self defense measure for the disciples, not him because he did not resist the arrest with their two swords.
> 
> Let me ask you, if you were rallying the troops to overthrow the gov't, would you say two swords was enough, particularly when you had twelve men?  That means at least ten were unarmed.
> 
> It is not a metaphor there, but the "rallying the troops" explanation doesn't make sense either.



He instructs the ones that do not have a sword to sell some things and go out an buy one, then he says two are enough but don't use them. He wasn't going to overthrow anyone even if all 12 were armed. He throws in random commands with no point to them at all. The writers either did a bad job of portraying him, or entire sentences were edited out, or Jesus(if everything is as written) was nuts to throw random commands and then negate them when followed.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> In the case I am referring to sword means sword, as in draw it from a sheath and stick someone through the ribs, sword. Both you and JB are tiptoeing around the fact that in that verse of Luke it means nothing but sword. It does not mean "truth", it does not mean "Bible", it does not matter if Jesus later tells them "that's enough". "That's enough Truth or Bible"??? In the context and without any metaphor it means sword as the word sword=weapon. Plain and simple.



Agreed, he really meant sword in the Luke verse. Are Christians not allowed to have weapons?


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I guess I should have been more specific.  I didn't realize something so simple would confuse you.  I guess I should have known better.



You wrote it. Just trying to point out how your posts come off sometimes.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Agreed, he really meant sword in the Luke verse. Are Christians not allowed to have weapons?



They sure are. But those guys were not really Christians(not that it matters in this case) and when we are talking about the Prince of peace we get some conflicting stories.
I don't know what to think about Revelations....yielding a sword from his mouth this time!


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> You wrote it. Just trying to point out how your posts come off sometimes.



but of all the people that have read this thread you are the only one to be confused by it ...Mr literal...that sould be your new name on here.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 12, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Atheist get to make abitrary rules whenever they see fit.”
> 
> Excuse me?  Let us begin again – Several thousand years ago, a whole bunch of superstitious folks, ignorant of everything from cosmology to geography to meteorology to chemistry to physics to basic math, decided to write a Book to tell the entire human race just what was what, in their wholly enlightened opinion.



So atheist do get to make arbitrary rules whenever they see fit? Because you didn't debunk that statement one bit. All you did was give your opinion on why you think the prophets who wrote the bible are superstitious.



> Several thousand years later, the arbitrary assumptions they made and wrote down, *unenlightened by a single actual fact*, are still being followed and defended as though the Book they wrote was actually a work of non-fiction.


Really? Not one fact? Your creditbility is on a sharp downhill turn.





> “So, where does morality come from? “
> 
> Certainly not from the ancient superstitious control freaks who wrote this Book.  If the position taken is that morality did not exist prior to having been written down and codified into a set of laws, then it is simple to demonstrate written law that far predates this Book.  Further, a large part of this Book is a chronicle of vindictiveness, revenge, hatred, bias, and violence.  The ‘morality’ needs to be carefully cherry-picked out of the ‘context’ of scorn and favoritism.
> 
> ...



So much better smelling rotten eggs than actually laying good ones.

You didn't answer the question in the slightest.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 13, 2012)

Here ya go string I think you missed this post:




> Almost everythings arbitrary, including christianity, How many different sects, beliefs, interpretations, are there string? Your moral superiority is delusional. Were there no moral men before the bible? What about cultures that have little or no interaction with religion, do they have no morality? Morality itself is arbitrary, even within similiar religious beliefs.




Care to address the issues in red?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Here ya go string I think you missed this post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Morality is arbitrary, if you have no reference point on which to differentiate between good and evil, the boat in which an atheist sets sail in.

And yes, there were moral men before the bible, when did I ever make a claim to the contrary?

Would you like for me to dig up some of the unanswered questions I had for you in threads?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Here ya go string I think you missed this post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If someone breaks into your house and tortures your family, are you going to chalk it up to arbitrary morality?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 13, 2012)

from urban dictionary....lame means what it has always meant, lame or uncool.



lame   1. A person, thing, or group that is not cool, tending to be unoriginal. Often marked by the fact that it is out of touch with current trends.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> from urban dictionary....lame means what it has always meant, lame or uncool.
> 
> 
> 
> lame   1. A person, thing, or group that is not cool, tending to be unoriginal. Often marked by the fact that it is out of touch with current trends.



Apparently the kids around here didn't read the Urban Dictionary and are possibly trend setters.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Morality is arbitrary, if you have no reference point on which to differentiate between good and evil, the boat in which an atheist sets sail in.
> Wrong.  I do not need a bible as a moral compass. Again there are common sense ideals that promote a safe and orderly society that a person with reasonable sense can draw upon.
> And yes, there were moral men before the bible, when did I ever make a claim to the contrary?
> By suggesting that those who are not religious have no reference for morality.
> Would you like for me to dig up some of the unanswered questions I had for you in threads?



If you feel the need I will address any previous question you would like answered.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If someone breaks into your house and tortures your family, are you going to chalk it up to arbitrary morality?



 

Have the morals of christianity been completely consistent throughout history?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Apparently the kids around here didn't read the Urban Dictionary and are possibly trend setters.



The kids around here, say lame...which includes my 2 granddaughters 9 and 11....and when they say lame they are talking about something that's uncool or not good enough, or crummy. They didn't read the urban dictionary either, but guess they're just smart enough to know what they are talking about.

I'd be interested though in finding somewhere that lame means cool....know of a place? except for PA I mean...
Just give me one place where lame means cool....I've searched and I cannot find a single one.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Have the morals of christianity been completely consistent throughout history?



Have the morals of any man been completely consistent throughout history?

That answer would be no on both accounts. So what's the point?

Good morals won't get you into heaven. Besides no one has totally perfect morals, no one, except for Christ.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Wrong. I do not need a bible as a moral compass.


I never said you did, you keep going on about it and implying that I'm saying it, but I'm not. You need a reference to morality, a way to diferentiate between good and evil.




> Again there are common sense ideals that promote a safe and orderly society that a person with reasonable sense can draw upon.


What if I don't need your common sense ideals, what if I don't like a safe and orderly society? How do you tell me I'm wrong, what guide do we go by?




> By suggesting that those who are not religious have* no reference for morality*.


Give me one.



> If you feel the need I will address any previous question you would like answered.



I don't want to dig'em up.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Have the morals of christianity been completely consistent throughout history?



I know you have a better answer to the question I asked.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> The kids around here, say lame...which includes my 2 granddaughters 9 and 11....and when they say lame they are talking about something that's uncool or not good enough, or crummy. They didn't read the urban dictionary either, but guess they're just smart enough to know what they are talking about.
> 
> I'd be interested though in finding somewhere that lame means cool....know of a place? except for PA I mean...
> Just give me one place where lame means cool....I've searched and I cannot find a single one.



Are you seriously hanging on the meaning of the word "lame" and who/how/where it is used? I don't know what they say in your area, or out in Compton Calif, or up in Anchorage Alaska........personally I really don't care either. Whatever big city lingo that makes it's way into our area from Philadelphia, or latest rap album is what it is.

ALL I can relate to kids using the word is I hear it occasionally used by kids in my town. Whether sarcastically or like Michael Jackson uses the word "bad" for good, I have heard the younger generation say things like " You should see the Lame car tom's mom bought" and it turns out to be a 2012 Camaro. Or, "where did you get that lame shirt?" and the next thing every teenager on the block is wearing one. Bad for good, lame for cool, busted for fixed up. fly,fresh,dope,whip,snap,....i have no control over and I am certainly not going to waste my time trying to figure out who coined the phrase or where else it is used in the world. 

Lame Whip=Nice Car....how,who,why,when I don't know and I don't care. But I guarantee if I deleted the word and the 2 posts between Ted and I had about it, the thread would not change a bit so what is your point?????????????


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Are you seriously hanging on the meaning of the word "lame" and who/how/where it is used? I don't know what they say in your area, or out in Compton Calif, or up in Anchorage Alaska........personally I really don't care either. Whatever big city lingo that makes it's way into our area from Philadelphia, or latest rap album is what it is.
> 
> ALL I can relate to kids using the word is I hear it occasionally used by kids in my town. Whether sarcastically or like Michael Jackson uses the word "bad" for good, I have heard the younger generation say things like " You should see the Lame car tom's mom bought" and it turns out to be a 2012 Camaro. Or, "where did you get that lame shirt?" and the next thing every teenager on the block is wearing one. Bad for good, lame for cool, busted for fixed up. fly,fresh,dope,whip,snap,....i have no control over and I am certainly not going to waste my time trying to figure out who coined the phrase or where else it is used in the world.
> 
> Lame Whip=Nice Car....how,who,why,when I don't know and I don't care. But I guarantee if I deleted the word and the 2 posts between Ted and I had about it, the thread would not change a bit so what is your point?????????????



I don't have a point any more than your post about what lame meant in the first place. You can respond about lame but I can't?.....alrighty then....doesn't surprise me you'd feel that way, though.  So there was time between posts, so what? I don't sit here waiting for you to post, I'll post when I want to and you can do the same....would that be fair?  Thanks in advance for your permission to post whenever I want to, and respond to anything, especially something someone else brought up in the first place.

Uh oh....you let 2 posts go by before you responded to me....whoooopppps up jumped the boogie.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I don't have a point any more than your post about what lame meant in the first place. You can respond about lame but I can't?.....alrighty then....doesn't surprise me you'd feel that way, though.  So there was time between posts, so what? I don't sit here waiting for you to post, I'll post when I want to and you can do the same....would that be fair?  Thanks in advance for your permission to post whenever I want to, and respond to anything, especially something someone else brought up in the first place.
> 
> Uh oh....you let 2 posts go by before you responded to me....whoooopppps up jumped the boogie.




Do you realize you are arguing with yourself?


----------



## Asath (Feb 13, 2012)

“ . . . if you have no reference point on which to differentiate between good and evil, the boat in which an atheist sets sail in.”

Well, I don’t really remember ‘setting sail’ in any particular metaphorical boat at all, but still, if the claim is that Christians are the ones who possess this moral ‘reference point,’ and that one true reference point is their Book, then you’ve got a whole lot of work to do . . . 

First, you’d perhaps be kind enough to allow us to point out those parts of the Book which may have reflected some sort of ancient societal norm which has evolved over the centuries and is no longer considered to be particularly ‘moral.’  That would be most of the Book.  It has been pointed out time and again that the ‘morals’ of the society that existed when this work was written were considerably different than our own.  Finding a few bits in a work of just over five hundred pages that still make sense is hardly evidence of the Divine – it just means that a few thoughts haven’t changed.  Most, however, as written, HAVE changed.  

If only a single one had changed it would still invalidate the work as the ‘basis of morality,’ which one can then reliable refer back to in order to distinguish ‘between good and evil.’  The fact that MOST of it has changed, even among ‘believers,’ is going to be one rough road to justify and weasel out of in order to maintain the posture that morality is uniquely Biblical in origin. We’ll be happy to wait, while that rebuttal is formulated . . . 

The actual truth is much more prosaic – ‘morality,’ far from being some sort of monolithic, unchanging and unchangeable fact, is nothing more than a reflection of a society’s currently accepted norms and standards.  This much isn’t even ‘universal’ within our own country, let alone world-wide.  There are still parts of this country (and, world-wide, entire countries) where alcohol is still banned.  In places, polygamy is the norm, in others it is outlawed.  Heck, in some places women are still stoned to death for adultery, and child brides are the norm.  

So when one speaks of ‘morality,’ in the face of the actual fact that such a concept is by no means static, what exactly are you talking about?  Your own morality?  Mine?  That of the Bible (which, if followed strictly would have any such adherent jailed immediately in most civilized countries)?  The morality of revenge-based retaliation, or the morality of oppression?  The morality of New York, or of Utah, or of Saudi Arabia?  The morality of ca. 1,000 BC or the morality of 2012 AD?      

One cannot, in a serious discussion, start tossing about abstract terms like ‘morality’ as though such a concept exists as a settled, inarguable fact.  It does not, and that much is so clear that the only way to revive the ‘Biblical Basis’ argument is by leaving nearly all of the Book out of the discussion.

You seem to have been taught that non-believers in your own dogmas are by nature evil, lacking, as they do, the solid grounding in the difference between good and evil, that only adherents seem to think they’ve learned.

But what of us non-believers who observe, quite rationally and with a thousand or more pages of atrocities committed in the names of various gods over the centuries in our possession, that the greater of all evils that have ever visited our societies over the years has been the mere existence of dogmatic and militant believers in, and justifiers of, the unknown?   Is it immoral of us to notice that religion-based ‘morality’ has been nothing more, over the years, than an excuse for excesses, totalitarian oppression, persecution of ‘Enemies of The Faith,’ and the gathering of obscene wealth at the expense of those who have been terrorized?  And is it immoral of us to notice that this approach to ‘Faith’ continues to this day?

Count me as firmly immoral, if that is the case . . . 

A true morality, one that actually believes in the ‘truths we hold self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ would have no choice but to reject any claim by any religion that their own particular belief in their own particular supernatural entity places them in a position to make law for everyone else to follow or be punished by.  Logically, any claim of religious primacy by anyone at all is immoral simply by being asserted, and refutes itself by attempting to remove the very ‘free-will’ that even the peaceful adherents claim is our right.  

You have the God-given gift of free-will, it is asserted, but if one uses it to choose something other than what the adherents command, you will then burn in a lake of fire for all eternity . . . Well, not really, because the more militant among y’all have not even been content to wait for that, and still keep going ahead and burning ‘heretics’ in the here and now.   

Not only is religion NOT the basis of morality, it has proven itself to be the enemy of morality so many times and in so many ways that it is absurd for any thinking person to make any such assertion.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Do you realize you are arguing with yourself?



Alrighty then....you started it about the lame crapola...
So i'm arguing with you...heeeellllooooo out there.

I used to be able to carry on a side debate/conversation with you but guess I'm out of the loop now....


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2012)

Asath said:


> “ . . . if you have no reference point on which to differentiate between good and evil, the boat in which an atheist sets sail in.”
> 
> Well, I don’t really remember ‘setting sail’ in any particular metaphorical boat at all, but still, *if the claim is that Christians are the ones who possess this moral ‘reference point,’ and that one true reference point is their Book,* then you’ve got a whole lot of work to do . . .


Morality does not come from the bible! It comes from our creator. The one true reference point is not "our book". Every atheist I have this discussion with in here goes straight towards the bible, that's not the argument.



> The actual truth is much more prosaic – ‘morality,’ far from being some sort of monolithic, unchanging and unchangeable fact, is nothing more than a reflection of a society’s currently accepted norms and standards.


So, you do not believe in objective morality? I'll ask you the same question I asked Bishop, if someone breaks into your house and tortures your family, how do you tell that person they are wrong for that? Because everyone agrees that it's wrong? Does that REALLY make it wrong?



> So when one speaks of ‘morality,’ in the face of the actual fact that such a concept is by no means static, what exactly are you talking about?  Your own morality?  Mine?  That of the Bible (which, if followed strictly would have any such adherent jailed immediately in most civilized countries)?  The morality of revenge-based retaliation, or the morality of oppression?  The morality of New York, or of Utah, or of Saudi Arabia?  The morality of ca. 1,000 BC or the morality of 2012 AD?


Objective morality.      




> You seem to have been taught that non-believers in your own dogmas are by nature evil, lacking, as they do, the solid grounding in the difference between good and evil, that only adherents seem to think they’ve learned.


No more evil and self serving than myself, by nature. I have never indicated that morality cannot be had by atheists and Christians alike, only the atheists morals are arbitrary, and make no mistake, atheistic morals are arbitrary, and no one in this thread has proved otherwise.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Morality does not come from the bible! It comes from our creator. The one true reference point is not "our book". Every atheist I have this discussion with in here goes straight towards the bible, that's not the argument.
> So where then string to you get your refence for morality? The creator? What did it say, and where did it say it? If not the bible where? So whats the arguement? If we do not believe in a creator we have no reference in morality? Say I beleive in a creator but not the bible what then? What do I reference to find what this creator would have me believe is moral?
> 
> So, you do not believe in objective morality? I'll ask you the same question I asked Bishop, if someone breaks into your house and tortures your family, how do you tell that person they are wrong for that? Because everyone agrees that it's wrong? Does that REALLY make it wrong?
> ...



Christians morality is also arbitrary, it has been for centruries.  You must have not read Asath post becuase he explained it very well.  If you deny this FACT, then you have no ground to stand on.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Morality does not come from the bible! It comes from our creator. The one true reference point is not "our book". Every atheist I have this discussion with in here goes straight towards the bible, that's not the argument.
> 
> 
> So, you do not believe in objective morality? I'll ask you the same question I asked Bishop, if someone breaks into your house and tortures your family, how do you tell that person they are wrong for that? Because everyone agrees that it's wrong? Does that REALLY make it wrong?
> ...



Bishop and I argued about this for a long time: 

There was a thread once where the idea of dousing a caged dog in gasoline and lighting it on fire was discussed.  Though we were arguing about property rights, I think we both agreed that it was wrong.  There are many influences that led us both to that same conclusion.

I bet you think it's wrong, too.  I bet you also claim that your sense of right and wrong came from the God of the Bible; that he implanted; hardwired, an innate sense of what right and wrong is.  

I bet Bishop and I agree that stoning prostitutes is wrong.  I bet we also agree that tying your child up and placing them on an altar to be sacrificed is wrong.  I bet we also agree that ANYBODY that would suggest that someone do such a thing is bad.  What does Yaweh say about all that?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Bishop and I argued about this for a long time:
> 
> There was a thread once where the idea of dousing a caged dog in gasoline and lighting it on fire was discussed.  Though we were arguing about property rights, I think we both agreed that it was wrong.  There are many influences that led us both to that same conclusion.
> 
> ...



We did? And disagreed? Ambush I thought you were a libratarian?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> We did? And disagreed? Ambush I thought you were a libratarian?



You said the dog was property and you should be able to do whatever you want with said property.  I agreed that one should be able to do whatever they want with their property but that living animals should be given special consideration somehow; furthermore, some animals more so than others.  

Very grey area, I know and admittedly speciest and it may may be based purely on sentimentality but I think it has more to do with my understanding of sentience.

I am all for absolute liberty as long as it doesn't affect anybody else.   As a matter of fact, I won't attempt to stop anyone from burning a dog, by my own hand or force of law, as long as they do it far enough away that I don't have to see, hear or smell it.  I hold a peaceful, ordered society in high regard and believe that some individual liberties have to be denied to that end.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So where then string to you get your refence for morality? The creator? What did it say, and where did it say it? If not the bible where? So whats the arguement? If we do not believe in a creator we have no reference in morality? Say I beleive in a creator but not the bible what then? What do I reference to find what this creator would have me believe is moral?


God's morals are innate in us as humans, I don't think anyone had to tell you that murder was wrong for you to know it was wrong.

Adherence to morals would be a better way of arguing my point I guess, what makes you adhere to morals, other than jail time? Is it because you just choose to adhere to morals?



> So, you do not believe in objective morality? I'll ask you the same question I asked Bishop, if someone breaks into your house and tortures your family, how do you tell that person they are wrong for that? Because everyone agrees that it's wrong? Does that REALLY make it wrong?
> I would say take morals out of it. It was a clear violation of RIGHTS OF MAN. Long eastablished in philosophy that yes is majorly accepted but not universal. If we could eastablish them as universal, which they for the most part are, morality will fall in its rightful place out of the rights of man.


Where do these rights come from? I believe they come from God, but to say man has rights, because man says he has rights, really only means man thinks he has rights, they are not really rights at all. If rights come from the existential, what do they really mean?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> God's morals are innate in us as humans, I don't think anyone had to tell you that murder was wrong for you to know it was wrong.
> 
> Adherence to morals would be a better way of arguing my point I guess, what makes you adhere to morals, other than jail time? Is it because you just choose to adhere to morals?
> 
> ...



If I told you that I heard the voice of God and He told me that He changed his mind about sacrifices and that He told me to sacrifice my daughter....is there anything in that scenario that strikes your "innate" sense of morality as wrong?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If I told you that I heard the voice of God and He told me that He changed his mind about sacrifices and that He told me to sacrifice my daughter....is there anything in that scenario that strikes your "innate" sense of morality as wrong?



Are we just going to start making up scenario's to try and "trap" God into immorality? Of which by the way He makes the rules.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are we just going to start making up scenario's to try and "trap" God into immorality? Of which by the way He makes the rules.



Don't have to.  There's already plenty of incriminating evidence.  By the way, I heard God and He told me to............


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If I told you that I heard the voice of God and He told me that He changed his mind about sacrifices and that He told me to sacrifice my daughter....is there anything in that scenario that strikes your "innate" sense of morality as wrong?


 The God of Abraham won't tell you that, sacrificing His Son was sufficient for thee....there may be a few other gods that might tell you to kill your daughter...I've heard of a few other religions that the father killed the daughter right here in the USA.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> The God of Abraham won't tell you that, sacrificing His Son was sufficient for thee....there may be a few other gods that might tell you to kill your daughter...I've heard of a few other religions that the father killed the daughter right here in the USA.



No it was YOUR God and he told me that no one would believe me.  Yeshua, God of Abraham, Jesus Christ.  He told me himself.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> God's morals are innate in us as humans, I don't think anyone had to tell you that murder was wrong for you to know it was wrong.
> 
> Adherence to morals would be a better way of arguing my point I guess, what makes you adhere to morals, other than jail time? Is it because you just choose to adhere to morals?
> Not all things considered immoral will land you jail time and not all things that will land you jail time are immoral. At least to everybody.  Morals are arbitrary like you said. That is why they are a poor reference for law. I do not break laws becuase off their morality.  I do not murder or steal becuase I know it is unacceptable behavior to be a member of a free an prosperious society.
> ...



I believe the rights of man to be self evident. I'm sorry you cannot fathom how thats possible.   What rights of man mentioned in the bible?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Not all things considered immoral will land you jail time and not all things that will land you jail time are immoral.At least to everybody. Morals are arbitrary like you said. That is why they are a poor reference for law. I do not break laws becuase off their morality. I do not murder or steal becuase I know it is unacceptable behavior to be a member of a free an prosperious society.


I never said morals are arbitrary, I said atheistic morals are arbitrary, and the reason I say that is, in an atheistic worldview, there is nothing to answer to for not following a moral law, except other people(hence the jail comment). 

If an atheist doesn't like the moral law set by people, he/she could make up their own moral law to follow, and adhere to that with nothing to worry about. 

Nothing holds you accountable for lying,stealing and cheating on your wife, except that which you choose to hold yourself accountable in an arbitrary way.



> I believe the rights of man to be self evident. I'm sorry you cannot fathom how thats possible.


I don't see how they could be self evident if we are not created by God. The mind itself giving us the self evidence that we, as humans, have rights, should be a lot of evidence that we were created by God. Do you agree? How would self evident rights be innate within us if we are but time+matter+chance?

BTW, I completely understand how thats possible, I just give credit to God for that possibility. You admit the rights are there, but do you admit they could only be there by God?



> What rights of man mentioned in the bible?


The sacredness of human life. For me, that pretty much sums up the rights for us as humans.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If someone breaks into your house and tortures your family, are you going to chalk it up to arbitrary morality?





stringmusic said:


> Are we just going to start making up scenario's to try and "trap" God into immorality? Of which by the way He makes the rules.



Speaking of making up scenarios.


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 15, 2012)

Wow...Believers and non-believers trying to convince each other they are right an they are wrong...string says everything is because of God and and Bishop says it is because it is.  String will always say it is because of God, no matter what is given he will say that God did it because God is the reason and the answer to everything. Good for him and good for Bishop they both are right and they both are wrong....and never the train shall meet...


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Wow...Believers and non-believers trying to convince each other they are right an they are wrong...string says everything is because of God and and Bishop says it is because it is.  String will always say it is because of God, no matter what is given he will say that God did it because God is the reason and the answer to everything. Good for him and good for Bishop they both are right and they both are wrong....and never the train shall meet...



Logically, they should meet at the "I don't know" place, but believers insist that they DO know and that's what makes them dangerous for a variety of reasons.


----------



## pjmax (Feb 15, 2012)

We have been blessed/lucky geographically and with the valor of better men. Dead right or dead wrong. Only way to know for certain is in the adjective. Soon enough.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

pjmax said:


> We have been blessed/lucky geographically and with the valor of better men. Dead right or dead wrong. Only way to know for certain is in the adjective. Soon enough.



So, when do you know?  Right before your last breath?  Right after, when you're flying through the tunnel? Do you just "wake up" in a pool of lava?  When you're in Heaven do you remember the cardboard box you used to sleep in on Earth?

How do you think that the paddle boat in Willy Wonka  keeps from getting gummed up with chocolate from the Chocolate River?  Are the paddles heated?  Do you really think that if the USS Enterprise jettisoned ALL the dialythium crystals into a black hole that the resulting explosion would be strong enough to free it from the gravitational pull?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Speaking of making up scenarios.



I thought my question was legitimate for the particular discussion. I took Ambush's scenario as trying to trap God into some immoral wrongdoing.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Logically, they should meet at the "I don't know" place, but believers insist that they DO know and that's what makes them dangerous for a variety of reasons.



I believe in, and put faith in absolute truth.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I believe in, and put faith in absolute truth.




Great.........


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I believe in, and put faith in absolute truth.



and where does this "truth" you speak of come from?  Oh, wait...sorry, didn't see that this was from string...already know the answer...


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> and where does this "truth" you speak of come from?  Oh, wait...sorry, didn't see that this was from string...already know the answer...



Do you know of another place that truth might come from? Perhaps in space, or maybe a box of sorts?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you know of another place that truth might come from? Perhaps in space, or maybe a box of sorts?



I'm guessing you get closer to it with your mind than with a lucky rabbit's foot.


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 15, 2012)

I'm thinking a box in space with a little green or gray humanoid inside with a magic wand making all things happen and controlling everything everywhere...or a God...same thing...


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I believe in, and put faith in absolute truth.



There is no need to put faith in or believe in an "Absolute truth".  If there is, it is not an absolute, it is an assumption.

An absolute would be readily apparent, thus needing no validation, or belief.  It is apparent to all, unable to be  misconstrued, without need for interpretation, and unmistakeable.  A square is not round, is an absolute truth.  It cannot be and still be a square.  This is unargueable.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I never said morals are arbitrary,




Have christian morals been consistent throughout history? Are they non-arbitrary?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> I'm thinking a box in space with a little green or gray humanoid inside with a magic wand making all things happen and controlling everything everywhere...or a God...same thing...



But...but.... all the sound documentation.....and the warm tingly feeling in my nether regions......


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> .....and the warm tingly feeling in my nether regions......



The church you grew up in must have been a little "different" than the one I went to.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Have christian morals been consistent throughout history? Are they non-arbitrary?



Interpretation and application of the "rules" have changed a good bit, but the groundwork has been the same.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Logically, they should meet at the "I don't know" place, but believers insist that they DO know and that's what makes them dangerous for a variety of reasons.


 
Dangerous?  As in psycho-killer dangerous??  I know I'm gonna open up a can 'o worms but ...   

why?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The church you grew up in must have been a little "different" than the one I went to.




"Nether" just means "down below" or "under the surface";  where God and hysteria are experienced.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> "Nether" just means "down below" or "under the surface";  where God and hysteria are experienced.



I know, I was just gettin' ya back for setting me up to get clobbered in the SD&S yesterday


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Dangerous?  As in psycho-killer dangerous??  I know I'm gonna open up a can 'o worms but ...
> 
> why?



Yes.  Psycho-killer, mass genocide, Manifest Destiny dangerous.  Because reason is replaced with superstition and when it comes to faith, ain't no one can tell you you're wrong.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Have christian morals been consistent throughout history? Are they non-arbitrary?



This is the only thing you have to say after post #247? A question I have already answered?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> There is no need to put faith in or believe in an "Absolute truth".  If there is, it is not an absolute, it is an assumption.
> 
> An absolute would be readily apparent, thus needing no validation, or belief.  It is apparent to all, unable to be  misconstrued, without need for interpretation, and unmistakeable.  A square is not round, is an absolute truth.  It cannot be and still be a square.  This is unargueable.



Do you believe and have faith that a square is a square?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe and have faith that a square is a square?



No, I know a square is a square.  It is an absolute truth, by our definition of what a square is, accepted by all mankind. It may differ in name only, not definition.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> This is the only thing you have to say after post #247? A question I have already answered?



Were did you answer it I must have missed it.  You keep insisting that athiest morals are arbitrary, ignoring the fact that all, not just christians and athiests, morals are arbitrary.  I know the answer I just want you to admit it. By doing so your point about athiest is, well, pointless.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Were did you answer it I must have missed it.  You keep insisting that athiest morals are arbitrary, ignoring the fact that all, not just christians and athiests, morals are arbitrary.  I know the answer I just want you to admit it. By doing so your point about athiest is, well, pointless.



Gods moral law has not changed. If you want me to say Christians have not always been completely moral then I 'll say it. Christians have not always been completely moral.

Care to address anything else in that post?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No, I know a square is a square.  It is an absolute truth, by our definition of what a square is, accepted by all mankind. It may differ in name only, not definition.



So you do not _believe_ a square is a square?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So you do not _believe_ a square is a square?



No I have absolute knowlegde of it. Backed with evidence.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Gods moral law has not changed. If you want me to say Christians have not always been completely moral then I 'll say it. Christians have not always been completely moral.
> 
> Care to address anything else in that post?



So christian morality is arbitrary. What else would you like me to address?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So christian morality is arbitrary.


Christians have a moral law at which to adhere to, they may not always do so, but the constant moral law is there and by accepting Christ are agreeing to wholeheartly try to abide by. Not the same.




> What else would you like me to address?


How about the rest of the post. Or at least some of it.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Christians have a moral law at which has changed constantly through the decades/centuriesto adhere to, they may not always do so, but the constant moral law is there and by accepting Christ are agreeing to wholeheartly try to abide by. Not the same.completely arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> How about the rest of the post. Or at least some of it.



Specifics?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I never said morals are arbitrary, I said atheistic morals are arbitrary, and the reason I say that is, in an atheistic worldview, there is nothing to answer to for not following a moral law, except other people(hence the jail comment). Other people is all we _KNOW_ about. Answering to anything else is speculation, or belief.
> 
> If an atheist doesn't like the moral law set by people, he/she could make up their own moral law to follow, and adhere to that with nothing to worry about.
> Everyone does that.
> ...


 
What specific rights are listed in the bible.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Logically, they should meet at the "I don't know" place, but believers insist that they DO know and that's what makes them dangerous for a variety of reasons.



I insist that "I believe", not "know". That is why they call us "believers", and not "knowers".


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No I have absolute knowlegde of it. Backed with evidence.



Yes, but squares are a far leap from morals. We control the definition of squares through geometry. Geometry is a man made language to describe shapes. It is easy to win an arguement when you control all of the givens. We do not control the givens of absolute truth. It exists regardless of whether you can explain or recognize it. It must exist. I don't claim to know it, or its origins, but I believe it exists, and I believe it comes from God.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> but of all the people that have read this thread you are the only one to be confused by it ...Mr literal...that sould be your new name on here.



Figure of speech Rich. When I need a new name I will PM you.


----------



## Asath (Feb 16, 2012)

“The sacredness of human life. For me, that pretty much sums up the rights for us as humans.”

I’m afraid that the Bible disagrees.  In the first chapter.  And in most every chapter thereafter.

Now, if religion, and particularly the fear of eternal punishment, as described (only) by religion, was the basis of morality, then the writings of religion, and the sheer disrespect for humanity displayed in those writings, gives a very sad testament to the ‘sacredness of human life.’  But, even forgiving the vindictiveness of the writers --  here in modern times, by what mechanism would a human life, held as ‘sacred’ in the eyes of the eternal Host, be forfeit to the whims of nature?

Were those killed in the latest tornado, flood, earthquake, etc. somehow targeted as less than sacred?  Did they have lesser ‘rights’ to the ‘sacredness’ of THEIR lives?  One cannot claim a ‘universal’ morality, while also making exceptions.  Life is ‘sacred’ or it is not.  It cannot be the case that some are ‘Saved’ while others are not under this doctrine, so which is it?  The ‘freewill’ cop-out won’t work here – nobody chooses to be swept away by a flash-flood.

A God of Creation would be, by definition, the God of Nature.  The Nature we observe around us conspires to kill us at every turn, takes no prisoners, and plays no favorites.  If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time – well, sorry – you die.  And it is much more than tornadoes and floods and the like that we are up against – we can be killed by everything from spider bites to alligators to invisible bacteria, and from allergies to cancers to accidents.  Where, exactly, holding that truth as a given, does some sort of universal ‘rights’ as humans take hold?

Got a definition of those ‘rights?’  We’d sure like to hear them.  Where, exactly, is this ‘morality’ folks like to speak about, and where exactly is it described?  In your personal feelings about it, and your assumption that others must somehow feel the same?  Look around.  The clear evidence that others do not share this ‘universal’ morality is as close as the nearest aircraft carrier and military graveyard.  Please do not insult us.  

Might want to think the whole ‘sacredness of human life’ thing out a bit more . . .   “Gods moral law has not changed.”    Right.  Got a sample of ‘God’s moral law’ for us?  We’ve got plenty . . .


----------



## pjmax (Feb 16, 2012)

[





> QUOTE=ambush80;6729906]So, when do you know?  Right before your last breath?  Right after, when you're flying through the tunnel? Do you just "wake up" in a pool of lava?  When you're in Heaven do you remember the cardboard box you used to sleep in on Earth?"



I have no idea. That's why I'm here on the  AAA forum. Sorta like free Cliff Notes. I had read The Book but wanted other opinions. Bingo.  Soccer, evolution, marriage. Recipe for raccoon two clicks away. And humor; Mark Twain with emoticons.

My point was enjoy the cardboard box.  You alone did not build it.
And for sure, no matter your belief, it is a short term lease. 



> "How do you think that the paddle boat in Willy Wonka  keeps from getting gummed up with chocolate from the Chocolate River?  Are the paddles heated?  Do you really think that if the USS Enterprise jettisoned ALL the dialythium crystals into a black hole that the resulting explosion would be strong enough to free it from the gravitational pull?


I did not know the answers, so I Googled them.
#1) Seems as though movie was just "based" on true events. Yeah, I know. Wish I hadn't looked it up.
#2)Sophism. I won't search that again.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 16, 2012)

pjmax said:


> Soccer, evolution, marriage. Recipe for raccoon two clicks away. And humor; Mark Twain with emoticons.



The threads in here go all over the place.  Check this one out:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=638559

It started with bumper stickers, then covered just about everything else imaginable.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

pjmax said:


> [
> 
> I have no idea. That's why I'm here on the  AAA forum. Sorta like free Cliff Notes. I had read The Book but wanted other opinions. Bingo.  Soccer, evolution, marriage. Recipe for raccoon two clicks away. And humor; Mark Twain with emoticons.
> 
> ...



One's experience of the cardboard box is different if one believes in Heaven and an afterlife than if one doesn't.  What interests me is is how does aligning one's belief one way or the other change how one approaches one's situation.  

When I was in pain, I was willing to try anything.  Seems like any old Hocus Pocus (prayer to Jesus, prayer to Buddah, rubbing crystals..) worked like any other; randomly, as randomly as praying to nothing at all.


----------



## pjmax (Feb 16, 2012)

JBO704 says


> The threads in here go all over the place. Check this one out:


Read some. Quote by TheBishop "I grew up believing this country was a free country, were individuals could live and do as the pleased as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I will continue to fight for this ideal."

Stands out.Rings true. Ironically, truer as I get older.

AMBUSH80 says





> ...one believes in Heaven and an afterlife than if one doesn't.



I cannot / should not speak to the first part but the realization that the box is the gift and the "afterlife" is the memory you leave with your family and friends, may influence how you think. 

AMBUSH80...



> When I was in pain, I was willing to try anything. Seems like any old Hocus Pocus (prayer to Jesus, prayer to Buddah, rubbing crystals..) worked like any other; randomly, as randomly as praying to nothing at all.



If asking my opinion, I see many more able and willing to offer advice.  I would look to science.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

pjmax said:


> JBO704 says
> 
> Read some. Quote by TheBishop "I grew up believing this country was a free country, were individuals could live and do as the pleased as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I will continue to fight for this ideal."
> 
> ...



I can't help it if someone thinks that I am burning in He11.  That's their problem





pjmax said:


> AMBUSH80...
> 
> 
> 
> If asking my opinion, I see many more able and willing to offer advice.  I would look to science.



Turns out science does a pretty good job.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> No it was YOUR God and he told me that no one would believe me.  Yeshua, God of Abraham, Jesus Christ.  He told me himself.



To kill your daughter??


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Speaking of making up scenarios.




Actually we all do that don't we?  Well I admit I do, even if no one else will admit it.

Jesus told ambush to kill his daughter, do you believe him?


----------



## pjmax (Feb 17, 2012)

1) Agree
2) Agree


----------

