# Intellectually Dishonest Athiest



## SemperFiDawg

Great article here.  

https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/intellectually-dishonest-or-deficient-atheists/

Undoubtedly the author is a member of the AAA forum here as she has described its members to the letter.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Great article here.
> 
> https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/intellectually-dishonest-or-deficient-atheists/
> 
> Undoubtedly the author is a member of the AAA forum here as she has described its members to the letter.



Eve Keneinen starts by stating her God, the god of Abraham is real and all others are not.  And you call that intellectual honesty?  

Besides.  A blog............


----------



## 660griz

"Want to know an exact formula for propagating dogmatic belief through the ages? Encourage children to "learn about other theologies with the understanding that what we already believe is totally true."

At an absolutely fundamental level, that approach is an intellectually dishonest way of operating.

An intellectually honest approach does not evaluate evidence with a predetermined conclusion."


----------



## TripleXBullies

I've said it before in a few threads... After 10 years in this forum with the last 2 years including a 180* turn.... This stuff still throws me for a loop....


----------



## MiGGeLLo

I read through a lot of the points, the dishonesty is infuriating. This thing is basically an inoculation against reason for current believers. There is special pleading and a flippant disregard for the validity of any other logical positions at every turn.


----------



## WaltL1

TripleXBullies said:


> I've said it before in a few threads... After 10 years in this forum with the last 2 years including a 180* turn.... This stuff still throws me for a loop....


If/when it doesn't... that's when you should worry


----------



## TripleXBullies

In the first paragraph it says that it's not possible or fruitful to have serious rational discussions with such people. I believe that SFD considers both you and Griz one of these people, yet he's been here for years. What does that say?


----------



## WaltL1

TripleXBullies said:


> In the first paragraph it says that it's not possible or fruitful to have serious rational discussions with such people. I believe that SFD considers both you and Griz one of these people, yet he's been here for years. What does that say?


I know what it says to me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> I know what it says to me.



It says there's a broader audience to consider than Walt or Griz.  Any uninformed need to know the falsehoods they spout are just that and that atheism is self contradictory at best.  That's what it says.


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> It says there's a broader audience to consider than Walt or Griz.  Any uninformed need to know the falsehoods they spout are just that and that atheism is self contradictory at best.  That's what it says.



It states that discussion with them is FRUITLESS. You continue discussion with both of them. What does fruitless mean? That it may have fruit elsewhere?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Eve Keneinen starts by stating her God, the god of Abraham is real and all others are not.  And you call that intellectual honesty?
> 
> Besides.  A blog............



Congrats.  You demonstrated 1A right off the bat.



> 1. A persistent inability or refusal to distinguish God from a god or gods. This is a distinction 3 or 4-year-old children can easily grasp, so any atheist who claims not be be able to grasp it is either severely intellectually impaired or lying. In almost all cases, the atheist is simply attempting to conflate God with a god in order to set up a strawman and/or trying to annoy you by belittling God—while ignoring the basic conceptual distinction that all European languages mark by differentiating the word “God” from the word “god” by capitalization. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, in the entry written by atheist philosopher J. J. C. Smart:


----------



## SemperFiDawg

MiGGeLLo said:


> I read through a lot of the points, the dishonesty is infuriating. This thing is basically an inoculation against reason for current believers. There is special pleading and a flippant disregard for the validity of any other logical positions at every turn.



Glad to see you feel as the author does regarding 
intellectually dishonest athiest believers.  It's refreshing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

TripleXBullies said:


> It states that discussion with them is FRUITLESS. You continue discussion with both of them. What does fruitless mean? That it may have fruit elsewhere?



I gave up any hope of serious discussion with many here a long while back.  It's pointless to attempt to reason with people who have no regard for truth.  Now I just call their lies, lies and move on.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I'm saying that you respond to them and direct comments on them and you just justified by saying that someone else can see what you're doing and realize the error of their ways. The link you sent says that discussion with them is fruitless. Someone else seeing recognizing anything from your discussion with them wouldn't be fruitless.


----------



## WaltL1

TripleXBullies said:


> It states that discussion with them is FRUITLESS. You continue discussion with both of them. What does fruitless mean? That it may have fruit elsewhere?


He's too busy calling everybody else intellectual dishonest to realize he's being intellectually dishonest.
Its a special skill he has.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> I gave up any hope of serious discussion with many here a long while back.  It's pointless to attempt to reason with people who have no regard for truth.  Now I just call their lies, lies and move on.


We aren't chaining you here and forcing you to listen to our lies.
When you move on, just stay on. 
We'll be hurt but we deserve it.


----------



## TripleXBullies

SemperFiDawg said:


> Congrats.  You demonstrated 1A right off the bat.



Considering it's about conversing with atheists... When you start off by disqualifying any conversation with them because they won't concede that God is God, then you should never try to talk to any one of them...


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> We aren't chaining you here and forcing you to listen to our lies.
> When you move on, just stay on.
> We'll be hurt but we deserve it.



The vast majority of his posts do nothing to converse civilly. They are made to insult and incite, then he bails for weeks and pops back in with more salvos.

Look at his started threads here in the AAA. There may be a couple that reached over 100 replies,  quite a few are double digit replies but low double digits and the are a few real bombers that are under 10 and even some zeros.

He doesn't want to talk, he just wants to try insert words that he overhears adults saying and he has no knowledge of what they really mean.


----------



## jmharris23

Ya'll be nice  


I do agree that if someone wants to be a regular poster in this forum that they should come here with the express desire to have intellectual and fair conversations regarding whatever side of the fence they are on. That's part of what this forum is for and why I set it up this way. 

Also, in full disclosure although most of you know this. I have been a Christian for 32 years and a Southern Baptist pastor for 15 years and I've been moderating this forum for over ten years and in all that time the Christians have caused way more issues than the non. 

Mainly because they can't handle being given a rebuttal or different worldview without getting their panties in a wad.


----------



## ambush80

TripleXBullies said:


> Considering it's about conversing with atheists... When you start off by disqualifying any conversation with them because they won't concede that God is God, then you should never try to talk to any one of them...



Bwaaa haa haaaa

Good one Triple XXX.  You nailed it.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

jmharris23 said:


> Christians have caused way more issues than the non.
> 
> Mainly because they can't handle being given a rebuttal or different worldview without getting their panties in a wad.









Even when confronting other Christians in other forums and threads.


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> Bwaaa haa haaaa
> 
> Good one Triple XXX.  You nailed it.



Yes he did.


----------



## ambush80

jmharris23 said:


> Ya'll be nice
> 
> 
> I do agree that if someone wants to be a regular poster in this forum that they should come here with the express desire to have intellectual and fair conversations regarding whatever side of the fence they are on. That's part of what this forum is for and why I set it up this way.
> 
> Also, in full disclosure although most of you know this. I have been a Christian for 32 years and a Southern Baptist pastor for 15 years and I've been moderating this forum for over ten years and in all that time the Christians have caused way more issues than the non.
> 
> Mainly because they can't handle being given a rebuttal or different worldview without getting their panties in a wad.




I appreciate your objectivity.

Trying to make a point about the Bible being wrong or belief in God being irrational seems worse than calling someone's mother ugly.  (But what if she is?)


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Ya'll be nice
> 
> 
> I do agree that if someone wants to be a regular poster in this forum that they should come here with the express desire to have intellectual and fair conversations regarding whatever side of the fence they are on. That's part of what this forum is for and why I set it up this way.
> 
> Also, in full disclosure although most of you know this. I have been a Christian for 32 years and a Southern Baptist pastor for 15 years and I've been moderating this forum for over ten years and in all that time the Christians have caused way more issues than the non.
> 
> Mainly because they can't handle being given a rebuttal or different worldview without getting their panties in a wad.



Thank you for taking the time.


----------



## WaltL1

TripleXBullies said:


> Considering it's about conversing with atheists... When you start off by disqualifying any conversation with them because they won't concede that God is God, then you should never try to talk to any one of them...


Its nice to see that even though you are recently anointed you can still reason like an A/A


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Great article here.
> 
> https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/intellectually-dishonest-or-deficient-atheists/
> 
> Undoubtedly the author is a member of the AAA forum here as she has described its members to the letter.



Feel better now?


----------



## TripleXBullies

WaltL1 said:


> Its nice to see that even though you are recently anointed you can still reason like an A/A



I reckon it comes with the anointing


----------



## WaltL1

TripleXBullies said:


> I reckon it comes with the anointing


HA! Good one


----------



## red neck richie

SemperFiDawg said:


> Great article here.
> 
> https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/intellectually-dishonest-or-deficient-atheists/
> 
> Undoubtedly the author is a member of the AAA forum here as she has described its members to the letter.



I agree semper continue with what GOD, notice how I spelled it, puts on your heart. Don't worry about what the I use to believe community says. Follow the spirit not man.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I wanted to respond but it would probably come out as a Freudian slip.


----------



## 660griz

jmharris23 said:


> Ya'll be nice
> 
> 
> I do agree that if someone wants to be a regular poster in this forum that they should come here with the express desire to have intellectual and fair conversations regarding whatever side of the fence they are on. That's part of what this forum is for and why I set it up this way.
> 
> Also, in full disclosure although most of you know this. I have been a Christian for 32 years and a Southern Baptist pastor for 15 years and I've been moderating this forum for over ten years and in all that time the Christians have caused way more issues than the non.
> 
> Mainly because they can't handle being given a rebuttal or different worldview without getting their panties in a wad.



Good post JM.


----------



## ambush80

TripleXBullies said:


> Considering it's about conversing with atheists... When you start off by disqualifying any conversation with them because they won't concede that God is God, then you should never try to talk to any one of them...



Actually, I would have no problem conceding that God is God if I were presented the proper evidence or argument.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Of course you wouldn't.  No one here would, given evidence that would satisfy them. That article says that you shouldn't even bother talking to the intellectually dishonest atheist who can't start there - that God is God. There's nowhere else to start with an atheist, that they don't recognize that my God is GOD, GOd, GoD or gOD. That article is trying to say that a Christian shouldn't bother speaking to an atheist UNLESS... they aren't atheist...


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Actually, I would have no problem conceding that God is God if I were presented the proper evidence or argument.


proper evidence OR argument?
Do you think an award winning argument without proper evidence could cause you to concede?


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> I agree semper continue with what GOD, notice how I spelled it, puts on your heart. Don't worry about what the I use to believe community says. Follow the spirit not man.





> continue with what GOD, notice how I spelled it, puts on your heart.


And you should.


> Don't worry about what the I use to believe community says


And you shouldn't.

Neither one of those was the problem.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> proper evidence OR argument?
> Do you think an award winning argument without proper evidence could cause you to concede?




I would hope so....to be intellectually honest.

There are many times that people were able to hypothesize things as true before the means to confirm their claims existed, mostly in the realm of science.  If someone could make a proof of God that looked like the proof for Gravitational Waves then I would be compelled to believe them.  There would have to be some VERY hard evidence leading to the theory, though.  

What's the "hardest", testable evidence that the believer can offer?  "What he did in my life" really doesn't cut it, to be completely intellectually honest.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I would hope so....to be intellectually honest.
> 
> There are many times that people were able to hypothesize things as true before the means to confirm their claims existed, mostly in the realm of science.  If someone could make a proof of God that looked like the proof for Gravitational Waves then I would be compelled to believe them.  There would have to be some VERY hard evidence leading to the theory, though.
> 
> What's the "hardest", testable evidence that the believer can offer?  "What he did in my life" really doesn't cut it, to be completely intellectually honest.





> I would hope so....to be intellectually honest.


I think we differ here.
For me, I can't think of ANY argument that can come out of the mouth of a human that could convince me of a god without proper evidence. It may inspire me to look harder, but not convince me.
On the other hand, a deaf mute who used sign language in Swahili (which I don't speak) could convince me in a second with the proper evidence.
And of course, I do concede that "proper evidence" is relative to the person who is trying to be convinced.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I think we differ here.
> For me, I can't think of ANY argument that can come out of the mouth of a human that could convince me of a god without proper evidence. It may inspire me to look harder, but not convince me.
> On the other hand, a deaf mute who used sign language in Swahili (which I don't speak) could convince me in a second with the proper evidence.
> And of course, I do concede that "proper evidence" is relative to the person who is trying to be convinced.



The idea of a multiverse comes to mind. Direct evidence of it may be unavailable to us but a scientist might be able to show based on available evidence that the odds favor it. It wouldn't warrant a claim of knowledge but it might warrant belief based on probability. What a comparable argument for a god would look like I don't know but I think I understand what Ambush is saying.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> The idea of a multiverse comes to mind. Direct evidence of it may be unavailable to us but a scientist might be able to show based on available evidence that the odds favor it. It wouldn't warrant a claim of knowledge but it might warrant belief based on probability. What a comparable argument for a god would look like I don't know but I think I understand what Ambush is saying.




Yes.  You get what I'm saying.  I don't completely understand  Multiverse theory nor much of the physics that it's based on.  I still can't wrap my head around entanglement or Inflation.  I do believe that the two slit experiment shows what it shows.  That's the kind of evidence believers should be able to offer if what they're saying is true.


----------



## TripleXBullies

atlashunter said:


> What a comparable argument for a god would look like I don't know but I think I understand what Ambush is saying.





WaltL1 said:


> For me, I can't think of ANY argument that can come out of the mouth of a human that could convince me of a god without proper evidence.



I wouldn't imagine you'd be able to think it up. I wouldn't imagine it exists. If you could think of the argument then you'd probably believe it.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> The idea of a multiverse comes to mind. Direct evidence of it may be unavailable to us but a scientist might be able to show based on available evidence that the odds favor it. It wouldn't warrant a claim of knowledge but it might warrant belief based on probability. What a comparable argument for a god would look like I don't know but I think I understand what Ambush is saying.





> a scientist might be able to show based on available evidence that the odds favor it.


Sure.
But your key word is "show".
Showing is not just telling/saying. 
I accept the Big Bang as the best available theory of how this all started based on the evidence.
Do I accept that as a fact? No.


> What a comparable argument for a god would look like I don't know


I think it might look like this -
The idea of a god comes to mind. Direct evidence of it may be unavailable to us but a Christian (etc), might be able to show based on available evidence that the odds favor it. It wouldn't warrant a claim of knowledge but it might warrant belief based on probability.
Available evidence?
The Bible.
Humans of all sorts through time believe in a god(s)
(God).
Now is that credible evidence?
That's where the showing, not just the telling comes in.


----------



## jmharris23

TripleXBullies said:


> That article is trying to say that a Christian shouldn't bother speaking to an atheist UNLESS... they aren't atheist...



This is the way I read the article and was my problem with it. 

I also don't believe that I can convince anyone that there is a God. I would like for people to consider the viability of a historical Jesus and the accounts of the Gospels. 

If someone refuses to even consider that there a real man named Jesus who was crucified then I don't really even have a starting point. I also believe that people come to Christ through a spiritual awakening and not through a presentation of concrete evidences.


----------



## WaltL1

TripleXBullies said:


> I wouldn't imagine you'd be able to think it up. I wouldn't imagine it exists. If you could think of the argument then you'd probably believe it.


That's a good point.
And believe me, as I was moving away from religion etc., I tried every argument I could think of as to why I SHOULDN'T move away from it.


----------



## Israel

It becomes easier and easier as time passes even while everything _seems_ to get harder.
Our being expert at seeing one another's deficiencies, faults, flaws, while remaining so remarkably inured to our own.
Gauntlets are thrown, challenges presented, and we are either those throwing them or foolishly taking them up.
Yes, I too was_ touched _by a man after landing in this place. Some say "prove it" some say ridiculous, some say totally unprovable...and each using the very things to touch that this man did. Words.

I am a man now opened to surprises, pried or peeled to such if one can receive it. Open as it were to a finding where I didn't know could be found, encouraged where I didn't once believe encouragement could come. Even in a silly thing like this:

He never expressed any belief in a personal God, but he believed in the historical Jesus — not the popularized prophet such as appeared in a best-selling biography by Emil Ludwig.

“Ludwig’s Jesus,” Einstein replied, “is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”

“You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

“Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”


Even an _Einstein_, or, as in this particular case, Einstein_ himself_ was touching (or being touched) by someone.

Word. Our own scatter like dust.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> It becomes easier and easier as time passes even while everything _seems_ to get harder.
> Our being expert at seeing one another's deficiencies, faults, flaws, while remaining so remarkably inured to our own.
> Gauntlets are thrown, challenges presented, and we are either those throwing them or foolishly taking them up.
> Yes, I too was_ touched _by a man after landing in this place. Some say "prove it" some say ridiculous, some say totally unprovable...and each using the very things to touch that this man did. Words.
> 
> I am a man now opened to surprises, pried or peeled to such if one can receive it. Open as it were to a finding where I didn't know could be found, encouraged where I didn't once believe encouragement could come. Even in a silly thing like this:
> 
> He never expressed any belief in a personal God, but he believed in the historical Jesus — not the popularized prophet such as appeared in a best-selling biography by Emil Ludwig.
> 
> “Ludwig’s Jesus,” Einstein replied, “is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”
> 
> “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”
> 
> “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”
> 
> 
> Even an _Einstein_, or, as in this particular case, Einstein_ himself_ was touching (or being touched) by someone.
> 
> Word. Our own scatter like dust.





> Yes, I too was_ touched _by a man after landing in this place. Some say "prove it" some say ridiculous, some say totally unprovable...and each using the very things to touch that this man did. Words.        .......      Word. Our own scatter like dust



yes


----------



## TripleXBullies

WaltL1 said:


> That's a good point.
> And believe me, as I was moving away from religion etc., I tried every argument I could think of as to why I SHOULDN'T move away from it.



I believe you.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> It becomes easier and easier as time passes even while everything _seems_ to get harder.
> Our being expert at seeing one another's deficiencies, faults, flaws, while remaining so remarkably inured to our own.
> Gauntlets are thrown, challenges presented, and we are either those throwing them or foolishly taking them up.
> Yes, I too was_ touched _by a man after landing in this place. Some say "prove it" some say ridiculous, some say totally unprovable...and each using the very things to touch that this man did. Words.
> 
> I am a man now opened to surprises, pried or peeled to such if one can receive it. Open as it were to a finding where I didn't know could be found, encouraged where I didn't once believe encouragement could come. Even in a silly thing like this:
> 
> He never expressed any belief in a personal God, but he believed in the historical Jesus — not the popularized prophet such as appeared in a best-selling biography by Emil Ludwig.
> 
> “Ludwig’s Jesus,” Einstein replied, “is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”
> 
> “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”
> 
> “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”
> 
> 
> Even an _Einstein_, or, as in this particular case, Einstein_ himself_ was touching (or being touched) by someone.
> 
> Word. Our own scatter like dust.


I am  beginning to get the feeling that you heard Einstein made a positive comment towards Jesus.
You don't bring it up nearly enough


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> It becomes easier and easier as time passes even while everything _seems_ to get harder.
> Our being expert at seeing one another's deficiencies, faults, flaws, while remaining so remarkably inured to our own.
> Gauntlets are thrown, challenges presented, and we are either those throwing them or foolishly taking them up.
> Yes, I too was_ touched _by a man after landing in this place. Some say "prove it" some say ridiculous, some say totally unprovable...and each using the very things to touch that this man did. Words.
> 
> I am a man now opened to surprises, pried or peeled to such if one can receive it. Open as it were to a finding where I didn't know could be found, encouraged where I didn't once believe encouragement could come. Even in a silly thing like this:
> 
> He never expressed any belief in a personal God, but he believed in the historical Jesus — not the popularized prophet such as appeared in a best-selling biography by Emil Ludwig.
> 
> “Ludwig’s Jesus,” Einstein replied, “is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”
> 
> “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”
> 
> “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”
> 
> 
> Even an _Einstein_, or, as in this particular case, Einstein_ himself_ was touching (or being touched) by someone.
> 
> Word. Our own scatter like dust.



Same old song, just a drop of water
In an endless sea
All we do crumbles to the ground
Though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind


----------



## centerpin fan

660griz said:


> Same old song, just a drop of water
> In an endless sea
> All we do crumbles to the ground
> Though we refuse to see
> 
> Dust in the wind
> All we are is dust in the wind



Hat tip to any Kansas reference.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Same old song, just a drop of water
> In an endless sea
> All we do crumbles to the ground
> Though we refuse to see
> 
> Dust in the wind
> All we are is dust in the wind





centerpin fan said:


> Hat tip to any Kansas reference.




That's interesting because when I put on those special glasses and read The Gospel of Mark it read: "Once I rose above the noise and confusion, just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion.  I was soaring ever higher.  But I flew too high."


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I am  beginning to get the feeling that you heard Einstein made a positive comment towards Jesus.
> You don't bring it up nearly enough



It's not positive at all.


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> That's interesting because when I put on those special glasses and read The Gospel of Mark it read: "Once I rose above the noise and confusion, just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion.  I was soaring ever higher.  But I flew too high."


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Hat tip to any Kansas reference.


Are you a Kansas fan?
In the Something Different thread, post #71, the mandolin player Johnny Greer is the brother of Billy Greer the bass player for Kansas.
Here is a vid of Billy and Johnny playing together at Bellamy Hardware store -


Sorry for the off topic and now back to our regularly scheduled program.


----------



## atlashunter

TripleXBullies said:


> I wouldn't imagine you'd be able to think it up. I wouldn't imagine it exists. If you could think of the argument then you'd probably believe it.



I think it would have to be something along the lines of the fine tuning argument. That might get you as far as deism. An argument that wouldn't have direct evidence but would bridge the gap to theism would be tough.

This whole question of the existence would be very easy to answer if a god in fact did exist that was all knowing and all powerful and wanted to be known. They could make themselves known in a way that would leave no room for doubt. The fact that we don't have that direct evidence that would answer the question once and for all tells me either this god prefers that we not know in which case there is no hope of knowing or they simply don't exist. I have no reason to believe the former and Occam's razor and the world I see lead me to conclude the latter is most likely the reality.


----------



## oldfella1962

IMO there's not really much difference between not being able to "prove" a scientific theory (like the big bang) and not being able to "prove" the creation version of the big bang "in the beginning.....". Both posit there was nothing, then instantly all existence. 

But one difference would be science wants/needs to be shown it might be wrong. Science is based on being "wrong" as ideas and knowledge grow so we can move on to finding the absolute "right" or at least know more than we knew yesterday. Religion is based around an unyielding dogma that cannot be improved upon or disproved or it would lose it's authority. 

Sure religion can be over time reinterpreted or altered (evolve if you will) along with the culture who practices it until eventually it is replaced. I can't prove it, but just as every species is gradually replaced and becomes extinct in it's present form (but with bits & pieces of older species still present) so will Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. over a long enough timeline.

Does anybody think these religions will be around in 50,000 years if humans are still around? I for one don't.


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> IMO there's not really much difference between not being able to "prove" a scientific theory (like the big bang) and not being able to "prove" the creation version of the big bang "in the beginning.....". Both posit there was nothing, then instantly all existence.
> 
> But one difference would be science wants/needs to be shown it might be wrong. Science is based on being "wrong" as ideas and knowledge grow so we can move on to finding the absolute "right" or at least know more than we knew yesterday. Religion is based around an unyielding dogma that cannot be improved upon or disproved or it would lose it's authority.
> 
> Sure religion can be over time reinterpreted or altered (evolve if you will) along with the culture who practices it until eventually it is replaced. I can't prove it, but just as every species is gradually replaced and becomes extinct in it's present form (but with bits & pieces of older species still present) so will Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. over a long enough timeline.
> 
> Does anybody think these religions will be around in 50,000 years if humans are still around? I for one don't.



The Theory of the Big Bang comes from the red shift of microwave radiation caused by the Doppler Effect that _we can detect_ from what appears to be the edge of the Universe . 

It's based on a very different thing than Genesis is.


----------



## oldfella1962

I get that the big bang is based on something else, but it's still something that not everyone believes or understands, much like the creation myth.


----------



## red neck richie

oldfella1962 said:


> IMO there's not really much difference between not being able to "prove" a scientific theory (like the big bang) and not being able to "prove" the creation version of the big bang "in the beginning.....". Both posit there was nothing, then instantly all existence.
> 
> But one difference would be science wants/needs to be shown it might be wrong. Science is based on being "wrong" as ideas and knowledge grow so we can move on to finding the absolute "right" or at least know more than we knew yesterday. Religion is based around an unyielding dogma that cannot be improved upon or disproved or it would lose it's authority.
> 
> Sure religion can be over time reinterpreted or altered (evolve if you will) along with the culture who practices it until eventually it is replaced. I can't prove it, but just as every species is gradually replaced and becomes extinct in it's present form (but with bits & pieces of older species still present) so will Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. over a long enough timeline.
> 
> Does anybody think these religions will be around in 50,000 years if humans are still around? I for one don't.



Yes. It will be around. I cant explain why God speaks to who he does but I believe he will continue to do so.


----------



## 660griz

red neck richie said:


> Yes. It will be around. I cant explain why God speaks to who he does but I believe he will continue to do so.



Yes he will. There is some explanation.

The same brain areas that activate when people hear real noise also light up in schizophrenics during hallucinatory episodes. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, several studies have found increased activation in Broca’s area (a language processing region) and in the primary auditory cortex in schizophrenics as they “hear” voices that aren’t real.


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> I get that the big bang is based on something else, but it's still something that not everyone believes or understands, much like the creation myth.



That's their fault.

The creation myth is just words in a weird book.  There's nothing to measure or calculate.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Yes he will. There is some explanation.
> 
> The same brain areas that activate when people hear real noise also light up in schizophrenics during hallucinatory episodes. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, several studies have found increased activation in Broca’s area (a language processing region) and in the primary auditory cortex in schizophrenics as they “hear” voices that aren’t real.



I feel a "What is _REAL_?" coming on.  

Isreal, take it away.


----------



## 660griz

Real: Woman claims God told her to ‘throw bricks at white men’


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Real: Woman claims God told her to ‘throw bricks at white men’




Dat wuz da Debbil talkin'!!!  Don'tchu know da difference?


----------



## red neck richie

660griz said:


> Yes he will. There is some explanation.
> 
> The same brain areas that activate when people hear real noise also light up in schizophrenics during hallucinatory episodes. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, several studies have found increased activation in Broca’s area (a language processing region) and in the primary auditory cortex in schizophrenics as they “hear” voices that aren’t real.



How do you know these scans are showing the cause and not merely a byproduct from what is really happening?


----------



## ambush80

red neck richie said:


> How do you know these scans are showing the cause and not merely a byproduct from what is really happening?



By "what is really happening" do you mean hearing disembodied voices?


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> Yes he will. There is some explanation.
> 
> The same brain areas that activate when people hear real noise also light up in schizophrenics during hallucinatory episodes. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, several studies have found increased activation in Broca’s area (a language processing region) and in the primary auditory cortex in schizophrenics as they “hear” voices that aren’t real.



Reminds me of Hitchens. "When you're on the train and someone tells you they hear god talking to them, do you move closer or further away from them?"


----------



## Israel

And what makes you think we are not _on that train?_

So, science has shown that what takes place "in the mind" is discernable and measurable (in the material substance) by a device created...from the mind. (And some have the temerity to indict others for _circular reasoning_.)

Nevertheless we have had rulers and measuring tapes for eons to measure the heights and lengths of all sorts of things...houses, roads, walls...even temples. Things...all springing from _mind_ into the material realm. Heck, we even measure the galaxy.

Or more simply (and crudely) we could just ask a 15 year old boy awakening from a wet dream. Is the mind without power to affect?

Jesus speaks much of it. What the mind..._does_.(Despite the cleverness of some who believe it's more fun to make fun..._of Him_) 

The Christ informs us "With the pure Thou showest Thyself pure, And with the perverse showest Thyself a wrestler," YLT

Who will_ force_ the Lord...to appear?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> And what makes you think we are not _on that train?_
> 
> So, science has shown that what takes place "in the mind" is discernable and measurable (in the material substance) by a device created...from the mind. (And some have the temerity to indict others for _circular reasoning_.)
> 
> Nevertheless we have had rulers and measuring tapes for eons to measure the heights and lengths of all sorts of things...houses, roads, walls...even temples. Things...all springing from _mind_ into the material realm. Heck, we even measure the galaxy.
> 
> Or more simply (and crudely) we could just ask a 15 year old boy awakening from a wet dream. Is the mind without power to affect?
> 
> Jesus speaks much of it. What the mind..._does_.(Despite the cleverness of some who believe it's more fun to make fun..._of Him_)
> 
> The Christ informs us "With the pure Thou showest Thyself pure, And with the perverse showest Thyself a wrestler," YLT
> 
> Who will_ force_ the Lord...to appear?





> So, science has shown that what takes place "in the mind" is discernable and measurable (in the material substance) by a device created...from the mind. (And some have the temerity to indict others for _circular reasoning_.)


I think you started out with a good point and then kind of went off the rails.


> So, science has shown that what takes place "in the mind" is discernable and measurable (in the material substance) by a device created...from the mind.


I would agree. Measurements and their devices, explanations, mapping of the brain, what triggers what and all that goes with it is but a drop in the bucket compared to what we DON'T know about the brain.
But I think here's where you went off the rails. -


> (And some have the temerity to indict others for _circular reasoning_.)


Just don't see the above as circular reasoning.
Yes, for lack of a better phrase, you might say a "circular situation" but the difference is "science's circle" is ever expanding. What we know, what we thought we knew, what we know today that we didn't know yesterday in an ever expanding, updating, self testing, self correcting, circle of knowledge and technology. True, science may go 3 steps forward and 2 steps back but the end result is 1 step of forward progress.
That's exactly the opposite of what happens with circular reasoning as a foundation.


----------



## welderguy

Wisdom is not the faulty party. It's whoever the possessor of it is that  determines either it's worth or its demise.

.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> So, science has shown that what takes place "in the mind" is discernable and measurable (in the material substance) by a device created...from the mind. (And some have the temerity to indict others for _circular reasoning_.)


It can also be shown with very little science. Put 10 people in a room. Ask folks to raise their hand when God speaks to them. Have them jot down what he says. If any person does it and no one else hears it, you know it was not the traditional vibration of air, ear, etc. No fancy smancy device needed. 

Of course, as with any religious idea, there is disagreement within the faith itself as to whether God 'speaks' to anyone. Some even say that the phrase, "God told me to..." should not be used.



> Nevertheless we have had rulers and measuring tapes for eons to measure the heights and lengths of all sorts of things...houses, roads, walls...even temples.


 Yes, yes we have. Thanks.



> Or more simply (and crudely) we could just ask a 15 year old boy awakening from a wet dream. Is the mind without power to affect?


 You could just ask me...or anyone. Most know the mind is a powerful thing. See placebo. 



> Jesus speaks much of it. What the mind..._does_.(Despite the cleverness of some who believe it's more fun to make fun..._of Him_)


 Not sure I have but, I will apologize the next time I see him. 



> The Christ informs us "With the pure Thou showest Thyself pure, And with the perverse showest Thyself a wrestler," YLT


 Jesus said, “My sheep know my voice.” (John 10:27)


----------



## atlashunter

No Israel the mind is not without power to affect. Good job on getting that point. But there is nothing supernatural about the affect. You might have thought the wet dream was special at the time but it wasn't. It was just a fantasy.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> It can also be shown with very little science. Put 10 people in a room. Ask folks to raise their hand when God speaks to them. Have them jot down what he says. If any person does it and no one else hears it, you know it was not the traditional vibration of air, ear, etc. No fancy smancy device needed.
> 
> Of course, as with any religious idea, there is disagreement within the faith itself as to whether God 'speaks' to anyone. Some even say that the phrase, "God told me to..." should not be used.
> 
> Yes, yes we have. Thanks.
> 
> You could just ask me...or anyone. Most know the mind is a powerful thing. See placebo.
> 
> Not sure I have but, I will apologize the next time I see him.
> 
> Jesus said, “My sheep know my voice.” (John 10:27)



Yes, His sheep do know His voice.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> No Israel the mind is not without power to affect. Good job on getting that point. But there is nothing supernatural about the affect. You might have thought the wet dream was special at the time but it wasn't. It was just a fantasy.


 

Was the point too subtle?



> The same brain areas that activate when people hear real noise also light up in schizophrenics during hallucinatory episodes. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, several studies have found increased activation in Broca’s area (a language processing region) and in the primary auditory cortex in schizophrenics as they “hear” voices that aren’t real.



I hear voices that aren't real with probably the same frequency as almost everyone here.

Shadow men with shadow tongues.

And so we wait.

Awake O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> I hear voices that aren't real with probably the same frequency as almost everyone here.



Based on...?
What frequency do you hear voices that aren't real?


----------



## ambush80

I hear a stream of thought and words going through my head constantly and I have no idea where they originate from.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I hear a stream of thought and words going through my head constantly and I have no idea where they originate from.



If someday you suddenly realize something has changed about you but you cannot describe it to anyone, even though you know for sure it has truly happened, you will have experienced a spiritual "voice" that has called your name. It's not heard with the ears or discerned with the mind. It's heard by the spirit.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> If someday you suddenly realize something has changed about you but you cannot describe it to anyone, even though you know for sure it has truly happened, you will have experienced a spiritual "voice" that has called your name. It's not heard with the ears or discerned with the mind. It's heard by the spirit.




What if the voice tells me to kill Christians?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> What if the voice tells me to kill Christians?



You already hear that voice.
The voice I'm speaking of will change all that.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You already hear that voice.
> The voice I'm speaking of will change all that.


Welder, the headlines are full of people that swear god TOLD them to drown their kids, kill their spouses, etc etc etc.
It is the same source that you try to pass off in here.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder, the headlines are full of people that swear god TOLD them to drown their kids, kill their spouses, etc etc etc.
> It is the same source that you try to pass off in here.



The heart that is full of murder is also a heart that is full of lies.
The voice I'm speaking of gives a new heart, with new desires.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The heart that is full of murder is also a heart that is full of lies.
> The voice I'm speaking of gives a new heart, with new desires.



Intellectual Dishonesty at it's finest


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Intellectual Dishonesty at it's finest



It's not contingent upon intellect. Pay attention.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> It's not contingent upon intellect. Pay attention.



Imaginational Dishonesty is even worse welder.
If I wasn't paying attention you wouldn't be called out on your constant versions of misguided reality.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Imaginational Dishonesty is even worse welder.
> If I wasn't paying attention you wouldn't be called out on your constant versions of misguided reality.



...the jeweler handed the most beautiful ruby in all the world to the blind man...and after a brief handling the blind man sarcastically declared, "there's nothing special about this old rock"...


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> ...the jeweler handed the most beautiful ruby in all the world to the blind man...and after a brief handling the blind man sarcastically declared, "there's nothing special about this old rock"...



"The Emperor has no clothes"


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> ...the jeweler handed the most beautiful ruby in all the world to the blind man...and after a brief handling the blind man sarcastically declared, "there's nothing special about this old rock"...




Actually, the blind man sees the ruby for exactly what it is: a rock.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> ...the jeweler handed the most beautiful ruby in all the world to the blind man...and after a brief handling the blind man sarcastically declared, "there's nothing special about this old rock"



Where did this take place welder?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Actually, the blind man sees the ruby for exactly what it is: a rock.



Exactly, the blind man is not dazzled by color and flashy shine. Nor is he wooed by fables written by ancient men. 
Put god in his hand Welder and lie to us about what the blind man says then.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Exactly, the blind man is not dazzled by color and flashy shine. Nor is he wooed by fables written by ancient men.
> Put god in his hand Welder and lie to us about what the blind man says then.



If only I could type this out in braille, then maybe you'd understand?? ....

....Naa.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If only I could type this out in braille, then maybe you'd understand?? ....
> 
> ....Naa.


Welder, you have been incapable of doing anything to back up your position.
You use fables and fiction to back up fiction and fables.
"If Only" should be tattoed on you.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder,you have been incapable of doing anything to back up your position.You use fables and fiction to back up fiction and fables.
> "If Only" should be tattoed on you.



Let me fix that for you.

"Welder, you have been incapable of doing anything to back up your position" that we are capable of relating to with our lack of spiritual understanding.

That's better.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Let me fix that for you.
> 
> "Welder, you have been incapable of doing anything to back up your position" that we are capable of relating to with our lack of spiritual understanding.
> 
> That's better.


That is a typical action by someone that cannot comprehend the initial reply as it is specifically intended to be taken.
You have to change it to suit your needs and then act as if that was what the author intended.

Leave my posts alone. There is nothing to be fixed.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> That is a typical action by someone that cannot comprehend the initial reply as it is specifically intended to be taken.
> You have to change it to suit your needs and then act as if that was what the author intended.
> 
> Leave my posts alone. There is nothing to be fixed.



I'll do better than that.
I'll just leave you alone altogether.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Let me fix that for you.
> 
> "Welder, you have been incapable of doing anything to back up your position" that we are capable of relating to with our lack of spiritual understanding.
> 
> That's better.




I lack nothing.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'll do better than that.
> I'll just leave you alone altogether.



Don't make promises that you cannot keep.


----------



## hummerpoo

welderguy said:


> If only I could ...





bullethead said:


> ... There is nothing to be fixed.





ambush80 said:


> I lack nothing.



And there we have "it".


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> And there we have "it".



Since you have got "it" figured out so well would you mind detailing "it" on your end so that ambush and I are able to see "it" and the error of our ways?

All I am getting from your post is that ambush and I are unwilling to change our minds based off of the woefully inadequate evidence that is given to try to convince us and somehow you think  THAT is OUR problem.!?!?!?!?

I WISH you can clear it up for me and show me that what you speak of is attainable. "If Only You Could"  Well, here is your chance.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Since you have got "it" figured out so well would you mind detailing "it" on your end so that ambush and I are able to see "it" and the error of our ways?
> 
> All I am getting from your post is that ambush and I are unwilling to change our minds based off of the woefully inadequate evidence that is given to try to convince us and somehow you think  THAT is OUR problem.!?!?!?!?
> 
> I WISH you can clear it up for me and show me that what you speak of is attainable. "If Only You Could"  Well, here is your chance.





welderguy said:


> If only I could ...



indicates desire with a concurrent absence of faculty.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> indicates desire with a concurrent absence of faculty.



Are you saying that Welder is willing but unable?


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> indicates desire with a concurrent absence of faculty.





bullethead said:


> Are you saying that Welder is willing but unable?



If a condition is such that it can't be explained, shown, discovered, described, measured, tested for or replicated, why would anyone believe it exists?

Why would anyone believe the claim that something exists that isn't subject to any of those criteria? It's like saying you have an invisible dog that no one can hear, feel or smell but YOU can see, feel, smell and hear it.  Why should anyone believe you?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> And there we have "it".



I am still asking for you to describe "it".

You took a snippet from my reply and it seems that you used it totally out of context.

Can you explain?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I am still asking for you to describe "it".
> 
> You took a snippet from my reply and it seems that you used it totally out of context.
> 
> Can you explain?



"it" is that which most often occurs when "there is only physical" collides with "there is metaphysical".


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> "it" is that which most often occurs when "there is only physical" collides with "there is metaphysical".



Since I was telling welder to not alter my posts I am not understanding what that has to do with either. 

What most often occurs? Are you able to elaborate or is it so vague that "it" is like scripture and is most often unable to be backed up with facts?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Since I was telling welder to not alter my posts I am not understanding what that has to do with either.
> 
> What most often occurs? Are you able to elaborate or is it so vague that "it" is like scripture and is most often unable to be backed up with facts?



As I understand the situation you were disparaging Welders lack of physical "back up" for his position; and Welders alteration of you post was his attempt to show that his was a spiritual position.

[Welder, please jump in if I misunderstood.]

Again, I understand you response to indicate that you are not interested in things spiritual, or maybe, reject all things spiritual.

That which most often occurs is that no resolution is found and no significant understanding is gained by either party.

I hope this thing posts this time. Or maybe it will show up twice (to my embarrassment if I disagreed with myself).


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> As I understand the situation you were disparaging Welders lack of physical "back up" for his position; and Welders alteration of you post was his attempt to show that his was a spiritual position.
> 
> [Welder, please jump in if I misunderstood.]
> 
> Again, I understand you response to indicate that you are not interested in things spiritual, or maybe, reject all things spiritual.
> 
> That which most often occurs is that no resolution is found and no significant understanding is gained by either party.
> 
> I hope this thing posts this time. Or maybe it will show up twice (to my embarrassment if I disagreed with myself).


I appreciate the clarification. Thank you


----------



## Israel

The charade a man loathes deepest is the one presenting to him as the most shallow. And it is made this by its familiarity through his own use.


----------



## oldfella1962

Israel said:


> The charade a man loathes deepest is the one presenting to him as the most shallow. And it is made this by its familiarity through his own use.



I totally do not understand this at all, but it sounds interesting. Explain it please.


----------



## bullethead

oldfella1962 said:


> I totally do not understand this at all, but it sounds interesting. Explain it please.



Good luck


----------



## Israel

oldfella1962 said:


> I totally do not understand this at all, but it sounds interesting. Explain it please.



The unwillingness to share hiding places is as common as the man who congratulates himself for seeing what he believes wrong.


----------



## oldfella1962

Israel said:


> The unwillingness to share hiding places is as common as the man who congratulates himself for seeing what he believes wrong.



thanks, now I am further into the quicksand!


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> As I understand the situation you were disparaging Welders lack of physical "back up" for his position; and Welders alteration of you post was his attempt to show that his was a spiritual position.
> 
> [Welder, please jump in if I misunderstood.]
> 
> Again, I understand you response to indicate that you are not interested in things spiritual, or maybe, reject all things spiritual.
> 
> That which most often occurs is that no resolution is found and no significant understanding is gained by either party.
> 
> I hope this thing posts this time. Or maybe it will show up twice (to my embarrassment if I disagreed with myself).





> Again, I understand you response to indicate that you are not interested in things spiritual, or maybe, reject all things spiritual.


A different angle -
Part of the problem is that "things spiritual" are presented as "spiritual facts". These spiritual facts, which are actually not facts at all, are then used as the foundation of the argument, the proof of the argument and the claim is literally made that it is disconnected from and a whole separate "thing" than your intellect.
And that's just the short version.
Once Welder/believer/whoever present "things spiritual" as facts, then we treat them as such.
So its not that there is no interest in things spiritual or all things spiritual are rejected, its that they are being presented and used as facts and at that point are no longer "spiritual".


> That which most often occurs is that no resolution is found and no significant understanding is gained by either party.


True, when something is claimed to be a fact, yet cant even begun to be proven as one, there is going to be no resolution. Prove that supposed fact is a fact first and then the conversation will go in a whole different direction.
Its actually a self defeating argument to claim to understand and explain something that is completely separate from your intellect and therefore cant be understood or explained.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> The charade a man loathes deepest is the one presenting to him as the most shallow. And it is made this by its familiarity through his own use.





oldfella1962 said:


> I totally do not understand this at all, but it sounds interesting. Explain it please.





Israel said:


> The unwillingness to share hiding places is as common as the man who congratulates himself for seeing what he believes wrong.





oldfella1962 said:


> thanks, now I am further into the quicksand!



I'm certain there's an easier way to say what Isreal wants to say.  He refuses to do it.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> A different angle -
> Part of the problem is that "things spiritual" are presented as "spiritual facts". These spiritual facts, which are actually not facts at all, are then used as the foundation of the argument, the proof of the argument and the claim is literally made that it is disconnected from and a whole separate "thing" than your intellect.
> And that's just the short version.
> Once Welder/believer/whoever present "things spiritual" as facts, then we treat them as such.
> So its not that there is no interest in things spiritual or all things spiritual are rejected, its that they are being presented and used as facts and at that point are no longer "spiritual".
> 
> True, when something is claimed to be a fact, yet cant even begun to be proven as one, there is going to be no resolution. Prove that supposed fact is a fact first and then the conversation will go in a whole different direction.
> Its actually a self defeating argument to claim to understand and explain something that is completely separate from your intellect and therefore cant be understood or explained.


Very well put.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I'm certain there's an easier way to say what Isreal wants to say.  He refuses to do it.



No theater vibe to it in layman's terms.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> A different angle -
> Part of the problem is that "things spiritual" are presented as "spiritual facts". These spiritual facts, which are actually not facts at all, are then used as the foundation of the argument, the proof of the argument and the claim is literally made that it is disconnected from and a whole separate "thing" than your intellect.
> And that's just the short version.
> Once Welder/believer/whoever present "things spiritual" as facts, then we treat them as such.
> So its not that there is no interest in things spiritual or all things spiritual are rejected, its that they are being presented and used as facts and at that point are no longer "spiritual".
> 
> True, when something is claimed to be a fact, yet cant even begun to be proven as one, there is going to be no resolution. Prove that supposed fact is a fact first and then the conversation will go in a whole different direction.
> Its actually a self defeating argument to claim to understand and explain something that is completely separate from your intellect and therefore cant be understood or explained.



I love this.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> A different angle -
> Part of the problem is that "things spiritual" are presented as "spiritual facts". These spiritual facts, which are actually not facts at all, are then used as the foundation of the argument, the proof of the argument and the claim is literally made that it is disconnected from and a whole separate "thing" than your intellect.
> And that's just the short version.
> Once Welder/believer/whoever present "things spiritual" as facts, then we treat them as such.
> So its not that there is no interest in things spiritual or all things spiritual are rejected, its that they are being presented and used as facts and at that point are no longer "spiritual".
> 
> True, when something is claimed to be a fact, yet cant even begun to be proven as one, there is going to be no resolution. Prove that supposed fact is a fact first and then the conversation will go in a whole different direction.
> Its actually a self defeating argument to claim to understand and explain something that is completely separate from your intellect and therefore cant be understood or explained.



No different angle; it's the same old stuff which has been beaten around here for years.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> No different angle; it's the same old stuff which has been beaten around here for years.



Same old stuff that has yet to be shown incorrect.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Same old stuff that has yet to be shown incorrect.



True; in the eyes of one who denies the metaphysical, and that is my point.  Same old stuff.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> True; in the eyes of one who denies the metaphysical, and that is my point.  Same old stuff.



You forget that I and many of the "We"  are totally open to the metaphysical. Show us. Pray so that we can experience it. I am open to your god and any god that wants to contact me 24/7.

The tired old stuff is the people who not only make these metaphysical claims but then claim to have relationships with it, talk for it, know what an knowable being knows, you claim to understand something that is beyond our knowledge.
All we ask is that you back up what you claim. 
Is that so hard?
And if it is so hard to back up or prove the ultimate truth, then maybe our skepticism is warranted.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> True; in the eyes of one who denies the metaphysical, and that is my point.  Same old stuff.



Would you take my every word as truthful if I told you all about an invisible friend that I have?

Would you jump on the bandwagon with me if I were to announce that I interact with a tribe of Sasquatches in the physical world? If I had an an answer for every question that you had about these creatures what would be your next logical step? Would you ask for more solid proof or would you be totally fine taking my word for it and join my club with your proof solely being my word?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> You forget that I and many of the "We"  are totally open to the metaphysical. Show us. Pray so that we can experience it. I am open to your god and any god that wants to contact me 24/7.
> 
> The tired old stuff is the people who not only make these metaphysical claims but then claim to have relationships with it, talk for it, know what an knowable being knows, you claim to understand something that is beyond our knowledge.
> All we ask is that you back up what you claim.
> Is that so hard?
> And if it is so hard to back up or prove the ultimate truth, then maybe our skepticism is warranted.



I can not impart my physical/sensible experiences to you, nor you to me.  One of us can only tell the other about our physical experiences, as best he can, then the other must relate what he is told to his own experiences in an attempt to understand, but it is never the same experience.  For example, I know that when the bone in my  thumb stops the rotation of a skillsaw blade under power by slipping the clutch, I can feel the vibration of the clutch all the way to the bone in my big toe, because I experienced that just less than fifty years ago.  The degree to which you understand what I tell you depends on your personal experiences that are, in whatever fashion, similar.  (I'm assuming that you have not had an identical experience, which is probably not possible — too many variables.)

To a degree, the same is true for metaphysical/transcendent experience.  If there is ground which we share in that area that could serve as a bases for understanding, I have not recognized it as similar enough to be useful.  I can however accept that you are earnest in what you tell me of your experience.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> True; in the eyes of one who denies the metaphysical, and that is my point.  Same old stuff.


"In the eyes of one who denies the metaphysical".
That is a perfect example.
You remove the responsibility from the one who is claiming the metaphysical is fact and placing it squarely on the one who just wont seem to accept that "fact" without proof.
Yes.
Same old stuff.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> "In the eyes of one who denies the metaphysical".
> That is a perfect example.
> You remove the responsibility from the one who is claiming the metaphysical is fact and placing it squarely on the one who just wont seem to accept that "fact" without proof.
> Yes.
> Same old stuff.



I'm having trouble getting this aligned in my thoughts.
Who are you saying has what responsibility and how did they acquire it?


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I'm having trouble getting this aligned in my thoughts.
> Who are you saying has what responsibility and how did they acquire it?


The "metaphysical" is a basically a philosophy. Its a huge conglomeration of MAN'S thoughts, opinions, ideas, theories, viewpoints etc covering a wide range of subjects. Its not a place like Phoenix is a place. Its not a physical thing like a ham sandwich is a physical thing.
Because you believe certain parts or agree with certain theories, ideas, opinions etc of the metaphysical, does not make them a fact.
If you are going to use them as a fact then the responsibility is on you to prove them first.

The "metaphysical" is not a intellectual get out jail free card - 
"Its true, but I cant prove it because its the metaphysical". 
"You cant understand it because its the metaphysical".
"You just deny the metaphysical".


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> The "metaphysical" is a basically a philosophy. Its a huge conglomeration of MAN'S thoughts, opinions, ideas, theories, viewpoints etc covering a wide range of subjects. Its not a place like Phoenix is a place. Its not a physical thing like a ham sandwich is a physical thing.
> Because you believe certain parts or agree with certain theories, ideas, opinions etc of the metaphysical, does not make them a fact.
> If you are going to use them as a fact then the responsibility is on you to prove them first.
> 
> The "metaphysical" is not a intellectual get out jail free card -
> "Its true, but I cant prove it because its the metaphysical".
> "You cant understand it because its the metaphysical".
> "You just deny the metaphysical" .



Wow!  Your description of metaphysical is wildly different than mine.


----------



## TripleXBullies

ambush80 said:


> I'm certain there's an easier way to say what Isreal wants to say.  He refuses to do it.



This is not news.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> I can not impart my physical/sensible experiences to you, nor you to me.  One of us can only tell the other about our physical experiences, as best he can, then the other must relate what he is told to his own experiences in an attempt to understand, but it is never the same experience.  For example, I know that when the bone in my  thumb stops the rotation of a skillsaw blade under power by slipping the clutch, I can feel the vibration of the clutch all the way to the bone in my big toe, because I experienced that just less than fifty years ago.  The degree to which you understand what I tell you depends on your personal experiences that are, in whatever fashion, similar.  (I'm assuming that you have not had an identical experience, which is probably not possible — too many variables.)
> 
> To a degree, the same is true for metaphysical/transcendent experience.  If there is ground which we share in that area that could serve as a bases for understanding, I have not recognized it as similar enough to be useful.  I can however accept that you are earnest in what you tell me of your experience.



How would you tell someone what a lemon tastes like if they had never tasted one?   What if they had tasted something similar to a lemon, say a lime?  I've tried very hard to have believers do the same with me.  I've had transcendental experiences, at least that's what they seemed to be.  I can describe what it's like to not feel attached to anything physical.  I've cut myself to the bone and I know very well what a circular saw is capable of.  It's not too hard for me to get pretty close to knowing what it feels like to cut a thumb with one.  I have a good friend who cut the tip of his thumb off (below the nail and above the knuckle).  He relayed the experience in clear enough terms that I think I know what that might feel like.  I can't get anyone to tell me what Jesus'/God's voice sounds like. 

When I type I hear my voice in my head forming the words.  When I read I often hear it in my own voice but sometimes if I have heard the author speak I hear it in their voice.  Sometimes it actually makes the words make more sense.  Who's voice do you hear when God speaks to you?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I can not impart my physical/sensible experiences to you, nor you to me.  One of us can only tell the other about our physical experiences, as best he can, then the other must relate what he is told to his own experiences in an attempt to understand, but it is never the same experience.  For example, I know that when the bone in my  thumb stops the rotation of a skillsaw blade under power by slipping the clutch, I can feel the vibration of the clutch all the way to the bone in my big toe, because I experienced that just less than fifty years ago.  The degree to which you understand what I tell you depends on your personal experiences that are, in whatever fashion, similar.  (I'm assuming that you have not had an identical experience, which is probably not possible — too many variables.)
> 
> To a degree, the same is true for metaphysical/transcendent experience.  If there is ground which we share in that area that could serve as a bases for understanding, I have not recognized it as similar enough to be useful.  I can however accept that you are earnest in what you tell me of your experience.


I can replicate the skillsaw incident if I wanted to.

As far as the metaphysical,  I kind of agree with you to a point. The point where you and other Christians are all in agreement on spiritual experiences because you all can relate BUT then  turn your nose at people all over the world who have had very similar experiences but attribute them to a different god.
If your metaphysical evidence is proof, why isn't theirs?


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Wow!  Your description of metaphysical is wildly different than mine.


Apparently so.
So lets explore.
My description of the metaphysical was -


> The "metaphysical" is a basically a philosophy. Its a huge conglomeration of MAN'S thoughts, opinions, ideas, theories, viewpoints etc covering a wide range of subjects. Its not a place like Phoenix is a place. Its not a physical thing like a ham sandwich is a physical thing.


To back up my description -


> Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality.





> Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it.





> metaphysics is referred to as a branch of philosophy that deals with first cause and the nature of being. It is taught as a branch of philosophy in most academic universities under the label of “Speculative Philosophy.”





> If we were to travel from one metaphysical teacher or organization to another, we would find people engaging in different things, all under the label of metaphysics. This could be a wide range, such as yogis, mystics, astrologers, positive thinking teachers, meditation teachers, spiritual healers, graphoanalysts, self-help teachers, counselors, coaches, and so on. The range is wide, but again the basic denominator is the search for truth, purpose, and meaning in life, which cannot be isolated from basic spiritual questions.





> Your description of metaphysical is wildly different than mine.


So whats yours?


----------



## Israel

Every mind is purposed, and has one.

And the universally curious experience a man has when he first hears his own voice on a recording is a part of the experiment no man can opt from. We will eat what we serve out. And we serve out from our table.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> How would you tell someone what a lemon tastes like if they had never tasted one?   What if they had tasted something similar to a lemon, say a lime?  I've tried very hard to have believers do the same with me.  I've had transcendental experiences, at least that's what they seemed to be.  I can describe what it's like to not feel attached to anything physical.  I've cut myself to the bone and I know very well what a circular saw is capable of.  It's not too hard for me to get pretty close to knowing what it feels like to cut a thumb with one.  I have a good friend who cut the tip of his thumb off (below the nail and above the knuckle).  He relayed the experience in clear enough terms that I think I know what that might feel like.  I can't get anyone to tell me what Jesus'/God's voice sounds like.
> 
> When I type I hear my voice in my head forming the words.  When I read I often hear it in my own voice but sometimes if I have heard the author speak I hear it in their voice.  Sometimes it actually makes the words make more sense.  Who's voice do you hear when God speaks to you?



When I was writing that I was thinking that you probably had adequate information to have some idea what I was talking about.

You lemon example is a good one, other citrus fruits being similar, etc.

I’m probably not a good candidate for your request.  What you describe of your typing and reading experience is different than mine.  You describe a pseudo auditory aspect which is foreign to me.  The words form in my mind, but there is no voice, or tonal, or cadence, aspect at all.  Maybe that’s why I tend to use more punctuation than most (and many times mentally scold others for not doing so, like “If I had a comma here or there I would know which way he meant it).


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I can replicate the skillsaw incident if I wanted to.
> 
> As far as the metaphysical,  I kind of agree with you to a point. The point where you and other Christians are all in agreement on spiritual experiences because you all can relate BUT then  turn your nose at people all over the world who have had very similar experiences but attribute them to a different god.
> If your metaphysical evidence is proof, why isn't theirs?



As I see it, you have stated your question differently than I have seen it, from you, in the past.  Although I don’t think all who hold to a faith similar to mine “turn their nose at” those people, it is true that many do (which is also true for those of a faith not similar to mine).  With that caveat, and noting your adjective “similar”, I think you have asked a legitimate question.  Unfortunately, if thoroughly explored, it requires a very involved answer, which does not affect the value of the question; but does make me ineligible as one who can adequately respond.

It does occur to me that if metaphysical evidence is proof, then the holder of that evidence, or the source of that evidence is of no consequence; only the quality of the evidence and the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from the evidence is of consequence.  BTW, metaphysical evidence is replicative in a general sense, although, like physical experiences, never identical; but it is not physically controlled.

You and I once discussed what is distinctive about, what is called, the Christian God.  One thing I said, among others, was “The One True God fulfills His just imperatives for His chosen people in their stead.”  I don’t think I tried to get you to believe that is true in itself, but I was unable to explain what I meant in a way that you understood.  That has bothered me ever since.  So, if you are even a little interested, you might search around for discussions of “substitutionary atonement”.  I still have found no other form of faith that teaches this; and it is that distinctive of God, as I worship Him, that ties together many rather loose ends.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Every mind is purposed, and has one.



What is your source on that?


----------



## Israel

And do not presume to say within yourselves, 'We have Abraham as father.' For I say to you that out of these stones God is able to raise up children unto Abraham.


The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.


Jesus has much to say about voices, and the hearkening to each.

He that has ears to hear, let him hear.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I can replicate the skillsaw incident if I wanted to.



I think I understand what you are saying, but my point focuses on the variables which, I think, cannot be replicated — like surprise, state of mind, etc.; — which were a major contributor to the experience.  Even many other immediate and intermediate time experiences contribute to the experience in discernable ways.  Besides, where are you going to find a brand new Skil model 552 saw with the factory supplied blade still on it, without which the experience would have been completely different because of clutch condition and style of blade.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Apparently so.
> So lets explore.
> My description of the metaphysical was -
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The "metaphysical" is a basically a philosophy. Its a huge conglomeration of MAN'S thoughts, opinions, ideas, theories, viewpoints etc covering a wide range of subjects. Its not a place like Phoenix is a place. Its not a physical thing like a ham sandwich is a physical thing.
> 
> 
> 
> To back up my description -
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> metaphysics is referred to as a branch of philosophy that deals with first cause and the nature of being. It is taught as a branch of philosophy in most academic universities under the label of “Speculative Philosophy.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were to travel from one metaphysical teacher or organization to another, we would find people engaging in different things, all under the label of metaphysics. This could be a wide range, such as yogis, mystics, astrologers, positive thinking teachers, meditation teachers, spiritual healers, graphoanalysts, self-help teachers, counselors, coaches, and so on. The range is wide, but again the basic denominator is the search for truth, purpose, and meaning in life, which cannot be isolated from basic spiritual questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> So whats yours?
Click to expand...


There is, of course, an important distinction between metaphysics and metaphysical; and it is your second sentence, not your first, to which my comment was directed.

Your first two quotes, apparently from Wikipedia and PBS

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

https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html


are reasonable abbreviated descriptions of metaphysics, but are inadequate, at best, to distinguish metaphysical from physical (which can get cloudy on some levels, but is pretty distinct when addressed generally).

Your third and fourth quotes are pretty flakey.  But then, from the apparent source

https://universityofsedona.com/meaning-of-metaphysics/

one could not expect something different.  From what I could find The University of Sedona, aka University of Metaphysics, aka International Metaphysical Ministries is an unaccredited diploma mill whose founder, and author of the quotes, holds credentials which are also unaccredited.  While credentials are only paper, they can provide guidance.
  A google search can provide some entertainment; I found this one, from a holder of three degrees and one ordination from the “university” (if I unscrambled it correctly) perversely spellbinding.

https://www.paganspath.com/about/springwolf.htm

The attached "dissertations" are particularly entertaining.

So what is my understanding of metaphysical?  Reading the PBS link provided above in its entirety would get you pretty close (looking at metaphysical not metaphysics).


----------



## hummerpoo

I'm spending an imprudent amount of time here.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I think I understand what you are saying, but my point focuses on the variables which, I think, cannot be replicated — like surprise, state of mind, etc.; — which were a major contributor to the experience.  Even many other immediate and intermediate time experiences contribute to the experience in discernable ways.  Besides, where are you going to find a brand new Skil model 552 saw with the factory supplied blade still on it, without which the experience would have been completely different because of clutch condition and style of blade.


Are you implying that it is a near impossible task to replicate something tangible because finding a Skil model 552 with the factory supplied blade still on it, specific clutch condition and style of blade... but, the measure of a metaphysical experience is based not of the source but the quality of the experience and the accuracy of the conclusions? And those experiences are replicative in a general sense??


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I'm spending an imprudent amount of time here.



Then "It's all about God" isnt really accurate.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> There is, of course, an important distinction between metaphysics and metaphysical; and
> 
> Your first two quotes, apparently from Wikipedia and PBS
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
> 
> https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
> 
> 
> are reasonable abbreviated descriptions of metaphysics, but are inadequate, at best, to distinguish metaphysical from physical (which can get cloudy on some levels, but is pretty distinct when addressed generally).
> 
> Your third and fourth quotes are pretty flakey.  But then, from the apparent source
> 
> https://universityofsedona.com/meaning-of-metaphysics/
> 
> one could not expect something different.  From what I could find The University of Sedona, aka University of Metaphysics, aka International Metaphysical Ministries is an unaccredited diploma mill whose founder, and author of the quotes, holds credentials which are also unaccredited.  While credentials are only paper, they can provide guidance.
> A google search can provide some entertainment; I found this one, from a holder of three degrees and one ordination from the “university” (if I unscrambled it correctly) perversely spellbinding.
> 
> https://www.paganspath.com/about/springwolf.htm
> 
> The attached "dissertations" are particularly entertaining.
> 
> So what is my understanding of metaphysical?  Reading the PBS link provided above in its entirety would get you pretty close (looking at metaphysical not metaphysics).





> There is, of course, an important distinction between metaphysics and metaphysical


The metaphysical is "of" metaphysics. 


> it is your second sentence, not your first, to which my comment was directed.


This? -


> Its a huge conglomeration of MAN'S thoughts, opinions, ideas, theories, viewpoints etc covering a wide range of subjects.


That's what it is. 
Your Christian beliefs/Christian God are but a drop in the bucket of the metaphysical/metaphysics.


> are reasonable abbreviated descriptions of metaphysics, but are inadequate, at best, to distinguish metaphysical from physical (which can get cloudy on some levels, but is pretty distinct when addressed generally).


Its not the descriptions job to distinguish metaphysical from physical. That's what we (humans) do.
This is the descriptions job -
It establishes what metaphysics is.


> Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy


It establishes what -


> exploring the fundamental nature of reality.


We do all the rest. 


> Your third and fourth quotes are pretty flakey.  But then, from the apparent source


I cant help that you find those two FACTUAL quotes flakey.
I appreciate your attempt to discredit the sources however what I used were facts so the source is of no significance. Discredit the facts.


> So what is my understanding of metaphysical?  Reading the PBS link provided above in its entirety would get you pretty close (looking at metaphysical not metaphysics


The PBS link confirmed everything I said.
It starts right off the bat telling you its a philosophy.
Who's philosophy? Man's.
About what? Life/reality
Who's life/reality? Man's.
Who's thoughts/ideas/viewpoints comprise the philosophy of metaphysics? Man's.


> Its a huge conglomeration of MAN'S thoughts, opinions, ideas, theories, viewpoints etc covering a wide range of subjects



But if the PBS link is "pretty close" to what you believe then I'm really confused why you think -


> Wow! Your description of metaphysical is wildly different than mine.


Is it the "philosophy" part you are having troubles with?


----------



## Israel

When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ On its arrival, it finds the house vacant, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and dwell there; and the final plight of that man is worse than the first. So will it be with this wicked generation.”

The Master has told us. To be unprepared for the battle with the returning spirit bringing with itself seven worse is not fault of the One who warns.
It is...how things are.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> As I see it, you have stated your question differently than I have seen it, from you, in the past.  Although I don’t think all who hold to a faith similar to mine “turn their nose at” those people, it is true that many do (which is also true for those of a faith not similar to mine).  With that caveat, and noting your adjective “similar”, I think you have asked a legitimate question.  Unfortunately, if thoroughly explored, it requires a very involved answer, which does not affect the value of the question; but does make me ineligible as one who can adequately respond.
> 
> It does occur to me that if metaphysical evidence is proof, then the holder of that evidence, or the source of that evidence is of no consequence; only the quality of the evidence and the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from the evidence is of consequence.  BTW, metaphysical evidence is replicative in a general sense, although, like physical experiences, never identical; but it is not physically controlled.
> 
> You and I once discussed what is distinctive about, what is called, the Christian God.  One thing I said, among others, was “The One True God fulfills His just imperatives for His chosen people in their stead.”  I don’t think I tried to get you to believe that is true in itself, but I was unable to explain what I meant in a way that you understood.  That has bothered me ever since.  So, if you are even a little interested, you might search around for discussions of “substitutionary atonement”.  I still have found no other form of faith that teaches this; and it is that distinctive of God, as I worship Him, that ties together many rather loose ends.





> It does occur to me that if metaphysical evidence is proof, then the holder of that evidence, or the source of that evidence is of no consequence;


You got it. Is that a fleeting occurrence or did you think it through and understand the implications of that? 


> only the quality of the evidence and the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from the evidence is of consequence.


Aww you gave a way out of facing those implications.
And who will judge the quality of the evidence and the accuracy of the conclusions?
How will that be judged? What are you going to compare the quality and accuracy to, to determine its level of quality and accuracy?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> You got it. Is that a fleeting occurrence or did you think it through and understand the implications of that?
> 
> Aww you gave a way out of facing those implications.
> And who will judge the quality of the evidence and the accuracy of the conclusions?
> How will that be judged? What are you going to compare the quality and accuracy to, to determine its level of quality and accuracy?


The answer for the believer, though simple, he may find not "easy". And it is precisely in that matter of judgment you mention.

In the deepest sense the believer has relinquished his _presumed_ right to judge among men. I daresay he is always discovering this depth of relinquishing as he returns, or is compelled to return, to the foundation of his faith; the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all things.

A man sees a thing, experiences a thing, and is immediately propelled into the filing of this seemingly _the outer_ in _the inner_. Do we not all have _bins_? 

But the believer is always learning (unless I am just being myself, presumptuous) those assignments are never his "own" to make. Though make them he does, even by a compulsion he knows he has not chosen "I cannot help but taste some things bitter, some things sweet" but he has been brought to, by faith, the _Taster_ of all. Though he knows something of the compulsion to assign _to good_ and _to evil_ he has experienced a greater compulsion...to relinquish to that other "Taster"...the Judge...of all. And here he will either find the suspension of himself (or make the Oh, so common to us all!) mistake of presuming upon the knowledge of the reality of _that Judge_ that he has somehow been made fit to judge in all things. For he will, if allowing that error its continuance find he has neglected the implicit relegation (no less true that God alone judges all) that all things appointed to his experience, are appointed by the hand of that same Judge. All that happens _to him_ are, in every way,
no less,_ for him_. Unless his faith is _in vain_, and of such vanity to appoint to himself the "what _should_ happen to him" to himself. And here he will be shown as seeking to ascend above the Almighty. (and he may also find that the ridiculousness of this thing when made plain, is also so very common..._to him._)

Yes, he has the faith to believe _all things_, even happening at all times to all men, even in all men, are _engineered to an end._ And he knows he, by this faith, is not exempted.

In practice, and in every sense, he is learning to become a gleaner. To find the things overlooked, even among those things he once, in presumption, himself overlooked...and finding the sweet in what he once found so bitter. He is a beggar among men. And what he begs for, no man knows. But the one begging...is finding out.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Are you implying that it is a near impossible task to replicate something tangible because finding a Skil model 552 with the factory supplied blade still on it, specific clutch condition and style of blade...



That is only part of what I said.  The other things are more significant.  The part you refer to is only an aside, as indicated by the introductory “Besides”.  (Actually, I intended the aside to be mildly humorous; silly me, right.)



> but, the measure of a metaphysical experience is based not of the source but the quality of the experience and the accuracy of the conclusions? And those experiences are replicative in a general sense??



That is not what I said.  Do you not distinguish between an experience, the event itself, and evidence, the experience functioning as support of a given thesis?  If that distinction was not intended when you said “If your metaphysical evidence is proof, why isn't theirs?”, then my statements in post #132 are based on a misunderstanding and are, therefore, in error.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Then "It's all about God" isnt really accurate.



I don’t follow?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I don’t follow?



You are giving me grammar lessons one post above and then you make a statement followed by a question mark.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> You are giving me grammar lessons one post above and then you make a statement followed by a question mark.



But, my post was responsive.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Is it the "philosophy" part you are having troubles with?



The "philosophy" is not the subject; it is the means by which the subject is explored.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> But, my post was responsive.



Most replies are.


----------



## oldfella1962

"When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ On its arrival, it finds the house vacant, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and dwell there." 

man, don't you just hate it when that happens? 
Well as long as it's on a Monday and not a Friday - it doesn't ruin my weekend that way.


----------



## Israel

oldfella1962 said:


> "When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ On its arrival, it finds the house vacant, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and dwell there."
> 
> man, don't you just hate it when that happens?
> Well as long as it's on a Monday and not a Friday - it doesn't ruin my weekend that way.



Ruin is all they bring.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> The "philosophy" is not the subject; it is the means by which the subject is explored.


I feel like I'm pulling teeth here 
How would you explore it differently?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> The Master has told us.



It doesn't make you the slightest bit queasy to utter those words?


----------



## NCHillbilly

bullethead said:


> I can replicate the skillsaw incident if I wanted to.
> 
> As far as the metaphysical,  I kind of agree with you to a point. The point where you and other Christians are all in agreement on spiritual experiences because you all can relate BUT then  turn your nose at people all over the world who have had very similar experiences but attribute them to a different god.
> If your metaphysical evidence is proof, why isn't theirs?


I have always said that 99% of devout American Christians would right now be devout Hindus if they had been born in India, and 99% of fanatical Muslims would right now be Baptists if they had been born in Alabama.


----------



## bullethead

NCHillbilly said:


> I have always said that 99% of devout American Christians would right now be devout Hindus if they had been born in India, and 99% of fanatical Muslims would right now be Baptists if they had been born in Alabama.



Truth


----------



## ky55

NCHillbilly said:


> I have always said that 99% of devout American Christians would right now be devout Hindus if they had been born in India, and 99% of fanatical Muslims would right now be Baptists if they had been born in Alabama.



That would be probably be a conservative estimate.


----------



## ambush80

NCHillbilly said:


> I have always said that 99% of devout American Christians would right now be devout Hindus if they had been born in India, and 99% of fanatical Muslims would right now be Baptists if they had been born in Alabama.




I wish one of them would explain why they don't care about this fact.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I wish one of them would explain why they don't care about this fact.



Because they still think that Jesus would have hand chosen them over in India only because they are unable and unwilling to put any further thought into the corner that they have backed themselves into.
To admit anything else only confirms what we already know.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I wish one of them would explain why they don't care about this fact.


I'm not sure its a matter of "caring".
I think its more of a matter of, it must be dismissed therefore it is dismissed.


----------



## 660griz

NCHillbilly said:


> I have always said that 99% of devout American Christians would right now be devout Hindus if they had been born in India, and 99% of fanatical Muslims would right now be Baptists if they had been born in Alabama.



Yep. It has been stated on here several time. Religion is a lottery of birth.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> It doesn't make you the slightest bit queasy to utter those words?



Before I make a move, I am already in check-mate.
Yes, He is Lord...Master...King...Ruler...Knower of all.  Yes, He rules the board, but CEO just sounds too hipster.

There is nothing...and no one, that is not moving in accord to His appointed end.


Before any of us make a move, we are already in check, mate.  Many's the fool who's tried to capture His King.
When all ever needed was the asking.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Before I make a move, I am already in check-mate.
> Yes, He is Lord...Master...King...Ruler...Knower of all.  Yes, He rules the board, but CEO just sounds too hipster.
> 
> There is nothing...and no one, that is not moving in accord to His appointed end.
> 
> 
> Before any of us make a move, we are already in check, mate.  Many's the fool who's tried to capture His King.
> When all ever needed was the asking.



Put you down for a no?


----------



## welderguy

NCHillbilly said:


> I have always said that 99% of devout American Christians would right now be devout Hindus if they had been born in India, and 99% of fanatical Muslims would right now be Baptists if they had been born in Alabama.



Has it ever occurred to you that God not only knows who He will call, but also where He placed who He calls in the first place? He does all that. Nothing is random with Him.

Acts 17:26

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;


----------



## NCHillbilly

welderguy said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that God not only knows who He will call, but also where He placed who He calls in the first place? He does all that. Nothing is random with Him.
> 
> Acts 17:26
> 
> 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;


That sounds much more realistic and believable than the idea that people generally follow the religion of the people and culture of the place where they are born and live.


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> I wish one of them would explain why they don't care about this fact.



It's not that I don't care, it's just that we're seeing this from two very different viewpoints. 

I can only answer this question theologically using the bible but because that doesnt hold water with you I don't think it would be helpful. (Update: I see that welderguy touched on what my biblical, theological answer would be if you're interested) 

Christianity is more diverse than you might think though. 

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/


----------



## welderguy

NCHillbilly said:


> That sounds much more realistic and believable than the idea that people generally follow the religion of the people and culture of the place where they are born and live.



In a general sense I would say you are correct, up to a certain point. But I'm looking beyond the general to the peculiar.

Some, not unlike yourself, go a different route than their raising or culture influences would generally determine.


----------



## DrPhanster

From what I'm reading, the OP is just a troll.  It's not an uncommon christian conservative mindset:  the idea that just because they believe something, there is evidence to support it.  Trying to explain to them that they are confusing emotions and facts is generally a fruitless labor.


----------



## atlashunter

Israel said:


> Before I make a move, I am already in check-mate.
> Yes, He is Lord...Master...King...Ruler...Knower of all.  Yes, He rules the board, but CEO just sounds too hipster.
> 
> There is nothing...and no one, that is not moving in accord to His appointed end.
> 
> 
> Before any of us make a move, we are already in check, mate.  Many's the fool who's tried to capture His King.
> When all ever needed was the asking.



That would include Lucifer and the serpent in the garden. An arsonist who promises to eventually extinguish the fire he set hardly qualifies as one worthy of praise.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Because they still think that Jesus would have hand chosen them over in India only because they are unable and unwilling to put any further thought into the corner that they have backed themselves into.
> To admit anything else only confirms what we already know.



This is right but not all right. 

I believe that Christ chooses his followers (where ever they live) because the Bible says that He does. I've put plenty of thought into the matter, and I don't feel backed into a corner at all. 

It's also biblical that once a Father comes to Christ, his family often but not always follows suit. 

So I don't disagree that my belief system is in someway predicated on who my daddy is, but I don't believe that's the only reason I am a Christian. 

I know plenty of people who put little stock in what their daddy says, about faith or anything else.


----------



## MiGGeLLo

welderguy said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that God not only knows who He will call, but also where He placed who He calls in the first place? He does all that. Nothing is random with Him.
> 
> Acts 17:26
> 
> 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;



As long as you aren't also going to claim he's a merciful God, this may have some logical validity to it. Although there is no evidence for it and a lot suggesting that it is unlikely (largely the lack of clairvoyance of biblical writers.. they were very much human and it is internally consistent.. not indicative of divine inspiration to my mind) it could be true.

However isn't it pretty cruel to eternally torment creatures that you pre-destined to that fate?


----------



## centerpin fan

Not every Christian believes this is God's plan:



MiGGeLLo said:


> ... to eternally torment creatures that you pre-destined to that fate?


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Not every Christian believes this is God's plan:



With over 40,000 different Christian denominations it is unclear what Christians actually believe and it questions the accuracy of their source.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> With over 40,000 different Christian denominations it is unclear what Christians actually believe ...



Fair enough.




bullethead said:


> ... and it questions the accuracy of their source.



The source is the same.  It's the interpretation of the source by fallible men that is the problem.  As St. Hilary of Poiters said many centuries ago, "Scripture is not in the reading.  It's in the understanding."


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The source is the same.  It's the interpretation of the source by fallible men that is the problem.  As St. Hilary of Poiters said many centuries ago, "Scripture is not in the reading.  It's in the understanding."


Because the source IS men!

What exactly is god-like about the Bible, the Koran and every other written religious text?

What they all have in common is that no divine entity of any sort, let alone one that is supposed to be capable of thinking things into existence,  has ever written so much as a single stroke.

The original writings are dust and or ashes. Nobody knows what the originals contained.
The earliest known and viewable copies are from the 4th century, coincidentally about the same time the earliest known scripture was controlled by the church and any non scripture they could get their hands on was destroyed.
The copies of copies are errant and mistranslated, added to and inaccurate.

I am all for gods being god-like but when they talk like men, act like men, have emotions of men, and are written about by men.....I get pretty convinced that people are worshiping Men's versions of what a god should be.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The source is the same.  It's the interpretation of the source by fallible men that is the problem.  As St. Hilary of Poiters said many centuries ago, "Scripture is not in the reading.  It's in the understanding."





> It's the interpretation of the source by fallible men that is the problem.





> "Scripture is not in the reading.  It's in the understanding."


Talk about going around in a circle.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Because the source IS men!
> 
> What exactly is god-like about the Bible, the Koran and every other written religious text?
> 
> What they all have in common is that no divine entity of any sort, let alone one that is supposed to be capable of thinking things into existence,  has ever written so much as a single stroke.
> 
> The original writings are dust and or ashes. Nobody knows what the originals contained.
> The earliest known and viewable copies are from the 4th century, coincidentally about the same time the earliest known scripture was controlled by the church and any non scripture they could get their hands on was destroyed.
> The copies of copies are errant and mistranslated, added to and inaccurate.
> 
> I am all for gods being god-like but when they talk like men, act like men, have emotions of men, and are written about by men.....I get pretty convinced that people are worshiping Men's versions of what a god should be.



And you decide what is GOD like?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> And you decide what is GOD like?



Nope, I don't let you decide either.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Nope, I don't let you decide either.



I'm fine with that. But I am not fine with you discounting my experiences.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I'm fine with that. But I am not fine with you discounting my experiences.



There is one way that you can help yourself out and show me the errors of my ways.

Until then, you are at the discretion of others who you are unable to convince. You cannot discount our other possible suggestions on what and why you experienced and you are unable to back up your claims. In a way you discount them yourself.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> There is one way that you can help yourself out and show me the errors of my ways.
> 
> Until then, you are at the discretion of others who you are unable to convince. You cannot discount our other possible suggestions on what and why you experienced and you are unable to back up your claims. In a way you discount them yourself.



No discount here brother I lived it and witnessed it. You don't believe me that's fine. I was just sharing.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> I'm fine with that. But I am not fine with you discounting my experiences.



Personal experience doesn't really amount to much. People claim all sorts of experiences. I doubt you take all of them as comporting with reality even if the person making the claim is sincere.


----------



## oldfella1962

it sure seems as if "god" is indeed a reflection of man's emotions and behaviors - just a super-charged version of mortal man! Man gets jealous - while a man might kill you, God might kill your entire army! Man gets disgusted & disappointed he might kill you or your family - god floods the world! Your buddies are bad CensoredCensoredCensored & might knock somebody out - god's people use the jawbone of a donkey to kill 5,000 enemy soldiers! You get the idea.


----------



## bullethead

oldfella1962 said:


> it sure seems as if "god" is indeed a reflection of man's emotions and behaviors - just a super-charged version of mortal man! Man gets jealous - while a man might kill you, God might kill your entire army! Man gets disgusted & disappointed he might kill you or your family - god floods the world! Your buddies are bad CensoredCensoredCensored & might knock somebody out - god's people use the jawbone of a donkey to kill 5,000 enemy soldiers! You get the idea.



A superhero version of oneself. The One Upper


----------



## oldfella1962

bullethead said:


> A superhero version of oneself. The One Upper



yes, that's it exactly. It's kinda sorta like that Saturday Night Live running sketch "Bill Brasky." A bunch of drunk salesmen are sharing stories about the best salesman in the company, the mythical "Bill Brasky" (stands about 7 feet 6 inches, weighs in about 450) and the drunker they get the more outrageous the stories get. 

Sorry but HUMAN NATURE is the basis of all religion:
1) humans want reasons and explanations for the crazy, complicated, brutal, and obviously unfair world in which we live.
2) humans want to be entertained, educated, and we all love to create and tell and hear stories - the bigger and more exciting the better we like them!
3) humans want to be in control (crazy brutal world you know!) as much as possible. What better way than to spread your superior way of life to keep everyone on the same sheet of music? And if your way of life is mandated by a powerful perfect deity it's easier to justify your actions. 

granted not all of these apply to every religion, but some of them do. As for the Abrahamic religions there is nothing scientific or historic that would indicate the religions were conceived of and structured by anything but the hand of mankind who were products of their times.


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> yes, that's it exactly. It's kinda sorta like that Saturday Night Live running sketch "Bill Brasky." A bunch of drunk salesmen are sharing stories about the best salesman in the company, the mythical "Bill Brasky" (stands about 7 feet 6 inches, weighs in about 450) and the drunker they get the more outrageous the stories get.
> 
> Sorry but HUMAN NATURE is the basis of all religion:
> 1) humans want reasons and explanations for the crazy, complicated, brutal, and obviously unfair world in which we live.
> 2) humans want to be entertained, educated, and we all love to create and tell and hear stories - the bigger and more exciting the better we like them!
> 3) humans want to be in control (crazy brutal world you know!) as much as possible. What better way than to spread your superior way of life to keep everyone on the same sheet of music? And if your way of life is mandated by a powerful perfect deity it's easier to justify your actions.
> 
> granted not all of these apply to every religion, but some of them do. As for the Abrahamic religions there is nothing scientific or historic that would indicate the religions were conceived of and structured by anything but the hand of mankind who were products of their times.



I would add that one of the great appeals of many religions is the promise of eternal life. 

Would any Christians worship Christ without the promise of Heaven or the penalty of He11?


----------



## MiGGeLLo

red neck richie said:


> No discount here brother I lived it and witnessed it. You don't believe me that's fine. I was just sharing.



Of course we don't have to, but you want us to know you have had supernatural or at least miraculous experiences as part of the reason you know God is real. I do not discount that you believe that, but all must question how much weight that personal experience brings to the discussion since we cannot reproduce it.

People of other faiths also claim to have witness miracles or other divinely inspired events. Here's an example:


> "A Clear and Visible Miracle
> 
> After I’d completed my first reading of the Quran I started to listen to different Ulamas and Scholars to know their views regarding Quran. For that purpose once I was surfing YouTube and found there a video called “Miracles of Allah”. After I watched it I wished, Oh Allah! Please show me at least one miracle like this!  I wasn’t even sure that this wish would come true.
> 
> The same day I was preparing for lunch and cut the tomato with Bismillah, hoping for a miracle. When I cut the tomato I was amazed; I could clearly see ALLAH written in Arabic, with TASHDEED written under it. It was beyond my imagination, and I was completely transfixed for a few moments. In the very moment I said, from the core of my heart,"


From http://understandquran.com/who-says-miracles-dont-happen-in-our-time.html

Why should we take your personal experiences more seriously than hers? How do we know which God is the real God if both are causing people to experience miracles?


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> Because the source IS men!



On that, we disagree.




bullethead said:


> I get pretty convinced that people are worshiping Men's versions of what a god should be.



... and Christians came up with the "turn the other cheek/take up your cross daily/sell all you have and give to the poor" guy?

That's not what I would have written.  "Get seventy virgins when you die" is what a man would write.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> Talk about going around in a circle.



It makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## MiGGeLLo

centerpin fan said:


> On that, we disagree.
> 
> ... and Christians came up with the "turn the other cheek/take up your cross daily/sell all you have and give to the poor" guy?
> 
> That's not what I would have written.  "Get seventy virgins when you die" is what a man would write.



This argument would work just as well for Buddhism. Certain sects of Buddhists live in as near as they can get to total sensory deprivation. That doesn't sound like something a man would write either, and yet clearly either one did or their claims of divine influence have some truth to them.

If I make up a religion that calls for constant torture on earth to secure the most pleasurable after-life for eternity does that make my religion the most likely?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> No discount here brother I lived it and witnessed it. You don't believe me that's fine. I was just sharing.



I totally believe that you have had those experiences but so have others that worship other gods and so have others who worship no gods.
 You want to convey that somehow you are special by having these experiences. It is possible that somehow you are, but no more special than all the others who have had similar experiences.
You want to use your experiences as proof of a god but yet you deny the same proof when others use it.
Those reasons are why I take the time to comment.


----------



## centerpin fan

MiGGeLLo said:


> If I make up a religion that calls for constant torture on earth to secure the most pleasurable after-life for eternity does that make my religion the most likely?



No, it just makes you a masochist.


----------



## centerpin fan

MiGGeLLo said:


> This argument would work just as well for Buddhism. Certain sects of Buddhists live in as near as they can get to total sensory deprivation. That doesn't sound like something a man would write either, and yet clearly either one did or their claims of divine influence have some truth to them.



There are certain aspects of Buddhism that remind me of Christianity.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> On that, we disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and Christians came up with the "turn the other cheek/take up your cross daily/sell all you have and give to the poor" guy?
> 
> That's not what I would have written.  "Get seventy virgins when you die" is what a man would write.


No need.
Fear of death is all the motivation most people need. 
Eternal lava seals the deal.


----------



## welderguy

MiGGeLLo said:


> Of course we don't have to, but you want us to know you have had supernatural or at least miraculous experiences as part of the reason you know God is real. I do not discount that you believe that, but all must question how much weight that personal experience brings to the discussion since we cannot reproduce it.
> 
> People of other faiths also claim to have witness miracles or other divinely inspired events. Here's an example:
> 
> From http://understandquran.com/who-says-miracles-dont-happen-in-our-time.html
> 
> Why should we take your personal experiences more seriously than hers? How do we know which God is the real God if both are causing people to experience miracles?



I had a strange phenomena happen to me once. See the melted gas can in the picture below.

I accidentally caught a car on fire as I was welding a muffler on. In all the chaos of running for the water hose and eventually dialing 911, as the flames blazed out of control, I had forgotten the gas can I had put in the front floorboard the day before that was 3/4 full. Long story short, after the firemen put the fire out, we noticed the open can of gas in the car. It's side was melted, the whole dash of the car was burnt as well as the seat next to it, but the gas never ignited. I believe a higher power had something to do with it.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> On that, we disagree.


I can trace the writings back to men.
Are you able to provide any tangible evidence of a source that goes beyond that?





centerpin fan said:


> ... and Christians came up with the "turn the other cheek/take up your cross daily/sell all you have and give to the poor" guy?
> 
> That's not what I would have written.  "Get seventy virgins when you die" is what a man would write.


Are you willing to stand behind everything written in the bible as something only a god would say?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I had a strange phenomena happen to me once. See the melted gas can in the picture below.
> 
> I accidentally caught a car on fire as I was welding a muffler on. In all the chaos of running for the water hose and eventually dialing 911, as the flames blazed out of control, I had forgotten the gas can I had put in the front floorboard the day before that was 3/4 full. Long story short, after the firemen put the fire out, we noticed the open can of gas in the car. It's side was melted, the whole dash of the car was burnt as well as the seat next to it, but the gas never ignited. I believe a higher power had something to do with it.


Most definitely. 
Zeus is known for keeping gas cans from igniting.
You should offer up some sort of sacrifice to him.

Once I was in the middle of writing out some checks to pay some bills. Suddenly my pen started to run out of ink. Out of nowhere after scribbling on another piece of paper the ink started flow again and I was able to not only continue but also finish filling out my checks. Now, I do not have a picture of the pen but only a Christian can appreciate the magnitude of what took place.  Any of them there chinamen that have had ink run out almost certainly had the devil step in to get some flow going.

Like your gas can story there is no other explanation than a supernatural force...a divine being took it upon itself to intervene. Very relatable welder. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> It makes perfect sense to me.





> It's the interpretation of the source by fallible men that is the problem.





> "Scripture is not in the reading.  It's in the understanding."


So who is doing the understanding if fallible men is the problem?
Infallible men?


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> I totally believe that you have had those experiences but so have others that worship other gods and so have others who worship no gods.
> You want to convey that somehow you are special by having these experiences. It is possible that somehow you are, but no more special than all the others who have had similar experiences.
> You want to use your experiences as proof of a god but yet you deny the same proof when others use it.
> Those reasons are why I take the time to comment.





> You want to use your experiences as proof of a god but yet you deny the same proof when others use it.


That should be a head on collision but alas its not a even a speed bump.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> That should be a head on collision but alas its not a even a speed bump.



Blinding Hypocrisy


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> I had a strange phenomena happen to me once. See the melted gas can in the picture below.
> 
> I accidentally caught a car on fire as I was welding a muffler on. In all the chaos of running for the water hose and eventually dialing 911, as the flames blazed out of control, I had forgotten the gas can I had put in the front floorboard the day before that was 3/4 full. Long story short, after the firemen put the fire out, we noticed the open can of gas in the car. It's side was melted, the whole dash of the car was burnt as well as the seat next to it, but the gas never ignited. I believe a higher power had something to do with it.



Why?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I had a strange phenomena happen to me once. See the melted gas can in the picture below.
> 
> I accidentally caught a car on fire as I was welding a muffler on. In all the chaos of running for the water hose and eventually dialing 911, as the flames blazed out of control, I had forgotten the gas can I had put in the front floorboard the day before that was 3/4 full. Long story short, after the firemen put the fire out, we noticed the open can of gas in the car. It's side was melted, the whole dash of the car was burnt as well as the seat next to it, but the gas never ignited. I believe a higher power had something to do with it.



Last month I had a $2,400 balance due on a job as soon as I finished.  On the last day of the job my truck stopped going in reverse.  Guess what it costed to fix it.  $2,400.  Praise be to Allah!


----------



## oldfella1962

ambush80 said:


> Last month I had a $2,400 balance due on a job as soon as I finished.  On the last day of the job my truck stopped going in reverse.  Guess what it costed to fix it.  $2,400.  Praise be to Allah!



Army buddy of mine was traveling from Texas to Alabama. He stopped off in Mississippi at a casino to gamble - he won 400 dollars. After getting back on the road he hit a deer - 400 dollars damage to his truck. Sorry but I think the deer had a terminal illness anyway and took one last chance to "stick it to the man" on his way out.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> Why?



This was fresh gas in an uncapped can. And if you could have seen how close the flames got. I've never seen gasoline not ignite violently in such a situation as this. I was in harm's way and didn't realize how much so. I should not have been near the car simply because of the car's gas tank but I had forgotten all about the can of gas.


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> Army buddy of mine was traveling from Texas to Alabama. He stopped off in Mississippi at a casino to gamble - he won 400 dollars. After getting back on the road he hit a deer - 400 dollars damage to his truck. Sorry but I think the deer had a terminal illness anyway and took one last chance to "stick it to the man" on his way out.



Clearly the work of a higher power


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> This was fresh gas in an uncapped can. And if you could have seen how close the flames got. I've never seen gasoline not ignite violently in such a situation as this. I was in harm's way and didn't realize how much so. I should not have been near the car simply because of the car's gas tank but I had forgotten all about the can of gas.


If you have been in multiple situations where you have lit cars on fire due to your welding and you continually store mostly full fresh gas cans in them while doing it, maybe you should change professions.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> The earliest known and viewable copies are from the 4th century



Not that it changes much but there are copies from the mid 2nd century ...just so we can all be intellectually honest


----------



## ambush80

jmharris23 said:


> It's not that I don't care, it's just that we're seeing this from two very different viewpoints.
> 
> I can only answer this question theologically using the bible but because that doesnt hold water with you I don't think it would be helpful. (Update: I see that welderguy touched on what my biblical, theological answer would be if you're interested)
> 
> Christianity is more diverse than you might think though.
> 
> http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/



Biblical explanations are beyond reproach using logic.  I completely accept that.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Not that it changes much but there are copies from the mid 2nd century ...just so we can all be intellectually honest



Copies or pieces of copies?


----------



## jmharris23

ambush80 said:


> Biblical explanations are beyond reproach using logic.  I completely accept that.



I didn't say that. I am completely willing to deal with and talk about the problems of the Bible and its interpretation. 

I was just being clear that I can't answer the question of why I believe what I believe without using the book that defines my beliefs


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Copies or pieces of copies?



Pieces of copies.....but would it somehow make a difference to you if they were whole copies?


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Pieces of copies.....but would it somehow make a difference to you if they were whole copies?



Actually yes it would. A great deal.
I would love to see a comparison of those before Roman involvement to after.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Pieces of copies.....but would it somehow make a difference to you if they were whole copies?



In fact, to be fair to all, I wish we had an original of everything contained in the Bible and and original of everything else written in that region during the same time span.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> In fact, to be fair to all, I wish we had an original of everything contained in the Bible and and original of everything else written in that region during the same time span.



Me too.....on a side note...are you familiar with textual criticism?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> If you have been in multiple situations where you have lit cars on fire due to your welding and you continually store mostly full fresh gas cans in them while doing it, maybe you should change professions.



I burned down a semi trailer that was supposedly empty but turned out to be full of styrofoam. That stuff goes up quick!
That one wasn't my fault.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Me too.....on a side note...are you familiar with textual criticism?



Yes.
It is a comparison of known items in order to aid in the accuracy of unknown items.

I am also familiar with the additions made during translations and free liberty of the scribes while making the copies that are not contained in earlier copies. 

We can know what we know from the pieces that are observable. 
They only tell us that specific snippet is the same or similar.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Yes.
> It is a comparison of known items in order to aid in the accuracy of unknown items.
> 
> I am also familiar with the additions made during translations and free liberty of the scribes while making the copies that are not contained in earlier copies.
> 
> We can know what we know from the pieces that are observable.
> They only tell us that specific snippet is the same or similar.




But what was added does not change the message of the gospel in any way


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I burned down a semi trailer that was supposedly empty but turned out to be full of styrofoam. That stuff goes up quick!
> That one wasn't my fault.



You said that you burned it down. = involvement
You didn't check to see if it was empty or not. = involvement.
Had you checked to see what was inside you may not have tried welding it.
I would say that you were at fault. 

And why didn't a divine spirit step in to stop the fire then?

But back to your original claim, how many uncapped gas cans have you seen in vehicles that were engulfed in flames?


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> But what was added does not change the message of the gospel in any way



It doesnt change the small known snippet in any way.
If those scribes were able to change something then we have to use that as evidence that things could be changed prior.
The scribes could have accurately copied additions put in before they added their own additions...and so on and so on.

We do not know what more or less there may have been. We do not know what else that was written that corroborates or refutes what is in the Bible now. 
When items are purposely destroyed it is never to preserve history. It does not ensure accuracy. It is solely to perpetuate what is wanted told and destroy everything that goes against it.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You said that you burned it down. = involvement
> You didn't check to see if it was empty or not. = involvement.
> Had you checked to see what was inside you may not have tried welding it.
> I would say that you were at fault.
> 
> And why didn't a divine spirit step in to stop the fire then?
> 
> But back to your original claim, how many uncapped gas cans have you seen in vehicles that were engulfed in flames?



I was using a cutting torch to cut the latches off the doors(they were damaged). I asked repeatedly if anything was inside. They assured me there wasn't.....not my fault.

That's the only gas can I've experienced in a burning car.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> It doesnt change the small known snippet in any way.
> If those scribes were able to change something then we have to use that as evidence that things could be changed prior.
> The scribes could have accurately copied additions put in before they added their own additions...and so on and so on.
> 
> We do not know what more or less there may have been. We do not know what else that was written that corroborates or refutes what is in the Bible now.
> When items are purposely destroyed it is never to preserve history. It does not ensure accuracy. It is solely to perpetuate what is wanted told and destroy everything that goes against it.




But they weren't all destroyed?


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> So who is doing the understanding if fallible men is the problem?
> Infallible men?



Is the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution clear or vague?  Can a correct interpretation of it be made today?

My answers would be "clear" and "yes", and I would say the same things about the basic doctrines of Christianity.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I was using a cutting torch to cut the latches off the doors(they were damaged). I asked repeatedly if anything was inside. They assured me there wasn't.....not my fault.


Blame game



welderguy said:


> That's the only gas can I've experienced in a burning car.


..........



welderguy said:


> I've never seen gasoline not ignite violently in such a situation as this.


You made it sound as if you had experience in fires around uncapped gas cans that are 3/4 full of fresh gas.
AND
Based off of that experience your miraculous divine intervention determination was based off that particular can didn't go boom like all the others that you have witnessed. 

For all you really know, they may not go boom 10/10 times.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> I can trace the writings back to men.
> Are you able to provide any tangible evidence of a source that goes beyond that?



Just an empty tomb. 




bullethead said:


> Are you willing to stand behind everything written in the bible as something only a god would say?



Clearly, there are things in the Bible that only a man would say, like:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> But they weren't all destroyed?



"They" as in which ones are you referring to?


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> "They" as in which ones are you referring to?



Not all of the manuscripts were destroyed


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Just an empty tomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, there are things in the Bible that only a man would say, like:
> 
> "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."


Was that a direct quote while the author was interviewing the person that said that?

Like when it was just Jesus and one other person and the author writes specific dialog  70 years later and he was never there to hear it himself?

Or like when Eve was kabitzing with the Snek was someone jotting that down?


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> This was fresh gas in an uncapped can. And if you could have seen how close the flames got. I've never seen gasoline not ignite violently in such a situation as this. I was in harm's way and didn't realize how much so. I should not have been near the car simply because of the car's gas tank but I had forgotten all about the can of gas.



It looks like the plastic warped but was not compromised in a way to release the gas. Yes certainly a dangerous condition there but I don't see anything miraculous ie outside of what we would expect to occur based on physics.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Just an empty tomb.



One empty tomb. Dozens of possibilities why. Each as plausible as the next.
I will give you the floor now so you can solidify why an empty tomb is crucial and more importantly how it was emptied.


----------



## atlashunter

centerpin fan said:


> Just _unsubstantiated claims of_ an empty tomb.



And assuming a grave is found empty the most probable explanation is not that the corpse became reanimated and walked out of it.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Not all of the manuscripts were destroyed



Like which ones?
Which ones are available to study?

Which ones do you know of that existed and are still availble?
And
Which ones were also written at that time that are not available due to being destroyed?


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> And assuming a grave is found empty the most probable explanation is not that the corpse became reanimated and walked out of it.



Especially when the story that tells about a reanimation was written by a Man who didn't  witness it, didn't ever know the person who supposedly was reanimated and the author is also  unfamiliar with the Roman Military practices of the time.
Jesus didnt have broken legs after the crucifixion. He died very quickly compared to many mortals who took days to die in the same way.
He may have never actually died.
And he may have been disposed of in a garbage pit where most others were put after crucifixion. Especially so no followers could steal the body from a tomb and claim resurrection.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> It looks like the plastic warped but was not compromised in a way to release the gas. Yes certainly a dangerous condition there but I don't see anything miraculous ie outside of what we would expect to occur based on physics.



Yes the plastic did warp due to heat I suppose. But what gets me is there was no cap on the jug. Wouldn't fumes from the spout ignite due to what we know about physics and fume flammability? I'm also thinking with enough heat to warp the plastic, there would be even more fumes escaping the spout than normally.I know for a fact that flames we're directly above the jug because the whole dashboard was engulfed. I'm talking inches away.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Yes the plastic did warp due to heat I suppose. But what gets me is there was no cap on the jug. Wouldn't fumes from the spout ignite due to what we know about physics and fume flammability? I'm also thinking with enough heat to warp the plastic, there would be even more fumes escaping the spout than normally.I know for a fact that flames we're directly above the jug because the whole dashboard was engulfed. I'm talking inches away.



There may have been too much gas in the can for the fumes to ignite.
That sounds insane but less gas equals more fumes.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> There may have been too much gas in the can for the fumes to ignite.
> That sounds insane but less gas equals more fumes.




I think that theory is more unbelievable than mine, honestly.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I think that theory is more unbelievable than mine, honestly.



Welder, it is because you do not understand how gas ignites. 
When witchcraft, spells of safety and magic force shields rule a persons life, there is obviously no need to educate yourself about other things.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I think that theory is more unbelievable than mine, honestly.


Please read welder.....



> There is no direct correlation between explosive properties and ignition temperature. Therefore, materials can have the same physical properties and similar explosive properties while having ignition temperatures that vary greatly. The ignition temperature is affected by the chemical properties of the flammable liquid. When a flammable liquid is in its liquid state, it will not ignite. It will only burn when in its gaseous state.
> 
> In addition to ignition temperature, other properties associated with the flammability of a liquid are its flash point, flammable range, and vapor density. The flash point is the temperature at which a flammable liquid vaporizes and is therefore able to ignite. Liquids with a flash point under 40Censored°C are considered combustible liquids. Gasoline has a flash point of about -45Censored°C. The flammable range of a liquid is the ratio of the flammable liquid to air that would create a volatile mixture. The flammability range of gasoline is between 1.4 and 7.6%. If the ratio of gasoline to air is less than 1.4%, then the mixture is to thin to burn. The mixture cannot burn when it contains more than 7.6% gasoline because it is too rich to burn.The vapor density is the weight of a vapor relative to the weight of air. The vapor density of gasoline is heavier than air and therefore will sink when in air.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I think that theory is more unbelievable than mine, honestly.


In welder terms, not enough oxygen or not enough vapor or too much liquid, or more simply....if the conditions are not right it no catch fire and go boom.
That is why cars on fire mostly burn instead of explode.

No need to apologize welder, your replies are expected.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> Yes the plastic did warp due to heat I suppose. But what gets me is there was no cap on the jug. Wouldn't fumes from the spout ignite due to what we know about physics and fume flammability? I'm also thinking with enough heat to warp the plastic, there would be even more fumes escaping the spout than normally.I know for a fact that flames we're directly above the jug because the whole dashboard was engulfed. I'm talking inches away.



I don't know. I wouldn't try it but I don't know that if you light a match up next to that spout that it blows the can up.  For the flame to go down into the can it has to have oxygen which it is burning as it goes. It's sort of like why doesn't the flame from a torch pass into the bottle and blow the whole thing up? And that's assuming there is a flame right at that nozzle, not a foot or more away. Plus with a torch the fuel is under pressure and is being continuously forced out of the spout. Not the case with that gas can. This is one of those mythbusters kind of scenarios. Dangerous and not something I would try but if the heat wasn't enough to completely melt through the plastic and the only gas exposed was the fumes coming out of the spout I doubt that is enough to cause ignition.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Please read welder.....



I see just a couple problems with your nice technical explanation. First, even if the vapor was too dense inside the jug, I think the rich fumes coming out of the spout would expand as they exited while also mixing with more oxygen to eventually become flammable.(I know enough about tuning carburetors to know this concept).
Also, if this rich vapor sinks, being denser than the air, it would have only sunk about 10 inches before accumulating on the floor board of the car. Where's it gonna go then?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I see just a couple problems with your nice technical explanation. First, even if the vapor was too dense inside the jug, I think the rich fumes coming out of the spout would expand as they exited while also mixing with more oxygen to eventually become flammable.(I know enough about tuning carburetors to know this concept).
> Also, if this rich vapor sinks, being denser than the air, it would have only sunk about 10 inches before accumulating on the floor board of the car. Where's it gonna go then?



The fire ate up the needed oxygen to make fuel vapor ignite.

Welder, it didnt catch fire and it didnt blow up.
I gave you the specific reasons why after you acted as if me telling you that liquid fuel is hard to ignite was a guess. Now you questioning the science that states that obviously the fuel/air mixture wasn't  right. If it was you would have had it catch on fire.
What you think and what actually is seems to be the common denominator in the majority of your posts and yet you still to continue on with the most outlandish thoughts.


----------



## centerpin fan

This thread has taken a disturbing turn towards the combustible.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> This thread has taken a disturbing turn towards the combustible.



Well(der), that is kind of expected depending on who participates and fans the flames.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> I see just a couple problems with your nice technical explanation. First, even if the vapor was too dense inside the jug, I think the rich fumes coming out of the spout would expand as they exited while also mixing with more oxygen to eventually become flammable.(I know enough about tuning carburetors to know this concept).
> Also, if this rich vapor sinks, being denser than the air, it would have only sunk about 10 inches before accumulating on the floor board of the car. Where's it gonna go then?



It's not enough for the limited amount of vapor that escapes to ignite and burn off to cause an explosion. The conditions have to be met that take the necessary heat and oxygen into the main body of gas to get it to ignite. I looked up the ignition temp of gasoline. It's 495 degrees. Was it that hot where the can was? We don't know. I suspect if you put an oven to that temperature and put that can inside it won't take long before it's looking worse than the one in your picture.

There's just too many factors here to say that the conditions to ignite the gas were met but it still didn't happen. Could mythbusters duplicate this with a can of gas that comes out with the same amount of damage that yours shows without causing the gas to explode? I bet they could.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Is the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution clear or vague?  Can a correct interpretation of it be made today?
> 
> My answers would be "clear" and "yes", and I would say the same things about the basic doctrines of Christianity.


I think in football that is called an end around?


> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> So who is doing the understanding if fallible men is the problem?
> Infallible men?


The question, your quote and the quote you used were about men,  their understanding and the infallibility or fallibility of men. 
Switching from the Bible to the 2A doesn't change that.


> I would say the same things about the basic doctrines of Christianity.


So I ask again -
If the problem is infallible men, how are you choosing who is getting it right? And if you are infallible, how do you know your choice of who you agree with isn't wrong?

Lets be honest, you agree with who comes up with what you happen to agree with.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> I think in football that is called an end around?



In the GON forum, it's called an analogy.




WaltL1 said:


> And if you are infallible ...



What do you mean "if"?


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> So I ask again -
> If the problem is infallible men, how are you choosing who is getting it right?



I look at 2,000 years of church history and see what the church has always believed.  To quote St. Hilary again, " ... we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all".




WaltL1 said:


> Lets be honest, you agree with who comes up with what you happen to agree with.



I've changed many of my beliefs over the years.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> I look at 2,000 years of church history and see what the church has always believed.  To quote St. Hilary again, " ... we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've changed many of my beliefs over the years.


I am positive that what the church says it believes and wants us to believe is different than what it knows.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> I am positive that what the church says it believes and wants us to believe is different than what it knows.


----------



## bullethead

Jerome is not alone in his candour. Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."


Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

–Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.


Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)


John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople, is another:

"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

–Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

bullethead said:


> I am positive that what the church says it believes and wants us to believe is different than what it knows.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


>



Giddy Up!!


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> Giddy Up!!


----------



## bullethead

The 5th and 6th centuries was the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop (and opponent of Augustine) Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."


----------



## bullethead

The Reformation may have swept away some abuses perpetrated by the priesthood but lying was not one of them.Martin Luther, in private correspondence, argued:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

â€“ Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> I look at 2,000 years of church history and see what the church has always believed.  To quote St. Hilary again, " ... we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've changed many of my beliefs over the years.


I don't think I am making my point.
You stated, very clearly, that the problem was fallible men.
The quote you used, stated very clearly, it wasn't in the reading, it was in the understanding.
So the problem is men are fallible, fallible men do the reading, fallible men do the understanding......


> I look at 2,000 years of church history and see what the church has always believed.  To quote St. Hilary again, " ... we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all".


.... and fallible men comprise the Church.
Or are the men of the church infallible?

Like I said, it all boils down to what YOU believe.
That's how you are determining who is getting it right, who is getting it wrong, who is fallible and who isn't.


> I've changed many of my beliefs over the years


And before you changed your beliefs you thought "they" were wrong because "they" were fallible men.
What are "they" now?

God really screwed up getting men involved in the first place.
Seems like he would have saw that coming.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> The 5th and 6th centuries was the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop (and opponent of Augustine) Faustus said:
> 
> "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."




What would you expect Faustus to say? He was a vehement opponent of Orthodox Christianity. What makes him believable over Augustine?


----------



## WaltL1

jmharris23 said:


> What would you expect Faustus to say? He was a vehement opponent of Orthodox Christianity. What makes him believable over Augustine?


And opponents always lie right?


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> The Reformation may have swept away some abuses perpetrated by the priesthood but lying was not one of them.Martin Luther, in private correspondence, argued:
> 
> "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
> 
> – Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)



Also for the sake of intellectual honesty this quote has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but is from Luther is in the context of his advice to Philip Hesse regarding a bigamous marriage that Hesse was involved in. This is not a shock, as Luther was a sinner in some fairly grievous ways at times (as am I).


----------



## jmharris23

WaltL1 said:


> And opponents always lie right?



No, of course not. But if I were writing a biography on Trump, CNN and Hilary Clinton wouldn't be my main sources of truth about him.

My main point was not that he was an opponent  of Augustine but that he was not a Christian, so of course he didn't believe in the truth of Scripture.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> It's not enough for the limited amount of vapor that escapes to ignite and burn off to cause an explosion. The conditions have to be met that take the necessary heat and oxygen into the main body of gas to get it to ignite. I looked up the ignition temp of gasoline. It's 495 degrees. Was it that hot where the can was? We don't know. I suspect if you put an oven to that temperature and put that can inside it won't take long before it's looking worse than the one in your picture.
> 
> There's just too many factors here to say that the conditions to ignite the gas were met but it still didn't happen. Could mythbusters duplicate this with a can of gas that comes out with the same amount of damage that yours shows without causing the gas to explode? I bet they could.



I believe the conditions were not met, but I also believe a higher power did not allow them to be met. I realize you don't see it this way and that's fine. I never claimed this event makes or breaks my faith. My faith is actually grounded on something much more solid. This event only puts a little more icing on the cake, so to speak.
I love conversations such as this regardless because it melds science and faith for me, as opposed to separating the two.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> What would you expect Faustus to say? He was a vehement opponent of Orthodox Christianity. What makes him believable over Augustine?



I posted a small handful of quotes, I can post more if you like.
But,
Out of all the quotes why would you pick out the one that is from the guy who is against Orthodox Christianity who would be expected to expose the lies and is also basically saying the same things as the other Pro Christians who's own quotes admit to the lies,  and yet you are ignoring theirs?


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> I posted a small handful of quotes, I can post more if you like.
> But,
> Out of all the quotes why would you pick out the one that is from the guy who is against Orthodox Christianity who would be expected to expose the lies and is also basically saying the same things as the other Pro Christians who's own quotes admit to the lies,  and yet you are ignoring theirs?



I missed any quotes you gave from an Othodox Christian admitting to scripture being a lie. I'll go back and look for it


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> I believe the conditions were not met, but I also believe a higher power did not allow them to be met. I realize you don't see it this way and that's fine. I never claimed this event makes or breaks my faith. My faith is actually grounded on something much more solid. This event only puts a little more icing on the cake, so to speak.
> I love conversations such as this regardless because it melds science and faith for me, as opposed to separating the two.



That's fair enough. To me that's kind of like waking up in the morning and calling it a miracle because a higher power didn't allow the conditions that would have killed you in your sleep.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Also for the sake of intellectual honesty this quote has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but is from Luther is in the context of his advice to Philip Hesse regarding a bigamous marriage that Hesse was involved in. This is not a shock, as Luther was a sinner in some fairly grievous ways at times (as am I).


The willingness to lie for the Church for one purpose is no different than lying for another.

It's like asking which sin is greater. A sin is a sin.
A lie for the Church is a lie for the Church.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> The willingness to lie for the Church for one purpose is no different than lying for another.
> 
> It's like asking which sin is greater. A sin is a sin.
> A lie for the Church is a lie for the Church.



Well for the sake of this conversation I'm looking for a quote from Luther saying that Scrupture is a lie.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> I missed any quotes you gave from an Othodox Christian admitting to scripture being a lie. I'll go back and look for it



If you want to keep bringing up Intellectual Dishonesty and then act as if some of the guys that were quoted just had no influence in the church,didn't influence biblical content or their lies for the church/christianity are somehow less or don't count and did not have an effect on church/christian history, that is on you.

If Martin Luther wants Hesse to lie about his bigamy for the good of the church then where does he draw the line if it is for the good of the church?


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> If you want to keep bringing up Intellectual Dishonesty and then act as if some of the guys that were quoted just had no influence in the church,didn't influence biblical content or their lies for the church/christianity are somehow less or don't count and did not have an effect on church/christian history, that is on you.



Na.....if you want to compare apples and oranges and give me a list of opponents of the church as proof the Bible was made up, it's on you.

I don't expect you to believe it and I am aware of the weaknesses. I am fine agreeing to disagree and having respectful conversation of our differences and have always tried to do that in here.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Na.....if you want to compare apples and oranges and give me a list of opponents of the church as proof the Bible was made up, it's on you.
> 
> I don't expect you to believe it and I am aware of the weaknesses. I am fine agreeing to disagree and having respectful conversation of our differences and have always tried to do that in here.


Your input is always enjoyable and welcomed by me. If anything id wish for more posts by you


----------



## WaltL1

jmharris23 said:


> No, of course not. But if I were writing a biography on Trump, CNN and Hilary Clinton wouldn't be my main sources of truth about him.
> 
> My main point was not that he was an opponent  of Augustine but that he was not a Christian, so of course he didn't believe in the truth of Scripture.





> No, of course not. But if I were writing a biography on Trump, CNN and Hilary Clinton wouldn't be my main sources of truth about him.


Why not?
Truth is probably somewhere in the middle?


> My main point was not that he was an opponent  of Augustine but that he was not a Christian, so of course he didn't believe in the truth of Scripture.


See that's the real point.
Note that has nothing to do with being accurate, inaccurate, an opponent, a liar or anything other than he didn't believe it.
Has he been proven wrong or has the main part of what you quoted from him been proven to be, in general, accurate?


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Your input is always enjoyable and welcomed by me. If anything id wish for more posts by you



Thanks, I feel the same way. I don't mind being pushed 

If we were closer I'd take you to lunch!


----------



## bullethead

A little off topic but I think this is an insight into Martin Luther's character. He was not fond of the Jews (Jesus was a Jew) and wrote a book about them. I get the feeling that ML didnt believe that the Jews got the OT right. Here are some of his quotes.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm


If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies-- that is, longer than two thousand years.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some h3llfire...

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)


----------



## jmharris23

WaltL1 said:


> Why not?
> Truth is probably somewhere in the middle?
> 
> See that's the real point.
> Note that has nothing to do with being accurate, inaccurate, an opponent, a liar or anything other than he didn't believe it.
> Has he been proven wrong or has the main part of what you quoted from him been proven to be, in general, accurate?




No thats not the real point. If I were making an argument that Scripture was modified to suit a particular need, I wouldn't use opponents of Scripture as my argument for that. That was my real point. 

What would expect an opponent of the Scripture to say?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I believe the conditions were not met, but I also believe a higher power did not allow them to be met. I realize you don't see it this way and that's fine. I never claimed this event makes or breaks my faith. My faith is actually grounded on something much more solid. This event only puts a little more icing on the cake, so to speak.
> I love conversations such as this regardless because it melds science and faith for me, as opposed to separating the two.


Any chance you are doing a little self comforting?


> I believe the conditions were not met


That's the science. The end. Nothing further required.
Admittedly not much icing for the cake.


> I also believe a higher power did not allow them to be met.


Theres the icing.


> I love conversations such as this


And love.


> because it melds science and faith for me, as opposed to separating the two


.
And comfort.

I have to agree the science by itself is not nearly as exciting on its own. No feel good emotions involved.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> Why not?
> Truth is probably somewhere in the middle?
> 
> See that's the real point.
> Note that has nothing to do with being accurate, inaccurate, an opponent, a liar or anything other than he didn't believe it.
> Has he been proven wrong or has the main part of what you quoted from him been proven to be, in general, accurate?



Brother Walter I have to call you out on this one. In your first point you say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. So why is that not your criteria for your second point? Seems a bit like a moving target to me. I know I know I'm a hypocrite.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> A little off topic but I think this is an insight into Martin Luther's character. He was not fond of the Jews (Jesus was a Jew) and wrote a book about them. I get the feeling that ML didnt believe that the Jews got the OT right. Here are some of his quotes.
> http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
> 
> 
> If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies-- that is, longer than two thousand years.
> 
> -Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
> 
> Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:
> 
> First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some h3llfire...
> 
> Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...
> 
> Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...
> 
> Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...
> 
> -Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
> My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.
> 
> -Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)




Yes, Luther was notoriously Anti-Semitic ( really anti-Jewish, see my comment below) and was a blight on the church in this way. 

His life was, like all Christians to a degree, a dichotomous one. If there is a God and a Heaven then Luther, like all true Christians, will only be there based on Christ's redemptive work and not because of his own moral perfection. 

I have a feeling he understood this better than most.


----------



## jmharris23

Actually it is more fair to say that Luther was anti-Jewish. It was their religion he hated and not the people group themselves. 

This in no way excuses his word or deed, I just wanted to clarify that.


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Yes, Luther was notoriously Anti-Semitic and a blight on the church in this way.
> 
> His life was, like all Christians to a degree, a dichotomous one. If there is a God and a Heaven then Luther, like all true Christians, will only be there based on Christ's redemptive work and not because of his own moral perfection.
> 
> I have a feeling he understood this better than most.


Do you get the feeling that Luther thought the OT, because it was the work and religion of the Jews, was false?


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Do you get the feeling that Luther thought the OT, because it was the work and religion of the Jews, was false?



No, he didn't think it was false, just incomplete. 

There are some who have little regard for the Old Testament. They think of it as a book that was given to the Jewish people only and is now out of date, containing only stories of past times. . . . But Christ says in John 5, “Search the Scriptures, for it is they that bear witness to me.” . . . [T]he Scriptures of the Old Testament are not to be despised but diligently read. . . . Therefore dismiss your own opinions and feelings and think of the Scriptures as the loftiest and noblest of holy things, as the richest of mines which can never be sufficiently explored, in order that you may find that divine wisdom which God here lays before you in such simple guise as to quench all pride. Here you will find the swaddling cloths and the manger in which Christ lies. . . . Simple and lowly are these swaddling cloths, but dear is the treasure, Christ, who lies in them. - Martin Luther


----------



## bullethead

jmharris23 said:


> Actually it is more fair to say that Luther was anti-Jewish. It was their religion he hated and not the people group themselves.
> 
> This in no way excuses his word or deed, I just wanted to clarify that.


Oh, if you read some of his quotes, he hated the people equally as well.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Brother Walter I have to call you out on this one. In your first point you say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. So why is that not your criteria for your second point?


The criteria is the same.
However, its been pretty well proven that there have been additions, deletions, mistranslations, changes, etc to Scripture.
Does that make EVERYTHING about Scripture inaccurate?
Nope.


----------



## jmharris23

bullethead said:


> Oh, if you read some of his quotes, he hated the people equally as well.



I've read them, I just meant that he hated them because of what they believed and stood for, not because of their blood. That would be the difference in Anti-Semetism and Anti-Jewish. 

I'm quite learned about Luther  

It may be mostly useless but I didn't completely waste that 92 hour Masters degree


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I believe the conditions were not met, but I also believe a higher power did not allow them to be met. I realize you don't see it this way and that's fine. I never claimed this event makes or breaks my faith. My faith is actually grounded on something much more solid. This event only puts a little more icing on the cake, so to speak.
> I love conversations such as this regardless because it melds science and faith for me, as opposed to separating the two.



Makes perfect sense. God can't stop disease and famine from killing millions of innocent children but, will intervene if an innocent gas can may explode.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Makes perfect sense. God can't stop disease and famine from killing millions of innocent children but, will intervene if an innocent gas can may explode.


Being "chosen" has its benefits. You get moved to the head of the miracle line. No wait and no carry on luggage restrictions.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Being "chosen" has its benefits. You get moved to the head of the miracle line. No wait and no carry on luggage restrictions.



Grace is a wonderful thing.
Without God's sustaining grace, none of us would make it through the day alive. Even the germs that are presently on your body right now would destroy you. You should take a moment to thank Him for the immune system He gives you and maintains for you.


----------



## oldfella1962

660griz said:


> Makes perfect sense. God can't stop disease and famine from killing millions of innocent children but, will intervene if an innocent gas can may explode.



yes it seems like god can sure "cherry pick" his miraculous interventions.   I would be happy if he could just perform what I call "nip it in the bud" miracles. For example birth defects: there is a thread here (sorry if I don't remember who posted it) mentioning Fragile X Syndrome so I researched it. No disrespect intended to those people affected by it. Anyway there is a tiny bit of the tip of the X Chromosome dented or otherwise damaged if you see it under a microscope. So god couldn't fix that shortly after conception and give an unborn child a fair shot at life? You create the entire universe but you can't repair one part of the blueprint for his greatest creation so far, the human body?

Sorry but I just can't rationalize "god does this so he can demonstrate his love" through the child's family and friends and support network giving him a good life despite his/her lifelong condition. Yes it's great that people aren't animals, and that we can love & care for everyone unconditionally. 

And yes "god works in ways we can't understand" but I would trade the occasional news-ready arena filling miracles for just keeping the human blueprint followed as it was drawn. It's a great design (one could say ingenious) no complaints really, you just have to stay focused and follow it. 

Granted if people are of sound mind & body but destroy themselves through bad decisions throughout their adult lives (AKA "sin") that's on them. God gave them enough rope to hang themselves and they asked for even more - no pity really. But to allow one tiny microscopic defect or chromosome change in the blueprint of your "made in your image" to an unborn is incredibly cruel. So cruel I can't wrap my mind around it really. Even crueler than "eternal torment" that awaits 99 percent of the human population.


----------



## welderguy

oldfella1962 said:


> yes it seems like god can sure "cherry pick" his miraculous interventions.   I would be happy if he could just perform what I call "nip it in the bud" miracles. For example birth defects: there is a thread here (sorry if I don't remember who posted it) mentioning Fragile X Syndrome so I researched it. No disrespect intended to those people affected by it. Anyway there is a tiny bit of the tip of the X Chromosome dented or otherwise damaged if you see it under a microscope. So god couldn't fix that shortly after conception and give an unborn child a fair shot at life? You create the entire universe but you can't repair one part of the blueprint for his greatest creation so far, the human body?
> 
> Sorry but I just can't rationalize "god does this so he can demonstrate his love" through the child's family and friends and support network giving him a good life despite his/her lifelong condition. Yes it's great that people aren't animals, and that we can love & care for everyone unconditionally.
> 
> And yes "god works in ways we can't understand" but I would trade the occasional news-ready arena filling miracles for just keeping the human blueprint followed as it was drawn. It's a great design (one could say ingenious) no complaints really, you just have to stay focused and follow it.
> 
> Granted if people are of sound mind & body but destroy themselves through bad decisions throughout their adult lives (AKA "sin") that's on them. God gave them enough rope to hang themselves and they asked for even more - no pity really. But to allow one tiny microscopic defect or chromosome change in the blueprint of your "made in your image" to an unborn is incredibly cruel. So cruel I can't wrap my mind around it really. Even crueler than "eternal torment" that awaits 99 percent of the human population.



The trials of this life soften some and harden others. Looks like they've hardened you. But regardless, God never promised to make everything perfect in this life, only the next one.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Grace is a wonderful thing.
> Without God's sustaining grace, none of us would make it through the day alive. Even the germs that are presently on your body right now would destroy you. You should take a moment to thank Him for the immune system He gives you and maintains for you.


You should take a moment and visit a children's hospital and tell that to the kids dying from immune deficiencies.

If he gets the credit for me having one, he also gets the credit for their lack of one.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You should take a moment and visit a children's hospital and tell that to the kids dying from immune deficiencies.
> 
> If he gets the credit for me having one, he also gets the credit for their lack of one.



I agree 100%.
It's all of Him.
 Job said " The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord"


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> Makes perfect sense. God can't stop disease and famine from killing millions of innocent children but, will intervene if an innocent gas can may explode.



My favorite one is the guy who lost and then found his wedding ring on the beach. Clearly divine intervention. Good to know this is a god looking out for those truly in need.







How many of you have heard Sam Harris talk about this in his debate with William Lane Craig?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I agree 100%.
> It's all of Him.
> Job said " The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord"


In general I am neutral about the whole belief thing.
Sometimes it absolutely sickens me.
How anyone can consider an innocent, suffering, dying child and then regurgitate "Blessed be the name of the Lord" is one of those times.


----------



## oldfella1962

welderguy said:


> Grace is a wonderful thing.
> Without God's sustaining grace, none of us would make it through the day alive. Even the germs that are presently on your body right now would destroy you. You should take a moment to thank Him for the immune system He gives you and maintains for you.



I get that - it is amazing that we are even alive. So many things can go wrong. We should have an attitude of gratitude (wow I am a poet!) 

So if god can make a fully functioning human why are there birth defects? Why punish an innocent unborn human with severe lifelong complications? Heck of a way to teach "life lessons" if you ask me.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> My favorite one is the guy who lost and then found his wedding ring on the beach. Clearly divine intervention. Good to know this is a god looking out for those truly in need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of you have heard Sam Harris talk about this in his debate with William Lane Craig?


The photographer who took that pic committed suicide a few months after taking it due to severe depression.
I guess he just couldn't see God's grace and mercy in it....


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think I am making my point.
> You stated, very clearly, that the problem was fallible men.
> The quote you used, stated very clearly, it wasn't in the reading, it was in the understanding.
> So the problem is men are fallible, fallible men do the reading, fallible men do the understanding......
> 
> .... and fallible men comprise the Church.
> Or are the men of the church infallible?
> 
> Like I said, it all boils down to what YOU believe.
> That's how you are determining who is getting it right, who is getting it wrong, who is fallible and who isn't.



Coincidentally, I just happen to believe the historic Christian faith.  The Nicene creed is one representation of that.  It was written by fallible men and agrees with the previous creeds written by fallible men. 




WaltL1 said:


> God really screwed up getting men involved in the first place.
> Seems like he would have saw that coming.



He did see it coming.  He loves men.  That's why he put us in charge of this ball and chose to work through us.


----------



## oldfella1962

welderguy said:


> The trials of this life soften some and harden others. Looks like they've hardened you. But regardless, God never promised to make everything perfect in this life, only the next one.



no, I have no "trials" or at least nothing that I see as unfair. But it's not about me, it's about basic fairness at the most basic level of human existence/moment of conception. So bottom line let's trade in a perfect "afterlife" for a small percentage of the population for a decent "tough but fair" life in this world. 
People believe that god has the power to create a fantastical amazing eternal paradise but not wonder why he couldn't do the most basic things to keep his prized creations working as they are obviously meant to. 

Yes, because Adam sinned or we would all live in a garden until we are 700+ years old. Wait, Adam did that anyway despite sinning (except the farming got harder) but at least he was of able mind & body to function.


----------



## oldfella1962

atlashunter said:


> My favorite one is the guy who lost and then found his wedding ring on the beach. Clearly divine intervention. Good to know this is a god looking out for those truly in need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of you have heard Sam Harris talk about this in his debate with William Lane Craig?



AMAZING! Is that kid looking down at a lost wedding ring? Maybe that vulture told him where to look for it.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> He loves men.



That explains a lot.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Coincidentally, I just happen to believe the historic Christian faith.  The Nicene creed is one representation of that.  It was written by fallible men and agrees with the previous creeds written by fallible men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did see it coming.  He loves men.  That's why he put us in charge of this ball and chose to work through us.





> Coincidentally, I just happen to believe the historic Christian faith.  The Nicene creed is one representation of that.  It was written by fallible men and agrees with the previous creeds written by fallible men.


Yeah I guess you just aren't going to see the contradiction in that and this -


> Quote:
> It's the interpretation of the source by fallible men that is the problem.


So I'll just let it lie.


> He did see it coming.  He loves men.  That's why he put us in charge of this ball and chose to work through us.


Ok.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I guess you just aren't going to see the contradiction in that and this -



I understand your point completely.  But just because someone can get it wrong doesn't mean they must get it wrong.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> I understand your point completely.  But just because someone can get it wrong doesn't mean they must get it wrong.


No you don't understand the point completely.
And thanks for explaining that can doesn't = must.
That one was troubling me.


----------



## ky55

centerpin fan said:


> This thread has taken a disturbing turn towards the combustible.



What did you expect ?
It's a volatile subject.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> The photographer who took that pic committed suicide a few months after taking it due to severe depression.
> I guess he just couldn't see God's grace and mercy in it....



These discussions get difficult. There's a pain in them found with the peeling back of layers, a sorrow that comes in seeing fresh blood seeping up as we mine one another. We dig in hopes for water...something real that sustains, but sometimes we just kill. Or at very least, scar.
What do _you _have...what do _you_ know, what have_ you_ seen in the wilderness, in the barrenness it seems all life speaks of? To me it appears we ask this of one another..."have you found hope?" "have you seen something beyond" and if you have...can you bring me a proof...a thing I might also latch onto that might help me here...in facing this abyss?

It helps no one except me...to reconcile with "it takes a miracle to see God's mercy". How could I, and of what use is it to say "look beyond" to that child there...or any who so self identify? Can we be honest for the briefest of moments? Can we stand together...or at least close? Are we not all, in some way...that child? Who doesn't get this thing of bumper sticker cleverness "Life is hard...and then you die"?

I must be fine with my brother saying..."you break the rules to escape that". You make up stuff to not deal with the rock bottom truth of that. You are a coward for seeking to escape into your fantasy, what every other man is given to drink of...ashes. I can't help but be...fine with that.

Yes! Life is not _hard_ for me! It is _too hard_ for me! I am a weakling, a bit of unfully formed thing brought to birth unfinished, unready; the runt of the litter exceeds my description. I am full of envy of any grace I see, any smooth move through these waters in which I drown in every moment flailing gracelessly, while others swim by. I am, in all things overcome, in being here. Others "get it" (or so it seems)...mine, at best, is pretense. A poor poor mimicry, "maybe someone will 'fall for' my flailing as...swimming!"

How could I ever convince you...someone stopped for me? Me? The flailer, the mimic, the pretender, the utter failer...trying so vainly to 'keep up' with the pace? Companionship, friendship, that together"ness", of those who seemingly "keep it together"...this is their reward...no? That's to be their fruit and garland...not mine. The complete unfairness of it is so far overshadowed by my deeper need of it, I can't deny it. 

It is totally unfair that such a one get anything. Such a one who has always pretended to pass off flailing at the water to just barely stay afloat...for swimming. Why should a faker, a total fraud...receive help? And of what sort of helper...would the helper be? Does he not believe in fairness? What's his defect that causes him to associate...what's his need...what is satisfied? How can he, why would he, stop...for a complete fraud? It's just not right...to anyone but a fraud. Even frauds need a friend.

But, stopped he was. Stopped he allowed. In order to make friends. Of frauds. What sort of man allows himself to be numbered...with them? What's on the inside of such...a man?


But yes...it takes a miracle...to see God's mercy.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

I love reading these kind of threads. They are like watching one of the new Dreidels with LED lights and Music spinning on a table top. Fun to look at, highly repetitive, but in the end, once they stop spinning they are just another toy sitting on a table top. Nothing gained, nothing lost.


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I love reading these kind of threads. They are like watching one of the new Dreidels with LED lights and Music spinning on a table top. Fun to look at, highly repetitive, but in the end, once they stop spinning they are just another toy sitting on a table top. Nothing gained, nothing lost.


Don't you think the subject matter has just a bit to do with that?
Its pretty doubtful God is going to get proven or disproven on a forum so "nothing gained, nothing lost" is pretty much inevitable isn't it?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

WaltL1 said:


> Don't you think the subject matter has just a bit to do with that?
> Its pretty doubtful God is going to get proven or disproven on a forum so "nothing gained, nothing lost" is pretty much inevitable isn't it?



Kind of my point.


----------



## ky55

I came across another miracle yesterday that I thought was interesting:


Upon hearing of Dahmer’s conversion, David Hartman, a member of the Wilshire Church of Christ in Oklahoma City, wrote to congratulate him.
Dahmer sent Hartman $5 worth of stamps, asking him to mail him 25 copies of a Bible correspondence course for distribution to other inmates. In one letter, Dahmer mentioned being attacked in July 1994, months before he was killed.
“I don’t know if you heard, but last Sunday I was attacked while in the chapel,” Dahmer wrote. “Some guy tried to cut my throat open with a razor but didn’t succeed. The razor broke, and my neck was only slightly scratched. I believe that it was only the protective grace of our Great Lord & Savior Jesus Christ that saved me from serious injury or death!”

http://www.christianchronicle.org/article/did-jailhouse-religion-save-jeffrey-dahmer


Amazing!

*


----------



## ambush80

ky55 said:


> I came across another miracle yesterday that I thought was interesting:
> 
> 
> Upon hearing of Dahmer’s conversion, David Hartman, a member of the Wilshire Church of Christ in Oklahoma City, wrote to congratulate him.
> Dahmer sent Hartman $5 worth of stamps, asking him to mail him 25 copies of a Bible correspondence course for distribution to other inmates. In one letter, Dahmer mentioned being attacked in July 1994, months before he was killed.
> “I don’t know if you heard, but last Sunday I was attacked while in the chapel,” Dahmer wrote. “Some guy tried to cut my throat open with a razor but didn’t succeed. The razor broke, and my neck was only slightly scratched. I believe that it was only the protective grace of our Great Lord & Savior Jesus Christ that saved me from serious injury or death!”
> 
> http://www.christianchronicle.org/article/did-jailhouse-religion-save-jeffrey-dahmer
> 
> 
> Amazing!
> 
> *



Th Good Lord made every inch of that broomstick that he was raped to death with.


----------



## Israel

ky55 said:


> I came across another miracle yesterday that I thought was interesting:
> 
> 
> Upon hearing of Dahmer’s conversion, David Hartman, a member of the Wilshire Church of Christ in Oklahoma City, wrote to congratulate him.
> Dahmer sent Hartman $5 worth of stamps, asking him to mail him 25 copies of a Bible correspondence course for distribution to other inmates. In one letter, Dahmer mentioned being attacked in July 1994, months before he was killed.
> “I don’t know if you heard, but last Sunday I was attacked while in the chapel,” Dahmer wrote. “Some guy tried to cut my throat open with a razor but didn’t succeed. The razor broke, and my neck was only slightly scratched. I believe that it was only the protective grace of our Great Lord & Savior Jesus Christ that saved me from serious injury or death!”
> 
> http://www.christianchronicle.org/article/did-jailhouse-religion-save-jeffrey-dahmer
> 
> 
> Amazing!
> 
> *



I don't know what jailhouse religion means.
But I believe this:

Then Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. As was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath. And when He stood up to read, the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

And this:

Then Jesus declared, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind may see and those who see may become blind.” Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard this, and they asked Him, “Are we blind too?”


----------



## ambush80

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I love reading these kind of threads. They are like watching one of the new Dreidels with LED lights and Music spinning on a table top. Fun to look at, highly repetitive, but in the end, once they stop spinning they are just another toy sitting on a table top. Nothing gained, nothing lost.



Usually, but I've had a revelation. This:



Israel said:


> These discussions get difficult. There's a pain in them found with the peeling back of layers, a sorrow that comes in seeing fresh blood seeping up as we mine one another. We dig in hopes for water...something real that sustains, but sometimes we just kill. Or at very least, scar.
> What do _you _have...what do _you_ know, what have_ you_ seen in the wilderness, in the barrenness it seems all life speaks of? To me it appears we ask this of one another..."have you found hope?" "have you seen something beyond" and if you have...can you bring me a proof...a thing I might also latch onto that might help me here...in facing this abyss?
> 
> It helps no one except me...to reconcile with "it takes a miracle to see God's mercy". How could I, and of what use is it to say "look beyond" to that child there...or any who so self identify? Can we be honest for the briefest of moments? Can we stand together...or at least close? Are we not all, in some way...that child? Who doesn't get this thing of bumper sticker cleverness "Life is hard...and then you die"?
> 
> I must be fine with my brother saying..."you break the rules to escape that". You make up stuff to not deal with the rock bottom truth of that. You are a coward for seeking to escape into your fantasy, what every other man is given to drink of...ashes. I can't help but be...fine with that.
> 
> Yes! Life is not _hard_ for me! It is _too hard_ for me! I am a weakling, a bit of unfully formed thing brought to birth unfinished, unready; the runt of the litter exceeds my description. I am full of envy of any grace I see, any smooth move through these waters in which I drown in every moment flailing gracelessly, while others swim by. I am, in all things overcome, in being here. Others "get it" (or so it seems)...mine, at best, is pretense. A poor poor mimicry, "maybe someone will 'fall for' my flailing as...swimming!"
> 
> How could I ever convince you...someone stopped for me? Me? The flailer, the mimic, the pretender, the utter failer...trying so vainly to 'keep up' with the pace? Companionship, friendship, that together"ness", of those who seemingly "keep it together"...this is their reward...no? That's to be their fruit and garland...not mine. The complete unfairness of it is so far overshadowed by my deeper need of it, I can't deny it.
> 
> It is totally unfair that such a one get anything. Such a one who has always pretended to pass off flailing at the water to just barely stay afloat...for swimming. Why should a faker, a total fraud...receive help? And of what sort of helper...would the helper be? Does he not believe in fairness? What's his defect that causes him to associate...what's his need...what is satisfied? How can he, why would he, stop...for a complete fraud? It's just not right...to anyone but a fraud. Even frauds need a friend.
> 
> But, stopped he was. Stopped he allowed. In order to make friends. Of frauds. What sort of man allows himself to be numbered...with them? What's on the inside of such...a man?
> 
> 
> But yes...it takes a miracle...to see God's mercy.



In response to this:



WaltL1 said:


> The photographer who took that pic committed suicide a few months after taking it due to severe depression.
> I guess he just couldn't see God's grace and mercy in it....



Has reinforced what I suspected.  My iron was sharpened by iron.

The man who took the photo and killed himself had no way make sense of what he was seeing.  I don't know if he was a deist or an atheist but it seems he had no way to compartmentalize his experience, to give it perspective. Or maybe he did.  Maybe he stared into the abyss, saw nothing staring back at him and decided that there's no difference in being and not being.  It seems that Isreal feels the same way.  I would say that all believers feel that way.  To think that the world is indifferent to YOU and your loved ones is unbearable.  It's better to believe "Yes He beats us but He loves us.  I can't imagine a world where He isn't in control".  

But I take it to heart when believers say they _feel_ like they couldn't go on if God were not at the helm.  The world is just too mean for there not to be a plan.  All the pain and suffering; "There MUST be a plan, and it must have something to do with love".  I honestly believe that believers don't care if it's made up or if they make it up in their heads.  "Lie to me.  Tell me everything's going to be OK".    Just remember it's only your _feelings_ that make it real; not an un-exploded gas can or a voice in your head. 

I think that believers are biologically predisposed to belief.  Perhaps they're particularly sensitive to whatever comfort belief in God provides.  Perhaps others have a Deistic Psychopathy.  They don't feel it and they don't need it.  They can live without it.  Maybe these are the types that even though they're born into highly religious environments, they shun their upbringing and seek to make sense of the world with reason and logic because it's all they have left.  They don't have any God cravings.  They don't mind that the world doesn't care.  As a matter of fact, it makes sense with what we observe; that the world truly doesn't care.  The thought of someone at the helm is actually abhorrent.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I don't know what jailhouse religion means.
> But I believe this:
> 
> Then Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. As was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath. And when He stood up to read, the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
> 
> And this:
> 
> Then Jesus declared, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind may see and those who see may become blind.” Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard this, and they asked Him, “Are we blind too?”



This is why you write the way you do.  You're trying to copy this nonsense.  It's also why Atlas posted this video:



I really wish we had gone fishing.  I'm guessing our conversation in real life would have been more conventional.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> Usually, but I've had a revelation. This:
> 
> 
> 
> In response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> Has reinforced what I suspected.  My iron was sharpened by iron.
> 
> The man who took the photo and killed himself had no way make sense of what he was seeing.  I don't know if he was a deist or an atheist but it seems he had no way to compartmentalize his experience, to give it perspective. Or maybe he did.  Maybe he stared into the abyss, saw nothing staring back at him and decided that there's no difference in being and not being.  It seems that Isreal feels the same way.  I would say that all believers feel that way.  To think that the world is indifferent to YOU and your loved ones is unbearable.  It's better to believe "Yes He beats us but He loves us.  I can't imagine a world where He isn't in control".
> 
> But I take it to heart when believers say they _feel_ like they couldn't go on if God were not at the helm.  The world is just too mean for there not to be a plan.  All the pain and suffering; "There MUST be a plan, and it must have something to do with love".  I honestly believe that believers don't care if it's made up or if they make it up in their heads.  "Lie to me.  Tell me everything's going to be OK".    Just remember it's only your _feelings_ that make it real; not an un-exploded gas can or a voice in your head.
> 
> I think that believers are biologically predisposed to belief.  Perhaps they're particularly sensitive to whatever comfort belief in God provides.  Perhaps others have a Deistic Psychopathy.  They don't feel it and they don't need it.  They can live without it.  Maybe these are the types that even though they're born into highly religious environments, they shun their upbringing and seek to make sense of the world with reason and logic because it's all they have left.  They don't have any God cravings.  They don't mind that the world doesn't care.  As a matter of fact, it makes sense with what we observe; that the world truly doesn't care.  The thought of someone at the helm is actually abhorrent.



In other words, wishful thinking.


----------



## Israel

One man's nonsense...is another man's salvation.

Then Jesus went home, and once again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples could not even eat. 21When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, “He is out of His mind.” And the scribes who had come down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “By the prince of the demons He drives out demons.”

But, everything is in flux. God moves, things change...to everything. Yesterday's scoffer could be tomorrow's evangelist.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> This is why you write the way you do.  You're trying to copy this nonsense.  It's also why Atlas posted this video:
> 
> 
> 
> I really wish we had gone fishing.  I'm guessing our conversation in real life would have been more conventional.



Of course I'm the fool...but which one?
The one in the mask?
Or the one who says "ya wanna sit around here playing Suzie homemaker with Captain conundrum or do you want to be_ super heroes_?"

The one who says "then I'll be the wolfpack...of one"?

We are all too funny for words...thinking our opposition to foolishness (as we see it)...implicitly causes us to appear...less foolish.

But...do you want to be the third man...the mere...observer, who can laugh at this scene...and never really see themselves in it? But each is already assigned a role...play your part. Your telling me which one I am playing...helps me see which one...you are.

Maybe the fellow who took that grissly pic, grist for your mill of playing "gotcha" with God...thought he could just be an immovable eye, an immoveable observer...but he found out something. What you fix upon has the power to influence, one to eternal hope, one to total despair.


Is your dance card full? Who leads...?

The vulture? 
Or, the child?

If you can't see the one who scoops up the child...you may never be with the one who does. So...will you grab your camera...and sit back, frame it perfectly...while accusing God of sitting back and just watching? 

I'm gonna take a wild guess that most of you have heard of the psychological process of "projection"?

Yeah, God knows all about the psyche.

With the kind You show Yourself kind; With the blameless You show Yourself blameless; With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute. For You save an afflicted people, But haughty eyes You abase.…


And I am afflicted by my own foolishness. My arms are too short to box with God. But I am yet still found a fool, sometimes swinging.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Of course I'm the fool...but which one?
> The one in the mask?
> Or the one who says "ya wanna sit around here playing Suzie homemaker with Captain conundrum or do you want to be_ super heroes_?"
> 
> The one who says "then I'll be the wolfpack...of one"?
> 
> We are all too funny for words...thinking our opposition to foolishness (as we see it)...implicitly causes us to appear...less foolish.
> 
> But...do you want to be the third man...the mere...observer, who can laugh at this scene...and never really see themselves in it? But each is already assigned a role...play your part. Your telling me which one I am playing...helps me see which one...you are.
> 
> Maybe the fellow who took that grissly pic, grist for your mill of playing "gotcha" with God...thought he could just be an immovable eye, an immoveable observer...but he found out something. What you fix upon has the power to influence, one to eternal hope, one to total despair.
> 
> 
> Is your dance card full? Who leads...?
> 
> The vulture?
> Or, the child?
> 
> If you can't see the one who scoops up the child...you may never be with the one who does. So...will you grab your camera...and sit back, frame it perfectly...while accusing God of sitting back and just watching?
> 
> I'm gonna take a wild guess that most of you have heard of the psychological process of "projection"?
> 
> Yeah, God knows all about the psyche.
> 
> With the kind You show Yourself kind; With the blameless You show Yourself blameless; With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute. For You save an afflicted people, But haughty eyes You abase.…
> 
> 
> And I am afflicted by my own foolishness. My arms are too short to box with God. But I am yet still found a fool, sometimes swinging.



First of all, not everyone is a fool.  

_fool1
fo͞ol/
noun
noun: fool; plural noun: fools

    1.
    a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person. _

Just because you believe that you are filthy rags, born a sinner, deserving of eternal He11 doesn't mean that you are or that everyone else is too.  You may indeed be a fool but to assume that about everyone else is foolish.

That picture of the vulture does indeed put the the Christian God in a "gotcha" moment.  To say that He allows those things to happen and yet is loving is foolish because it's a contradiction.  To say that HE is merciful is foolish because that's not what we observe.  To say that He has a righteous plan for that misery that you can't comprehend is foolish because you have no proof, only blind faith.  

Maybe that photographer took as many of those dying  kids home with him as he could and yet there were so many more.  It's like watching a raft of baby ducks when one of them gets eaten by a bass or northern pike.  There's a lesson to be learned but it's not that "someone is at the helm".  If that were true, that would be good reason to commit suicide like that photographer did.  Maybe that's what happened to him.


----------



## NCHillbilly

There are hundreds of thousands of folks in Texas right now basking neck-deep in divine mercy.


----------



## red neck richie

NCHillbilly said:


> There are hundreds of thousands of folks in Texas right now basking neck-deep in divine mercy.



100% factual. You focus on death and destruction. I focus on life and survival. Men helping men in time of need. But you don't want to focus on that. The death and destruction is what you cant get past. For every story of death there is a story of life. Your a wise man Hillbilly you should know how nature works. We don't live forever on earth only in the kingdom. When he says it time you have to go. I hope your ready.


----------



## drippin' rock

red neck richie said:


> 100% factual. You focus on death and destruction. I focus on life and survival. Men helping men in time of need. But you don't want to focus on that. The death and destruction is what you cant get past. For every story of death there is a story of life. Your a wise man Hillbilly you should know how nature works. We don't live forever on earth only in the kingdom. When he says it time you have to go. I hope your ready.



That's right. Men helping men. No god involved.


----------



## red neck richie

drippin' rock said:


> that's right. Men helping men. No god involved.



iyo. I guess its just hard for me to believe that more people are not tapped into their spiritual being. Yeah its all a big coincidence. Check out the odds of the big bang. Not possible.


----------



## welderguy

But...but.... we've been told by some on here that Noah's flood was only local. And God promised to never flood the earth again, signifying it by the rainbow.
So why was there a local flood in Houston then?

Something's not jiving.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> iyo. I guess its just hard for me to believe that more people are not tapped into their spiritual being. Yeah its all a big coincidence. Check out the odds of the big bang. Not possible.



Ritchie what were the conditions one second before the Big Bang?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> But...but.... we've been told by some on here that Noah's flood was only local. And God promised to never flood the earth again, signifying it by the rainbow.
> So why was there a local flood in Houston then?
> 
> Something's not jiving.


Yeah, you do not understand the weatherman and are willingly ignorant.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yeah, you do not understand the weatherman and are willingly ignorant.



Understand what?
Willingly ignorant about what?


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> iyo. I guess its just hard for me to believe that more people are not tapped into their spiritual being. Yeah its all a big coincidence. Check out the odds of the big bang. Not possible.





> I guess its just hard for me to believe that more people are not tapped into their spiritual being.


You do realize that "spiritual being" doesn't have to mean "believes in the Christian God" right?


> Spirituality may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity, especially a "search for the sacred." It may also refer to personal growth, blissful experience, or an encounter with one's own "inner dimension."





> Check out the odds of the big bang. Not possible.


The odds are zero?
And Ive asked this several times and haven't gotten an answer -
What are the odds that the Christian God exists?

By the way, just got back from Fort Yargo in Winder.
Did pretty good.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> First of all, not everyone is a fool.
> 
> _fool1
> fo͞ol/
> noun
> noun: fool; plural noun: fools
> 
> 1.
> a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person. _
> 
> Just because you believe that you are filthy rags, born a sinner, deserving of eternal He11 doesn't mean that you are or that everyone else is too.  You may indeed be a fool but to assume that about everyone else is foolish.
> 
> That picture of the vulture does indeed put the the Christian God in a "gotcha" moment.  To say that He allows those things to happen and yet is loving is foolish because it's a contradiction.  To say that HE is merciful is foolish because that's not what we observe.  To say that He has a righteous plan for that misery that you can't comprehend is foolish because you have no proof, only blind faith.
> 
> Maybe that photographer took as many of those dying  kids home with him as he could and yet there were so many more.  It's like watching a raft of baby ducks when one of them gets eaten by a bass or northern pike.  There's a lesson to be learned but it's not that "someone is at the helm".  If that were true, that would be good reason to commit suicide like that photographer did.  Maybe that's what happened to him.



In my heart I couldn't exclude that either...he may have started an orphanage and spent himself down to his last dollar.

The pike may be thankful, the vulture also for having been allowed his part. Gratitude is a difficult thing to measure, usually made the more clear to us when we are forced to recognize its absence. (I swore vehemently at a set of steps recalcitrant to my will yesterday afternoon, their refusal_ to be_ according to  my will, I found...infuriating.) But, eventually, both steps, and I...were changed.

The one who made me aware of my estate, of being consumed by, and with self interest is also the one who has made plain the then eligibility for salvation. I find no fault in Him.

Some, it seems, believe they have grown past the necessity of Jesus Christ. They too, serve their purpose. And I am grateful. Or maybe just beginning to see.

PS Oddly enough I stumbled across a set of videos on You Tube over the weekend, one was "10 most vicious Pike attacks" or something like that. (I was searching for something entirely else, probably a wiring diagram)

I am probably more Pike than I think I am. Though I think I like to imagine I better identify with the duckling and its momma.
Nevertheless I have sensed the One who has in purpose made of His own self a child sufficient to feed...all of His children.


Eat, and be satisfied.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> 100% factual. You focus on death and destruction. I focus on life and survival. Men helping men in time of need. But you don't want to focus on that. The death and destruction is what you cant get past. For every story of death there is a story of life. Your a wise man Hillbilly you should know how nature works. We don't live forever on earth only in the kingdom. When he says it time you have to go. I hope your ready.





> We hear much about His patience and forbearance and long-suffering; we hear nothing about our own, which much exceeds it. We hear much about His mercy and kindness and goodness - in words - the words of His Book and of His pulpit - and the meek multitude is content with this evidence, such as it is, seeking no further; but whoso searcheth after a concreted sample of it will in time acquire fatigue. There being no instances of it. For what are gilded as mercies are not in any recorded case more than mere common justices, and due - due without thanks or compliment. To rescue without personal risk a cripple from a burning house is not a mercy, it is a mere commonplace duty; anybody would do it that could. And not by proxy, either - delegating the work but confiscating the credit for it. If men neglected "God’s poor" and "God’s stricken and helpless ones" as He does, what would become of them? The answer is to be found in those dark lands where man follows His example and turns his indifferent back upon them: they get no help at all; they cry, and plead and pray in vain, they linger and suffer, and miserably die. If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself. -Mark Twain


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

NCHillbilly said:


> There are hundreds of thousands of folks in Texas right now basking neck-deep in divine mercy.



In a country where the rights of it's citizens are endowed by a divine creator, what does that mean for people that don't believe in divine creators?


----------



## 660griz

Miguel Cervantes said:


> In a country where the rights of it's citizens are endowed by a divine creator, what does that mean for people that don't believe in divine creators?



Natural rights. I don't think it is just the U.S.A. where people have the rights. The U.S.A. just has a government that will protect, supposedly, those natural rights.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Understand what?
> Willingly ignorant about what?



Exactly


----------



## drippin' rock

Miguel Cervantes said:


> In a country where the rights of it's citizens are endowed by a divine creator, what does that mean for people that don't believe in divine creators?



In a country where its some of its citizens SAY their rights  are endowed by a divine creator.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

drippin' rock said:


> In a country where its some of its citizens SAY their rights  are endowed by a divine creator.



No, that does not come from "some of it's citizens".


----------



## drippin' rock

Miguel Cervantes said:


> No, that does not come from "some of it's citizens".



Ok.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> You do realize that "spiritual being" doesn't have to mean "believes in the Christian God" right?
> 
> 
> The odds are zero?
> And Ive asked this several times and haven't gotten an answer -
> What are the odds that the Christian God exists?
> 
> By the way, just got back from Fort Yargo in Winder.
> Did pretty good.



That's awesome Walt. Yargo is just down the road from me. I fish it mainly in the spring as I am in the woods in the fall. There are some nice bass in there for as pressured of a lake as it is. PM in the spring and I will meet you out there and say hello. Bow season starts Saturday so I will be booked till January. As far as the big bang many scientist will tell you that nothing could survive an explosion of that magnitude. And you couldn't physically write the mathematical equation for the probability of it in a life time.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> That's awesome Walt. Yargo is just down the road from me. I fish it mainly in the spring as I am in the woods in the fall. There are some nice bass in there for as pressured of a lake as it is. PM in the spring and I will meet you out there and say hello. Bow season starts Saturday so I will be booked till January. As far as the big bang many scientist will tell you that nothing could survive an explosion of that magnitude. And you couldn't physically write the mathematical equation for the probability of it in a life time.


What "survived" the explosion? Or what are you eluding to with that statement?
And
What is the equation for a god existing, and then one specific god that you just also happen to believe in? What are the odds?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> What "survived" the explosion? Or what are you eluding to with that statement?
> And
> What is the equation for a god existing, and then one specific god that you just also happen to believe in? What are the odds?



No organic molecules could survive an explosion of that magnitude. There are no odds for God. Science (man) cannot possibly form an equation for a supernatural being.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> No organic molecules could survive an explosion of that magnitude. There are no odds for God. Science (man) cannot possibly form an equation for a supernatural being.



What scientist claims there were organic molecules at the big bang?


----------



## atlashunter

Miguel Cervantes said:


> In a country where the rights of it's citizens are endowed by a divine creator, what does that mean for people that don't believe in divine creators?



That was claimed in response to the divine right claim for monarchs that the church had been making for well over a thousand years. It's not a necessary component of natural rights philosophy and even if it were true the bible would still be in conflict with it.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> That's awesome Walt. Yargo is just down the road from me. I fish it mainly in the spring as I am in the woods in the fall. There are some nice bass in there for as pressured of a lake as it is. PM in the spring and I will meet you out there and say hello. Bow season starts Saturday so I will be booked till January. As far as the big bang many scientist will tell you that nothing could survive an explosion of that magnitude. And you couldn't physically write the mathematical equation for the probability of it in a life time.


Yep still some good ones in there.


----------



## furtaker

Just some curious questions for you folks that don't believe in God...

Does it ever bother you that by your own admissions you have zero hope other than this life?  That you will never see your friends and loved ones again after you or they die?  That you are just a soul-less, living organism that will simply return to dust and are technically no different or better than a dog, or a tick, or a mosquito?


----------



## ky55

furtaker said:


> Just some curious questions for you folks that don't believe in God...
> 
> Does it ever bother you that by your own admissions you have zero hope other than this life?  That you will never see your friends and loved ones again after you or they die?  That you are just a soul-less, living organism that will simply return to dust and are technically no different or better than a dog, or a tick, or a mosquito?



Speaking only for myself and nobody else here-

No
No
No

I have no reason to believe otherwise.

*


----------



## WaltL1

furtaker said:


> Just some curious questions for you folks that don't believe in God...
> 
> Does it ever bother you that by your own admissions you have zero hope other than this life?  That you will never see your friends and loved ones again after you or they die?  That you are just a soul-less, living organism that will simply return to dust and are technically no different or better than a dog, or a tick, or a mosquito?





> Does it ever bother you that by your own admissions you have zero hope other than this life?


Yes.


> That you will never see your friends and loved ones again after you or they die?


Who wouldn't want to?


> That you are just a soul-less, living organism that will simply return to dust


Soul/spirituality doesn't = believes in the Christian God.


> technically no different or better than a dog, or a tick, or a mosquito?


Technically we are animals too.
As far as "better" - Ive met some humans that would have to greatly improve themselves to be on the same level as a tick or a mosquito. Ticks and mosquitos don't know any better.

I cant help but notice that everything you mentioned is what YOU are supposedly going to get for believing.
Is that why you believe? For what YOU are going to get out of it?


----------



## atlashunter

furtaker said:


> Just some curious questions for you folks that don't believe in God...
> 
> Does it ever bother you that by your own admissions you have zero hope other than this life?



Hope for what exactly? For an after life? We won the cosmic lottery just to get this life. Isn't that enough?




furtaker said:


> That you will never see your friends and loved ones again after you or they die?



Yes that is a very unpleasant prospect. I would love to see my loved ones again. Unfortunately there is no good reason to believe that will be the case. Rather than responding to that by engaging in wishful thinking I think it is healthier to appreciate what time we do have and try to make the most of it. Treasure it. Every moment is precious for us mortals.




furtaker said:


> That you are just a soul-less, living organism that will simply return to dust and are technically no different or better than a dog, or a tick, or a mosquito?



We are mortal just like every other living organism. That doesn't mean we are no different. An insect has no concept of the universe or it's place in it. We do and I'm so glad for that.


----------



## oldfella1962

furtaker said:


> Just some curious questions for you folks that don't believe in God...
> 
> Does it ever bother you that by your own admissions you have zero hope other than this life?  That you will never see your friends and loved ones again after you or they die?  That you are just a soul-less, living organism that will simply return to dust and are technically no different or better than a dog, or a tick, or a mosquito?



or maybe some of us believe there is a god but that god has nothing to do with heaven/hades? In other words no god as described by Judeo/Christian concepts. That aside, statistically you won't see many of your loved ones again anyway in heaven if they went to hades. Hopefully you won't miss them or consider the eternal torture they are in, which would be very depressing. And this life provides plenty of opportunity for hope and love and all kinds of positive things. It's just that I take these things at face value, one time opportunity in "real time" with no do-overs. 

And no, humans are not better than all the rest of the living critters, just different. I don't think the planet is all about humans with pretty much the rest of the universe being an afterthought. Humans should not have dominion over all the rest of the critters since we just recently came along - we are the new kids on the block and we won't be the last ones standing when it's over. 

Our evolved brains are all that enable us to discuss our role in the universe, but we cannot change our role. We have the same physical properties and are subject to the same laws of physics/nature as the fleas and dogs. We take in energy and try not be eaten to survive long enough to reproduce/make copies (hopefully improved copies to keep up with a changing environment) of ourselves. No human or other critter has ever done any different. 

If humans were that much different (in reality, not our fertile imaginations) we wouldn't be anything like the rest of the living creatures, but we are very much alike. Atoms, chromosomes, DNA, birth and life cycles, etc.etc.etc. we are subject to the laws of physics and science with no exceptions. We can't run faster, see better, live longer, or do anything miraculously epic that can't be done by other living things, which pretty much tells me evolution gave us one advantage to keep us from going extinct and that is brain power, and rush hour Atlanta traffic shows that's not always dependable.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> An insect has no concept of the universe or it's place in it.



How do you know this? Can you prove it?


----------



## centerpin fan

oldfella1962 said:


> or maybe some of us believe there is a god but that god has nothing to do with heaven/hades? In other words no god as described by Judeo/Christian concepts. That aside, statistically you won't see many of your loved ones again anyway in heaven if they went to hades. Hopefully you won't miss them or consider the eternal torture they are in, which would be very depressing. And this life provides plenty of opportunity for hope and love and all kinds of positive things. It's just that I take these things at face value, one time opportunity in "real time" with no do-overs.
> 
> And no, humans are not better than all the rest of the living critters, just different. I don't think the planet is all about humans with pretty much the rest of the universe being an afterthought. Humans should not have dominion over all the rest of the critters since we just recently came along - we are the new kids on the block and we won't be the last ones standing when it's over.
> 
> Our evolved brains are all that enable us to discuss our role in the universe, but we cannot change our role. We have the same physical properties and are subject to the same laws of physics/nature as the fleas and dogs. We take in energy and try not be eaten to survive long enough to reproduce/make copies (hopefully improved copies to keep up with a changing environment) of ourselves. No human or other critter has ever done any different.
> 
> If humans were that much different (in reality, not our fertile imaginations) we wouldn't be anything like the rest of the living creatures, but we are very much alike. Atoms, chromosomes, DNA, birth and life cycles, etc.etc.etc. we are subject to the laws of physics and science with no exceptions. We can't run faster, see better, live longer, or do anything miraculously epic that can't be done by other living things, which pretty much tells me evolution gave us one advantage to keep us from going extinct and that is brain power, and rush hour Atlanta traffic shows that's not always dependable.



Thank you, Rue McClanahan.  Denise Richards gets it right at the :40 mark.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> No organic molecules could survive an explosion of that magnitude. There are no odds for God. Science (man) cannot possibly form an equation for a supernatural being.


Yeah, who said that there were organic molecules that survived the Big Bang?


Right on the odds of a God. Astronomically more improbable than no chance.


----------



## bullethead

furtaker said:


> Just some curious questions for you folks that don't believe in God...
> 
> Does it ever bother you that by your own admissions you have zero hope other than this life?  That you will never see your friends and loved ones again after you or they die?  That you are just a soul-less, living organism that will simply return to dust and are technically no different or better than a dog, or a tick, or a mosquito?


Just curious, what if I do have "it" wrong AND you also have "it"wrong?
What if neither of us accounted for one of 10,000 possibilities?

Why  does every believer think that somehow they made all the right choices and everyone else is wrong?

How are you going to see your friends and loved ones? Will they all be 30yrs old in their "prime"? 
Will grandmom always be 92 even if her version of heaven has her thinking she will be 20?
Will an infant that died always be 16months old for eternity?

Have you thought it all through??


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Just curious, what if I do have "it" wrong AND you also have "it"wrong?
> What if neither of us accounted for one of 10,000 possibilities?
> 
> Why  does every believer think that somehow they made all the right choices and everyone else is wrong?
> 
> How are you going to see your friends and loved ones? Will they all be 30yrs old in their "prime"?
> Will grandmom always be 92 even if her version of heaven has her thinking she will be 20?
> Will an infant that died always be 16months old for eternity?
> 
> Have you thought it all through??



My belief is not based on my choices.


----------



## furtaker

bullethead said:


> Why  does every believer think that somehow they made all the right choices and everyone else is wrong?


Seems like most atheists do too.


----------



## bullethead

furtaker said:


> Seems like most atheists do too.



Possibly so, but it is because they have enough evidence to convince them of their choice as many believers do.

But

Why cherry pick the easy one and answer the rest of my questions?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> My belief is not based on my choices.



Welder, then once and for all show us why not. Everything you do is a choice only you deny it because it is easier.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder, then once and for all show us why not. Everything you do is a choice only you deny it because it is easier.



If you were asleep and someone punched you square in the mouth, did you have a choice to receive that punch or not?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If you were asleep and someone punched you square in the mouth, did you have a choice to receive that punch or not?



Yes, it means I chose not to give them 13 reasons from my Glock why they should not punch me because I chose not to lock the door.

You mentioned many times previoisly about your life/lifestyle choices pre-diehard believer. You are now trying to convince yourself that your change of heart is gonna save you because some supernatural being had his eye on you the whole time. I am all for whatever makes you feel warm inside. But only one of us is being honest.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yes, it means I chose not to give them 13 reasons from my Glock why they should not punch me because I chose not to lock the door.
> 
> You mentioned many times previoisly about your life/lifestyle choices pre-diehard believer. You are now trying to convince yourself that your change of heart is gonna save you because some supernatural being had his eye on you the whole time. I am all for whatever makes you feel warm inside. But only one of us is being honest.



You can try to resist after the punch all you want, but the fact will still remain, you received the punch passively from a force outside of yourself.
As far as the door being locked/unlocked, God goes right through all the doors we try to shut, if He so desires.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You can try to resist after the punch all you want, but the fact will still remain, you received the punch passively from a force outside of yourself.
> As far as the door being locked/unlocked, God goes right through all the doors we try to shut, if He so desires.


But welder, you constantly try to mesh the physical with the imagination.
You constantly try to mesh something that has evidence of it happening with no evidence of it happening.
A punch will leave a mark. A spirit....nothing.

You are on the same playing field as the people who act after claiming to hear voices that god tells them to do things.
We don't believe them and they can't convince a jury to believe them either.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> Yep still some good ones in there.



Walt it looks like you were bank fishing. I figured you would be in your yak. I have a jon boat with a trolling motor I fish in  Yargo. Lets fish in the spring, biggest bass wins. The loser has to pay the $5 gate fee.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> But welder, you constantly try to mesh the physical with the imagination.
> You constantly try to mesh something that has evidence of it happening with no evidence of it happening.
> A punch will leave a mark. A spirit....nothing.
> 
> You are on the same playing field as the people who act after claiming to hear voices that god tells them to do things.
> We don't believe them and they can't convince a jury to believe them either.



I find that conversations between you and me go a little better if I use physical analogies to illustrate spiritual matters. Not that I expect you to understand with carnal reasoning, but at least you may get some inkling of what I understand.

BTW, the Spirit leaves a spiritual mark.(a seal, like the king sealed his letters using wax and his ring)


----------



## MiGGeLLo

welderguy said:


> BTW, the Spirit leaves a spiritual mark.(a seal, like the king sealed his letters using wax and his ring)



So... not an actual mark.. Understood.


----------



## welderguy

MiGGeLLo said:


> So... not an actual mark.. Understood.



You will never know this mark until you've received it. Then and only then will you be able to perceive that a change has come about you that wasn't there before.


----------



## j_seph

atlashunter said:


> Hope for what exactly? For an after life? We won the cosmic lottery just to get this life. Isn't that enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is a very unpleasant prospect. I would love to see my loved ones again. Unfortunately there is no good reason to believe that will be the case. Rather than responding to that by *engaging *in wishful thinking I think it is healthier to appreciate what time we do have and try to make the most of it. Treasure it. Every moment is precious for us mortals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are mortal just like every other living organism. That doesn't mean we are no different. An insect has no concept of the universe or it's place in it. We do and I'm so glad for that.


Speaking of engaging I see you are engaged to get marriedCongrats
Are y'all having a church wedding or justice of the peace? Who is performing the ceremony? Will there be any mention by the official of God? Being through two marriages one at courthouse and one with a minister God was mentioned.
Congrats again wishing y'all a happy marriage


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I find that conversations between you and me go a little better if I use physical analogies to illustrate spiritual matters. Not that I expect you to understand with carnal reasoning, but at least you may get some inkling of what I understand.
> 
> BTW, the Spirit leaves a spiritual mark.(a seal, like the king sealed his letters using wax and his ring)


The conversations would go very well if you were able to make good on even one claim.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You will never know this mark until you've received it. Then and only then will you be able to perceive that a change has come about you that wasn't there before.



More unverifiable claims. Zero evidence.


----------



## atlashunter

j_seph said:


> Speaking of engaging I see you are engaged to get marriedCongrats
> Are y'all having a church wedding or justice of the peace? Who is performing the ceremony? Will there be any mention by the official of God? Being through two marriages one at courthouse and one with a minister God was mentioned.
> Congrats again wishing y'all a happy marriage



Thanks we are looking forward to it. Just getting it done at the court house. My neighbor tried talking me into using the local church as I'm in a small town with an aging population and not many weddings around here. I said no way. I'm sure they are nice people but get married in their church then they will be looking to add us to the flock.

Don't know if the JP will make mention of god or not and I don't particularly care if they do. The church, the state, and the institution of marriage are all human constructs. It matters little if we layer on top of that another human construct we call god. What matters is the relationship I have with my sweetheart and the life and family we build together.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> You will never know this mark until you've received it. Then and only then will you be able to perceive that a change has come about you that wasn't there before.



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


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum



God is an anti-simulacrum.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> God is an anti-simulacrum.



No, god is a simulacrum. It's all in your head.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Yep still some good ones in there.



Nice fish.  It reminds me of this painting in my dining room.  It's called "Come to the Stump".  I know it's a bad filet job but my friend did it with a Swiss Army knife.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Walt it looks like you were bank fishing. I figured you would be in your yak. I have a jon boat with a trolling motor I fish in  Yargo. Lets fish in the spring, biggest bass wins. The loser has to pay the $5 gate fee.


Sometimes I'm too lazy to load up the yak and all that and just run over there and walk the banks and cast. 
Yargo is close to me too and its a convenient place to get an easy fishing fix.
Sure, I'll meet you over there any time.

And if you want to fish against me, I suggest you say your prayers first


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Nice fish.  It reminds me of this painting in my dining room.  It's called "Come to the Stump".  I know it's a bad filet job but my friend did it with a Swiss Army knife.


Wow amazingly similar!
Well except my fish went from the stump back into the water instead of the frying pan


----------



## Israel

Good job on the painting, though.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Good job on the painting, though.



Thanks!!


----------



## j_seph

ambush80 said:


> Nice fish.  It reminds me of this painting in my dining room.  It's called "Come to the Stump".  I know it's a bad filet job but my friend did it with a Swiss Army knife.


don't throw that away, there is still a lot of meat on that fish.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

Somebody say fishin at Yargo? I'm about 15 minutes away.


----------



## j_seph

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Somebody say fishin at Yargo? I'm about 15 minutes away.


No it was at Yonah


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> don't throw that away, there is still a lot of meat on that fish.



I did the other side to show him how its done.


----------



## Israel

Pike is also an excellent meal. Many are dissuaded by the fine "y" bones that are all but impossible to fillet out. But, there is a way.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

j_seph said:


> No it was at Yonah



I used to climb the many routes on the face of Yonah, never saw any fish while climbing that rock face though.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Pike is also an excellent meal. Many are dissuaded by the fine "y" bones that are all but impossible to fillet out. But, there is a way.



I caught a 3 1/2 footer at my cousins lake house in Madison Wisconsin two summers ago.  I used the "slash" technique that I learned from Nicodemus in regards to sucker fish and pickerel on it before frying.  It was absolutely delicious.

I had a pike "dumpling" one time in France.  It was basically a poached fish cake but it was light and delicate and awesome.


----------



## oldfella1962

ambush80 said:


> I caught a 3 1/2 footer at my cousins lake house in Madison Wisconsin two summers ago.  I used the "slash" technique that I learned from Nicodemus in regards to sucker fish and pickerel on it before frying.  It was absolutely delicious.
> 
> I had a pike "dumpling" one time in France.  It was basically a poached fish cake but it was light and delicate and awesome.



I've caught many pike/pickerel and they taste good, but pickling them (vinegar softens/dissolves the bones) is the best way to ensure that bones are gone. Pickled pike tastes as good as pickled herring to be honest.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I caught a 3 1/2 footer at my cousins lake house in Madison Wisconsin two summers ago.  I used the "slash" technique that I learned from Nicodemus in regards to sucker fish and pickerel on it before frying.  It was absolutely delicious.
> 
> I had a pike "dumpling" one time in France.  It was basically a poached fish cake but it was light and delicate and awesome.



Yep, that's it...
I hope you ate the "cheeks"...too


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Yep, that's it...
> I hope you ate the "cheeks"...too




I didn't know to.

Next time.


----------



## ambush80

oldfella1962 said:


> I've caught many pike/pickerel and they taste good, but pickling them (vinegar softens/dissolves the bones) is the best way to ensure that bones are gone. Pickled pike tastes as good as pickled herring to be honest.



I like pickled herring about once a year, in sour cream, too.  I get tired of it quickly though, and it ends up in the back of the fridge.


----------



## j_seph

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I used to climb the many routes on the face of Yonah, never saw any fish while climbing that rock face though.


It is a hidden lake, have to go through the cave. There are many blind trout there


----------

