# Thoughts?  From people with non-sheeple brains



## Rebel 6

I am as confused as anyone can be.  I believe this Universe and this Earth has some kind of creator.  Were the Indians wrong?  Many Gods.  One for each season and each sun phase.  Makes much more sense to me than a "bible" conspired, translated and printed for a new "religion.  For those who are incapable of catching my drift, I am not relating to the society-controlled religion of the British (been there/done that garbage).  Nor am I asking of the...uh...(Protestants)...been there/done that, with a wee bit of logic.  Neither flies...neither.   Gimme some logic.   Literal logic, without some inbred or homosexual (king JAMES) twisted, contorted and...uh.....LOGICAL logic...I dare ya'....I challenge ya'...I DARE ya' to present me with some...SOME...literal (read...LITERAl - hint:  cut  & paste don't cut it here) existence...logic...reason why YOUR God is real, in this fakeheiney world.   I challenge, you.  I dare you.   And remember, words copied/pasted from such from a homosexual and likely pedophile don't count.  Read:  logic vs  sheepleness.  I dare ya'.  C'mon!


----------



## centerpin fan

Rebel 6 said:


> I am as confused as anyone can be.



I concur.


----------



## centerpin fan

Rebel 6 said:


> Gimme some logic......LOGICAL logic...



That's the best kind!


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> I concur.


----------



## gemcgrew

Rebel 6 said:


> I am as confused as anyone can be.  I believe this Universe and this Earth has some kind of creator.  Were the Indians wrong?  Many Gods.  One for each season and each sun phase.  Makes much more sense to me than a "bible" conspired, translated and printed for a new "religion.  For those who are incapable of catching my drift, I am not relating to the society-controlled religion of the British (been there/done that garbage).  Nor am I asking of the...uh...(Protestants)...been there/done that, with a wee bit of logic.  Neither flies...neither.   Gimme some logic.   Literal logic, without some inbred or homosexual (king JAMES) twisted, contorted and...uh.....LOGICAL logic...I dare ya'....I challenge ya'...I DARE ya' to present me with some...SOME...literal (read...LITERAl - hint:  cut  & paste don't cut it here) existence...logic...reason why YOUR God is real, in this fakeheiney world.   I challenge, you.  I dare you.   And remember, words copied/pasted from such from a homosexual and likely pedophile don't count.  Read:  logic vs  sheepleness.  I dare ya'.  C'mon!


Will you agree to use words and definitions only from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary?


----------



## stringmusic

Do ya double dog dare me?


----------



## Israel

Who judges the logic?
Majority?  In a fakeheiney world, such may just lead to greater confusion.
Who will judge your dare? Mine?
My God is invisible, unconjurable, utterly full of self awareness that any trick I might try to employ would expose me, not him.
Yet, you speak as one wanting some kind of proof reasonable...to you.
You see, since only your unseen maker knows you fully, unerringly, completely to the hairs on your head...he alone can show himself to you with any undeniable proof.
But please, before you dismiss the unseeable as unknowable...just look at what you have managed to develop by just presenting here something none of us can see, taste, feel, or smell; your thoughts.
If a man can "come clean" about the myriad things that move him daily...which he can never prove except by some agreement or some form of concensus "I love my wife"..."and that's why I do, say, attempt such and such...", well, I don't think I need belabor the point.
God, in that sense, is as easy to show as love...or hard...depending.


----------



## drippin' rock

Rebel 6???  Was Rebel 5 taken?


----------



## drippin' rock

This OP reminds me of the guy I saw downtown last week screaming at a wall.


----------



## Artfuldodger

You sound a little more angry than confused. If the Protestants are wrong then the Native Americans could also be wrong. 
Maybe you could look at and compare all the religions, then relax and let the real God call you if he decides to call. You can't believe if you don't even know what to believe. 
Just keep an open mind and pray to that Creator that you do believe in to show you the way.


----------



## JB0704

Rebel 6 said:


> Many Gods. One for each season and each sun phase.



For a 9th post ever, this is a quality effort, for sure!

But, do you suppose that it is possible for God to be God only when the earth tilts a certain way?  If so, he is no longer God when the earth tilts another.  If that's the case, was he ever God?

Anyway, to the rest of your post, God is a logical conclusion for many, it's an original cause sort of thing.

As to Christianity, if Jesus did the things the Bible says he did, then, I wouldn't know what else to call him 

^^^There's your logic, in a few short sentences.  You are left only to call into question the validity of the Bible.  At which point we are debating whether or not some folks 2k years ago were lieng a bunch and writing it down.  From that point, we have to stand on faith.....one side has faith they were all liars, the other side has faith they weren't.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> For a 9th post ever, this is a quality effort, for sure!
> 
> But, do you suppose that it is possible for God to be God only when the earth tilts a certain way?  If so, he is no longer God when the earth tilts another.  If that's the case, was he ever God?
> 
> Anyway, to the rest of your post, God is a logical conclusion for many, it's an original cause sort of thing.
> 
> As to Christianity, if Jesus did the things the Bible says he did, then, I wouldn't know what else to call him
> 
> ^^^There's your logic, in a few short sentences.  You are left only to call into question the validity of the Bible.  At which point we are debating whether or not some folks 2k years ago were lieng a bunch and writing it down.  From that point, we have to stand on faith.....one side has faith they were all liars, the other side has faith they weren't.



JB, were the folks 2k years ago that wrote of God/Jesus lying any more or telling any more truth than every other person who worshiped all other God(s) that wrote down a religious thought/story/FACT?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> JB, were the folks 2k years ago that wrote of God/Jesus lying any more or telling any more truth than every other person who worshiped all other God(s) that wrote down a religious thought/story/FACT?



That is a question of faith, isn't it?  Which is my point.  You can have faith they were all making junk up for whatever purpose it served.  I can have faith that these folks weren't.  Is there more logical value in one or the other?


----------



## centerpin fan

stringmusic said:


> Do ya double dog dare me?



Go for it.  It's been slow around here.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> That is a question of faith, isn't it?  Which is my point.  You can have faith they were all making junk up for whatever purpose it served.  I can have faith that these folks weren't.  Is there more logical value in one or the other?



Until I was 10-12yrs old I didn't know there was any other religion or any other God or any other people that worshiped any other God, let alone other people that wrote in great detail about their Gods and their religion. At that point my faith was already taught to me.


----------



## Rebel 6

Artfuldodger said:


> You sound a little more angry than confused. If the Protestants are wrong then the Native Americans could also be wrong.
> Maybe you could look at and compare all the religions, then relax and let the real God call you if he decides to call. You can't believe if you don't even know what to believe.
> Just keep an open mind and pray to that Creator that you do believe in to show you the way.



I do.  All the time.  Been doing so for going on 50 years now.  Ain't seen nuthin'.  Ain't had nuthin' revealed.  Maybe cuz' I wait with an open mind, and don't see what I'm aimin' to see (the very nature of the human mind to do, I believe).  A truly open mind.  Wanting an answer.  Wanting an inspiration.  Wanting some spirit to fill my heart and soul.  And what do I get, after decades of hoping and praying?

Nothing...absolutely nothing.

Why?  Gee...I wonder.  Well, actually, I've stopped wondering.  I think I know now.

Oh, and I have always known that I am not a sheep.  Ain't never been one to mindlessly follow anyone right to the slaughterhouse.

eta:  I mean absolutely no offense to you, Artfuldodger.  You seem like a kind, considerate person.  Just explaining my viewpoint on the Big Picture stuff.


----------



## Big7

Turn to John, 3:16 and the early church fathers.

OK.. Big bang. Who dunnit? No matter where you turn,
in every religion, THERE IS A DEITY.


----------



## Israel

Rebel 6 said:


> I do.  All the time.  Been doing so for going on 50 years now.  Ain't seen nuthin'.  Ain't had nuthin' revealed.  Maybe cuz' I wait with an open mind, and don't see what I'm aimin' to see (the very nature of the human mind to do, I believe).  A truly open mind.  Wanting an answer.  Wanting an inspiration.  Wanting some spirit to fill my heart and soul.  And what do I get, after decades of hoping and praying?
> 
> Nothing...absolutely nothing.
> 
> Why?  Gee...I wonder.  Well, actually, I've stopped wondering.  I think I know now.
> 
> Oh, and I have always known that I am not a sheep.  Ain't never been one to mindlessly follow anyone right to the slaughterhouse.
> 
> eta:  I mean absolutely no offense to you, Artfuldodger.  You seem like a kind, considerate person.  Just explaining my viewpoint on the Big Picture stuff.



It seems to me, much of a man is composed of a devotion to _not be like "those" others_ however a man perceives "those".
When you see that is just reactionary, and just as confining as the worst compulsions, inclinations, and drives that appear to you as the most venal, base, or simple...well...can you see that?
How can you ever know who _you are_ if it all depends always on trying to not be _like them?_

Yes, it takes a "something" for a man to surrender to the truth, "I am just a common man".


----------



## WaltL1

Rebel 6 said:


> I do.  All the time.  Been doing so for going on 50 years now.  Ain't seen nuthin'.  Ain't had nuthin' revealed.  Maybe cuz' I wait with an open mind, and don't see what I'm aimin' to see (the very nature of the human mind to do, I believe).  A truly open mind.  Wanting an answer.  Wanting an inspiration.  Wanting some spirit to fill my heart and soul.  And what do I get, after decades of hoping and praying?
> 
> Nothing...absolutely nothing.
> 
> Why?  Gee...I wonder.  Well, actually, I've stopped wondering.  I think I know now.
> 
> Oh, and I have always known that I am not a sheep.  Ain't never been one to mindlessly follow anyone right to the slaughterhouse.
> 
> eta:  I mean absolutely no offense to you, Artfuldodger.  You seem like a kind, considerate person.  Just explaining my viewpoint on the Big Picture stuff.





> Nothing...absolutely nothing.


I don't think religion/belief in God is a spectator sport.
It requires YOU to do something. Believe, have faith, decide that tree is evidence of the Christian God etc.


> I wait with an open mind


What you are waiting for is logical evidence or proof of some sort and there isn't any. 
That's where the faith comes in.
One more comment -


> Thoughts? From people with non-sheeple brains


If you were waiting for some sort of proof or sign wouldn't that mean you were willing to be a sheeple?
So if you were willing that would mean you saw there being a benefit or value higher than being termed a sheeple.
How is that any different from people who do believe?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> That is a question of faith, isn't it?  Which is my point.  You can have faith they were all making junk up for whatever purpose it served.  I can have faith that these folks weren't.  Is there more logical value in one or the other?


Logical would dictate that if you believe "these folks" could be telling to the truth, "those folks" could be telling the truth also.
The exact same evidence exists for all of them and you cant disprove the others.
So I would say NONE of them have any logical value.
So I completely agree with -


> That is a question of faith, isn't it?  Which is my point.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Rebel 6 said:


> I do.  All the time.  Been doing so for going on 50 years now.  Ain't seen nuthin'.  Ain't had nuthin' revealed.  Maybe cuz' I wait with an open mind, and don't see what I'm aimin' to see (the very nature of the human mind to do, I believe).  A truly open mind.  Wanting an answer.  Wanting an inspiration.  Wanting some spirit to fill my heart and soul.  And what do I get, after decades of hoping and praying?
> 
> Nothing...absolutely nothing.
> 
> Why?  Gee...I wonder.  Well, actually, I've stopped wondering.  I think I know now.
> 
> Oh, and I have always known that I am not a sheep.  Ain't never been one to mindlessly follow anyone right to the slaughterhouse.
> 
> eta:  I mean absolutely no offense to you, Artfuldodger.  You seem like a kind, considerate person.  Just explaining my viewpoint on the Big Picture stuff.



No offense taken, I'm glad to see you are a free thinker as we should all be. You've got to walk that Lonesome Valley all by yourself. Good Luck on your quest for answers. Most sheeple go through life not seeking anything, just following others. Others of anys sorts could be wrong, including me.


----------



## bullethead

Big7 said:


> OK.. Big bang. Who dunnit? No matter where you turn,
> in every religion, THERE IS A DEITY.



Not one of those deities in any of those religions can be singled out to exist let alone be responsible for the big bang.
Giving one the credit is just a default answer for not being able to say " I don't know".


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Logical would dictate that if you believe "these folks" could be telling to the truth, "those folks" could be telling the truth also.



Yes, except in the event the two claims are contradictory.  Then you are left with one or the other, or neither.



WaltL1 said:


> The exact same evidence exists for all of them and you cant disprove the others.



Sort-of.  For instance, with Jesus, you have multiple eye-witness testimony.  There are other faiths which rely on a single source.  What is common is the inability to prove one claim over the other and each rely on the word of others.




WaltL1 said:


> So I would say NONE of them have any logical value.
> So I completely agree with -



I have always said, Christianity must be taken on faith.  Anybody looking for proof is gonna be disappointed.

God, on the other hand, is not a faith based conclusion.  Of all the religions and various concepts of God, most still agree on the premise that there is a God or a natural force behind things (which is the foundation of most religions).


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Not one of those deities.....



Black folks most likely picture Jesus as a black dude.  White folks almost universally believe he is white.  Reality is he was most likely neither.  Do they believe in a different Jesus?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I think this is the first buzz bait I've ever seen used on a trot line.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Yes, except in the event the two claims are contradictory.  Then you are left with one or the other, or neither.
> 
> 
> 
> Sort-of.  For instance, with Jesus, you have multiple eye-witness testimony.  There are other faiths which rely on a single source.  What is common is the inability to prove one claim over the other and each rely on the word of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said, Christianity must be taken on faith.  Anybody looking for proof is gonna be disappointed.
> 
> God, on the other hand, is not a faith based conclusion.  Of all the religions and various concepts of God, most still agree on the premise that there is a God or a natural force behind things (which is the foundation of most religions).



I think with Jesus we have claims of multiple eye-witness testimony. Authors who we do not know, who were not there, and were not witness to the event or testimony themselves have written stories about eye-witnesses. It is not unique and is as disregarded as the other eye-witness stories in other religions.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Black folks most likely picture Jesus as a black dude.  White folks almost universally believe he is white.  Reality is he was most likely neither.  Do they believe in a different Jesus?



Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know

But not sure what you are trying to prove with that.

I would say there is a great chance that each person has their own personal Jesus(insert Depeche Mode clip here) that differs from the next persons in order to suit the individuals needs. So yes....Jesus is different depending on who you ask.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I think with Jesus we have claims of multiple eye-witness testimony. Authors who we do not know, who were not there, and were not witness to the event or testimony themselves have written stories about eye-witnesses. It is not unique and is as disregarded as the other eye-witness stories in other religions.



.....



			
				JB0704 said:
			
		

> What is common is the inability to prove one claim over the other and each rely on the word of others.



We are in agreement for the most part.  I am pretty certain John is regarded as an eyewitness.  I'm not a scholar, but, the gospels are generally recorded verbal history as well.....which is eye-witness testimony. 

Whether anybody accepts it is a different matter.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I would say there is a great chance that each person has their own personal Jesus(insert Depeche Mode clip here) that differs from the next persons in order to suit the individuals needs. So yes....Jesus is different depending on who you ask.



How many Jesus' were there?


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think this is the first buzz bait I've ever seen used on a trot line.



It gives us something to do.  It was the OP's 9th post.

There was also a new fella (hammer spank) jumping in here last week with some stuff, wish he'd come back.......thought he had potential


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> How many Jesus' were there?



One according to the Bible.

What and who and how many forms he has taken and what people has added to him in the individual minds is anyone's guess.
The Quaran tells about a Jesus in ways that are not said in the Bible.
Is that the same Jesus? Is it accurate?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> .....
> 
> 
> 
> We are in agreement for the most part.  I am pretty certain John is regarded as an eyewitness.  I'm not a scholar, but, the gospels are generally recorded verbal history as well.....which is eye-witness testimony.
> 
> Whether anybody accepts it is a different matter.



Well that is true but also the problem. Being that it is not universally accepted and if a jury was made of worldwide religious believers I do not think a unanimous verdict will be had. In fact the majority will disagree that it is actual eye-witness testimony.


----------



## bullethead

I'll catch up later....


----------



## StriperrHunterr

There was the physical Jesus, and then there's the Jesus of the Bible. One is a fixed construct, the other seems to be whatever the faithful person needs him to be, not making light here, but kind of like Batman. A symbol to unite behind. 

I always thought it was weird that portraits I've seen of Jesus always depicted him as a brown haired, but light skinned, blue-eyed guy. I don't think so for that region. 

I imagine he looked kinda Middle-Eastern, if we're being realistic, but that image doesn't sell well around here.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> It gives us something to do.  It was the OP's 9th post.
> 
> There was also a new fella (hammer spank) jumping in here last week with some stuff, wish he'd come back.......thought he had potential



I'll give him points for being bold, but he gets goose eggs for the rest of the post. It's like walking into a church, thumping the leader and the congregation in the chest demanding evidence, claiming, to be used for his own conversion, and then walking out again before anyone has a chance to respond. 

It seems to me that all that was desired here was to thump people in the chest, challenge them in kind of a bully-ish fashion, and then walk away before they could challenge him back. 

That's the way it looks so far, but I could be wrong.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> It gives us something to do.  It was the OP's 9th post.



I thought his references to King James as "inbred or homosexual" and a "likely pedophile" were outstanding for a first-timer.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

centerpin fan said:


> I thought his references to King James as "inbred or homosexual" and a "likely pedophile" were outstanding for a first-timer.



If by outstanding you mean distilled vitriol, then I agree with you.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'll give him points for being bold, but he gets goose eggs for the rest of the post. It's like walking into a church, thumping the leader and the congregation in the chest demanding evidence, claiming, to be used for his own conversion, and then walking out again before anyone has a chance to respond.
> It seems to me that all that was desired here was to thump people in the chest, challenge them in kind of a bully-ish fashion, and then walk away before they could challenge him back.
> That's the way it looks so far, but I could be wrong.


If that's all you got, that's all you can give. 
For some, regurgitation of scripture is all they got. Ask them to stray from that and poof they are gone. 
But as you said I/we could be wrong.
Its why I appreciate the believers/friends that normally participate here. They are capable of believing exactly the same but also apply their own thoughts on the subject.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> If that's all you got, that's all you can give.
> For some, regurgitation of scripture is all they got. Ask them to stray from that and poof they are gone.
> But as you said I/we could be wrong.
> Its why I appreciate the believers/friends that normally participate here. They are capable of believing exactly the same but also apply their own thoughts on the subject.



My momma would say, "If that's all you got, keep yer trap shut."


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My momma would say, "If that's all you got, keep yer trap shut."


Wise words. Not usually followed


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Wise words. Not usually followed



Sometimes I forget, too.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> I thought his references to King James as "inbred or homosexual" and a "likely pedophile" were outstanding for a first-timer.



That was definitely bait.....ignored and moved to the rest.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by centerpin fan View Post
> I thought his references to King James as "inbred or homosexual" and a "likely pedophile" were outstanding for a first-timer.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If by outstanding you mean distilled vitriol, then I agree with you.


Uh oh 


> King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. The King was queer.


http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/kingjames.htm


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Sometimes I forget, too.


More than sometimes for me


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Uh oh
> 
> http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/kingjames.htm



Ok, so he was a pedophilic homosexual. That says a little about the version of the Bible given that the proscriptions against both sins remain intact in that Bible, and a lot about the man for ignoring them. It says 0 about the faith or religion, and is tangential to the "proof" that the OP demanded. 

It's a case for tossing the baby out with the bathwater, which is just ludicrous.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Well that is true but also the problem. Being that it is not universally accepted and if a jury was made of worldwide religious believers I do not think a unanimous verdict will be had.



Which is where the discussion of faith comes in.



bullethead said:


> In fact the majority will disagree that it is actual eye-witness testimony.



Based on what?  It could be recorded 3 generations later from verbal testimony and still be eye witness testimony.  It just took a while to be recorded where we have it today.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's a case for tossing the baby out with the bathwater, which is just ludicrous.



Yep.  It is irrelevant to the subject being discussed.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Which is where the discussion of faith comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?  It could be recorded 3 generations later from verbal testimony and still be eye witness testimony.  It just took a while to be recorded where we have it today.



I think verbal testimony that far removed from the source is called hearsay. 

I doubt any judge would allow you on the stand with, "well my grandfather's cousin's friend heard it from Jimbo's mouth..." and remain as a credible witness. Opposing counsel would object and be sustained in less than a heartbeat, I think.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think verbal testimony that far removed from the source is called hearsay.
> 
> I doubt any judge would allow you on the stand with, "well my grandfather's cousin's friend heard it from Jimbo's mouth..." and remain as a credible witness. Opposing counsel would object and be sustained in less than a heartbeat, I think.



Similar.....but we are talking about a culture which passed things along like that.  We don't know if person A "heard" person B, or, transferred person B's letter to the document.  

I just bought my kid a copy of "The Art of War."  Sun Tzu may not have written that book either........to believe such, we are relying on "hear say" according to your perspective.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok, so he was a pedophilic homosexual. That says a little about the version of the Bible given that the proscriptions against both sins remain intact in that Bible, and a lot about the man for ignoring them. It says 0 about the faith or religion, and is tangential to the "proof" that the OP demanded.
> 
> It's a case for tossing the baby out with the bathwater, which is just ludicrous.


No argument here. Just pointing out the OP did have some "evidence" behind his statement he so gladly threw out there.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Similar.....but we are talking about a culture which passed things along like that.  We don't know if person A "heard" person B, or, transferred person B's letter to the document.
> 
> I just bought my kid a copy of "The Art of War."  Sun Tzu may not have written that book either........to believe such, we are relying on "hear say" according to your perspective.


Ive read the covers off of mine


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Similar.....but we are talking about a culture which passed things along like that.  We don't know if person A "heard" person B, or, transferred person B's letter to the document.
> 
> I just bought my kid a copy of "The Art of War."  Sun Tzu may not have written that book either........to believe such, we are relying on "hear say" according to your perspective.



That's not saying that the lessons contained in both are invalid. That's just saying that trying to credibly say that the purported author wrote it is impossible to prove.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Ive read the covers off of mine



Yea.....it's fantastic.  I told him to apply it to a bussiness mindset when he reads it (enemy is internal and external competition type stuff) and view the lessons metaphorically.  He's only 14, but, I am trying to give him as much head start as possible.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's not saying that the lessons contained in both are invalid. That's just saying that trying to credibly say that the purported author wrote it is impossible to prove.



Agreed.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Yea.....it's fantastic.  I told him to apply it to a bussiness mindset when he reads it (enemy is internal and external competition type stuff) and view the lessons metaphorically.  He's only 14, but, I am trying to give him as much head start as possible.



Follow that one up with Clausewitz


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Follow that one up with Clausewitz



Ok, haven't read him.  Did a quick wiki search, interesting. I wonder if there is a collected works out there?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Ok, haven't read him.  Did a quick wiki search, interesting. I wonder if there is a collected works out there?



Specifically, _On War._ It's about how war and politics are related, the true nature of war, and the reasons why it is waged. It gives a great crucible by which to measure actionable ideas against. It's a tad dry, though, but if he can get through Tzu then it should be ok.

_Starship Troopers_ is also a much better book than the movie would have suggested.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Yea.....it's fantastic.  I told him to apply it to a bussiness mindset when he reads it (enemy is internal and external competition type stuff) and view the lessons metaphorically.  He's only 14, but, I am trying to give him as much head start as possible.


Its definitely applicable to the business world.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Based on what?  It could be recorded 3 generations later from verbal testimony and still be eye witness testimony.  It just took a while to be recorded where we have it today.



Based on accuracy.
Stories change from one day to the next, let alone 3 generations.


----------



## bullethead

JB, when Jesus went to the desert for 40 days and every other time he was alone or when his followers were asleep....WHO were the eye-witnesses to these events? How did someone record these events word for word 3 generations later when there was absolutely no one there to witness any of it?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> JB, when Jesus went to the desert for 40 days and every other time he was alone or when his followers were asleep....WHO were the eye-witnesses to these events? How did someone record these events word for word 3 generations later when there was absolutely no one there to witness any of it?



My best guess is that Jesus told folks who told the folks who wrote it.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Based on accuracy.
> Stories change from one day to the next, let alone 3 generations.



Yes.  But, we also have multiple views of the same actions.  Variations based on perspective.  For anything other than the Bible, most would buy that testimony, at least in a general sense.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> JB, when Jesus went to the desert for 40 days and every other time he was alone or when his followers were asleep....WHO were the eye-witnesses to these events?






Sorry.  Couldn't resist.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> My best guess is that Jesus told folks who told the folks who wrote it.



Within those writings are unsubstantiated historical claims and internal contradictions. The writings, like the eye-witness accounts they are based off of are full of of hearsay, fiction and unreliable sources.
I am darn sure they are full of best guesses too.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, we also have multiple views of the same actions.  Variations based on perspective.  For anything other than the Bible, most would buy that testimony, at least in a general sense.



No actually no court would buy that testimony.

WHO witnessed the conversation between the Roman guards and Rabbis?

Nobody


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Sorry.  Couldn't resist.



He is short on giving interviews.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

centerpin fan said:


> Sorry.  Couldn't resist.



Best answer in this subforum to date.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Best answer in this subforum to date.



It is the typical answer.
It is funny...in fact I cracked up...I  appreciate the wit, but it really is no answer, just designed to deflect away from the honest answers from honest questions.


----------



## bullethead

About the only things that are universally agreed upon or agreed upon by biblical scholars is that most likely than not there was a historical Jesus, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and he was crucified by Pontius Pilot. Dang near everything else in between is suspect.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> It is the typical answer.
> It is funny...in fact I cracked up...I  appreciate the wit, but it really is no answer, just designed to deflect away from the honest answers from honest questions.



I should have said reply, maybe? I was referring to perfectly executed wit when I said it was the best.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I should have said reply, maybe? I was referring to perfectly executed wit when I said it was the best.



10-4

Doesn't it make you wonder why, when satan has the son of god all alone to himself he does nothing but offer him some mountains and land? And since when is it satans to offer?

Neither seem to be powerful spirits.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> 10-4
> 
> Doesn't it make you wonder why, when satan has the son of god all alone to himself he does nothing but offer him some mountains and land? And since when is it satans to offer?
> 
> Neither seem to be powerful spirits.



It didn't have to be Satan's to offer, since the goal was most likely the corruption and not the possession. 

But I'm not a Biblical Scholar.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> No actually no court would buy that testimony.



I'm not discussing courts.  I'm talking about people.  Lots  of what we know about many historical events is learned through single witnesses.  Again, most folks don't quesiton it except for when in the Bible.



bullethead said:


> WHO witnessed the conversation between the Roman guards and Rabbis?
> 
> Nobody



I am not sure.  I would think the Roman guards and Rabbis were there.  No clue what Bible reference we are discussing at this time.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It didn't have to be Satan's to offer, since the goal was most likely the corruption and not the possession.
> 
> But I'm not a Biblical Scholar.



Agreed.
But according to the story satan has the son of god alone and the way he is gonna "get" him is a tempt? Jesus doesn't fall for it so satan hops back in his busted ride with his busted pride and goes back to h3ll???
I mean the dark hoary prince of the netherworld and all he can come up with is (and I picture this in my head) the old guy from the insurance commercials decked out in fishing gear dangling a dollar in front of Jesus to see if he reaches for it???


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Agreed.
> But according to the story satan has the son of god alone and the way he is gonna "get" him is a tempt? Jesus doesn't fall for it so satan hops back in his busted ride with his busted pride and goes back to h3ll???
> I mean the dark hoary prince of the netherworld and all he can come up with is (and I picture this in my head) the old guy from the insurance commercials decked out in fishing gear dangling a dollar in front of Jesus to see if he reaches for it???



So.....you would have tried something else?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I'm not discussing courts.  I'm talking about people.  Lots  of what we know about many historical events is learned through single witnesses.  Again, most folks don't quesiton it except for when in the Bible.



Because, except for the Bible, and other religious constructs, human stories are rarely held up as universal truths pertaining to the nature of the world and salvation of the soul. 

Maybe I'm silly, but that kind of a sale takes more than, "He said..."


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because, except for the Bible, and other religious constructs, human stories are rarely held up as universal truths pertaining to the nature of the world and salvation of the soul.
> 
> Maybe I'm silly, but that kind of a sale takes more than, "He said..."



Ok.  So, we all agree that Chrisitanity requires faith?

Think that's where we started


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I'm not discussing courts.  I'm talking about people.  Lots  of what we know about many historical events is learned through single witnesses.  Again, most folks don't quesiton it except for when in the Bible.


There is good reason for that.
In many other instances there is corroborating physical evidence to go along with it.
The Bible has none.





JB0704 said:


> I am not sure.  I would think the Roman guards and Rabbis were there.  No clue what Bible reference we are discussing at this time.



Empty tomb reference. The Gospels give a detailed description of the conversation the Roman Guards had with the Rabbis.
I doubt either were giving interviews afterwards.(Not to mention the authors had no clue about how the Romans really operated).


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  So, we all agree that Chrisitanity requires faith?
> 
> Think that's where we started



It has to require faith because fact eludes it.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> There is good reason for that.
> In many other instances there is corroborating physical evidence to go along with it.
> The Bible has none.



???

What corraborating physical evidence do you expect to exist that does not?  Cities, bodies of water, etc all line up.  There are a few "tomb" claims.  Don't think anybody ahs produced a cross.....and, the healed sick folks have long since passed. 



bullethead said:


> Empty tomb reference. The Gospels give a detailed description of the conversation the Roman Guards had with the Rabbis.
> I doubt either were giving interviews afterwards.(Not to mention the authors had no clue about how the Romans really operated).



Ok.  Honestly, I have no clue.  There are a few hypotheticals, but, they would be speculation at best.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I'm not discussing courts.  I'm talking about people.  Lots  of what we know about many historical events is learned through single witnesses.  Again, most folks don't quesiton it except for when in the Bible.



Wouldn't you expect eye-witnesses to corroborate a story and not contradict it?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> ???
> 
> What corraborating physical evidence do you expect to exist that does not?  Cities, bodies of water, etc all line up.  There are a few "tomb" claims.  Don't think anybody ahs produced a cross.....and, the healed sick folks have long since passed.


The heart of a good rouse is to intertwine real places, real people and real events with the fake.
The details are where the stories separate fact from fiction.





JB0704 said:


> Ok.  Honestly, I have no clue.  There are a few hypotheticals, but, they would be speculation at best.



Honesty appreciated.


----------



## bullethead

The difference with other historical eye witness events and the eye witness events in the Bible is that no one claims the historical events outside of the Bible are infallible or that the eternity of your soul depends upon whether or not you believe it.

Confirmation Bias and Belief Perseverance seem to go hand in hand with faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  So, we all agree that Chrisitanity requires faith?
> 
> Think that's where we started



Yeah, purtimuch.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Rebel 6 said:


> I am as confused as anyone can be.  I believe this Universe and this Earth has some kind of creator.  Were the Indians wrong?  Many Gods.  One for each season and each sun phase.  Makes much more sense to me than a "bible" conspired, translated and printed for a new "religion.  For those who are incapable of catching my drift, I am not relating to the society-controlled religion of the British (been there/done that garbage).  Nor am I asking of the...uh...(Protestants)...been there/done that, with a wee bit of logic.  Neither flies...neither.   Gimme some logic.   Literal logic, without some inbred or homosexual (king JAMES) twisted, contorted and...uh.....LOGICAL logic...I dare ya'....I challenge ya'...I DARE ya' to present me with some...SOME...literal (read...LITERAl - hint:  cut  & paste don't cut it here) existence...logic...reason why YOUR God is real, in this fakeheiney world.   I challenge, you.  I dare you.   And remember, words copied/pasted from such from a homosexual and likely pedophile don't count.  Read:  logic vs  sheepleness.  I dare ya'.  C'mon!



Maybe it's just the sheeple in me, but it's the little things in life that I really appreciate these days......like your use of the term 'fakeheiney'.   Never heard it before, but I like it.  

Now to address the salient point of your OP:.............................   Sorry.  Can't concentrate.  The double dog dare yous and fakeheineys have me reeling.  Anyway, welcome to the forum.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Not much anyone can post in regards to religion and it be logical. As far as many Gods, all through history, from near the beginning of time, man has pondered a God, a creator. I'm not sure if we were made to ask these questions or people see the awesomeness of creation and consider that if we can't explain it then it defaults to a work of a God. So many different gods in human history. Man has invented all kinds. Each group claiming to "know God".. The biblical story is that God, aware of invented gods decided to make himself known among a chosen group. Even his chosen group, whom the bible records as having real proof, real experience of his presence, misrepresented him to the world. Then came a man named Jesus who claimed to know God. How arrogant of him to imply that all the others did not, yet he knew him. History goes on to write that where Adam failed to represent God to the world that Jesus was credited with being the exact representation. What Adam lost, Jesus now regained. While not logical to the critical thinker, If there is a God, the story line is simple. Yet we have complicated it so with "religion" that most never see the simple story. I acknowledge that to some it is the equivalent of believing in santa.  So, believe it or not... but hopefully I have at least given one of the possibilities


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> So.....you would have tried something else?



Yeah an epic battle of good vs evil. See who is the tough kid on the block.
Snag god's son and hold em for ransom.

The finger clicking fights in West Side Story were scarier...heck Rebel 6's double dog dare was on par with with the two biggest forces in the Universe.


----------



## jmharris23

What an interesting thread


----------



## JB0704

jmharris23 said:


> What an interesting thread



Yes, a trolling thread destined for 100 posts.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Yeah an epic battle of good vs evil. See who is the tough kid on the block.
> Snag god's son and hold em for ransom.
> 
> The finger clicking fights in West Side Story were scarier...heck Rebel 6's double dog dare was on par with with the two biggest forces in the Universe.



Which demonstrates a human element better?  I think the bible story puts a human spin on things.  The epic battle would have been difficult to relate to, and you wouldn't have believed it anyway.


----------



## JB0704

Just a thought, if God exists, he is the God he is, regardless of our preference.


----------



## 660griz

I often look out upon the wonders of nature whether I am scuba diving, sitting in a tree stand, by the lake, or on a mountain top and say, "Wow! This is just beautiful!" Then, if you think a little more or look a little closer, you realize that virtually everything you see is in a constant struggle for survival, every day, all day. 
This is the creation of a loving God? Nope, just life...and death.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Just a thought, if God exists, he is the God he is, regardless of our preference.



Agreed.
And I would go a step further and say I do not think anyone or any organized religion understands or knows anything about such a God where they can tell anyone else about it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Which demonstrates a human element better?  I think the bible story puts a human spin on things.  The epic battle would have been difficult to relate to, and you wouldn't have believed it anyway.



One portion of the Bible puts that spin on it. Others, and more of them, aim to place him in a divine light so that the "Son of God" not "Son of Man" conclusion is reached.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> This is the creation of a loving God? Nope, just life...and death.



It's a circle of life sort-a thing.  

Amazing how that works.

Assume it is an accidental occurrence in the universe (I know many here do), what if the "first life" didn't reproduce?  What if trees didn't fertilize the soil when they died, or scavengers clear carcasses from the landscape?  Somehow, in an incredibly fortunate turn of events, it doesn't work that way 

We view the evidence differently.  I see design in the system.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> One portion of the Bible puts that spin on it. Others, and more of them, aim to place him in a divine light so that the "Son of God" not "Son of Man" conclusion is reached.



Different elements of the story.  I am discussing specifically the temptaion mentioned above.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> And I would go a step further and say I do not think anyone or any organized religion understands or knows anything about such a God where they can tell anyone else about it.



I understand why you believe that way.  Christianity has an example, or, a claim to direct interaction, which is why we believe we understand the nature of the creator.....it was manifested.

Again, must be taken on faith.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Which demonstrates a human element better?  I think the bible story puts a human spin on things.  The epic battle would have been difficult to relate to, and you wouldn't have believed it anyway.



I think the Bible is wholly human spin.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Different elements of the story.  I am discussing specifically the temptaion mentioned above.



The temptation, IMO, was still directed at the deity, and not the mortal Jesus. Mortals are fallible and that is natural law. Deities, even earthly ones, are above that as illustrated by His success. 

I read the passages about his temptation as trying to break down the deity to discourage the followers.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I understand why you believe that way.  Christianity has an example, or, a claim to direct interaction, which is why we believe we understand the nature of the creator.....it was manifested.
> 
> Again, must be taken on faith.



And that is why it is so unbelievable.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I think the Bible is wholly human spin.



Understood.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The temptation, IMO, was still directed at the deity, and not the mortal Jesus. Mortals are fallible and that is natural law. Deities, even earthly ones, are above that as illustrated by His success.



I think the mortal aspect is that he was hungry.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I understand why you believe that way.  Christianity has an example, or, a claim to direct interaction, which is why we believe we understand the nature of the creator.....it was manifested.
> 
> Again, must be taken on faith.



You have a God that claims to be responsible for all of creation, all knowledge, all powerful, all everything...The Truth...and there is not a shred of evidence to back it up. Then you have a book full of tales that the same God thought is the best way to get to know of him and there is not a shred of evidence to back up ANY of the "god" stuff.

So the end result is an all powerful, all knowing deity that has to have it's followers rely on faith?
Are you telling me that is what your God must rely on?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> You have a God that claims to be responsible for all of creation, all knowledge, all powerful, all everything...The Truth...and there is not a shred of evidence to back it up. Then you have a book full of tales that the same God thought is the best way to get to know of him and there is not a shred of evidence to back up ANY of the "god" stuff.



I completely disagree with your assessment.  But, we've been through that a good bit.



bullethead said:


> So the end result is an all powerful, all knowing deity that has to have it's followers rely on faith?
> Are you telling me that is what your God must rely on?



Again, the God we have is not impacted by the god we want.  

I don't know why faith is part of it.  I got no say in the matter.  Life would be easier if God hung out here and made everything ok all the time.....we would all believe, and it would be as natural as trusting the ground beneath our feet.  In fact, we would view it as ordinary.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I think the mortal aspect is that he was hungry.



He was hungry before and after the desert, too. Unless you're talking proverbial hungriness.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> And that is why it is so unbelievable.


In order for the Bible to be true, it has to be unbelievable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> In order for the Bible to be true, it has to be unbelievable.



Explain, please.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I completely disagree with your assessment.  But, we've been through that a good bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the God we have is not impacted by the god we want.
> 
> I don't know why faith is part of it.  I got no say in the matter.  Life would be easier if God hung out here and made everything ok all the time.....we would all believe, and it would be as natural as trusting the ground beneath our feet.  In fact, we would view it as ordinary.





> Again, the God we have is not impacted by the god we want.


I think the man made story reflects the God we want. Loving. caring, savior etc etc.
When you look around at all the terrible things that happen that God could easily make go away then you have to come up with the explanation of "well God isn't bound by what we think is good or loving". If we are made in his image wouldn't our ideas of good and loving be at least similar?
In the blink of an eye all this could be true -


> God hung out here and made everything ok all the time.....we would all believe, and it would be as natural as trusting the ground beneath our feet.  In fact, we would view it as ordinary.


Isnt the above the ultimate goal of the story? Believe, worship God, be saved, go to Heaven? 
*POOF* everybody is in Gods loving arms.
But no.
The pieces just don't fit together for me.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> If we are made in his image wouldn't our ideas of good and loving be at least similar?



I think they are. I think these questions are a matter of perspective.   For instance, if men lived to be 1000 yrs old, we would still come to the end and say "man that was quick."  But, to an ant, our life span is insanely long.

The "bad" in the world, at least that which is caused by man, is a result of choices (I think we all agree to that).  Those choices represent freedom to choose the alternative, which would be the "good" in the world.

Would a loving God take away freedom?

As a species, do we value security over freedom?  I think human nature has answered that question repeatedly through history.  



WaltL1 said:


> In the blink of an eye all this could be true -



Sure.



WaltL1 said:


> Isnt the above the ultimate goal of the story? Believe, worship God, be saved, go to Heaven?
> *POOF* everybody is in Gods loving arms.
> But no.
> The pieces just don't fit together for me.



Perhaps, but we would not be free.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I think they are. I think these questions are a matter of perspective.   For instance, if men lived to be 1000 yrs old, we would still come to the end and say "man that was quick."  But, to an ant, our life span is insanely long.
> 
> The "bad" in the world, at least that which is caused by man, is a result of choices (I think we all agree to that).  Those choices represent freedom to choose the alternative, which would be the "good" in the world.
> 
> Would a loving God take away freedom?
> 
> As a species, do we value security over freedom?  I think human nature has answered that question repeatedly through history.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but we would not be free.



He created the angels, supposedly, without free will if I remember correctly. 

I don't see why we should be any different. And yet we are.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He created the angels, supposedly, without free will if I remember correctly.



Not the case if any of them "fell."



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't see why we should be any different. And yet we are.



Not sure if they were created in his image.  But, again, I am not sure I know anything about them not having freedom.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Not the case if any of them "fell."
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if they were created in his image.  But, again, I am not sure I know anything about them not having freedom.



Perhaps, I was just repeating what I heard others who studied the matter more closely say. Both their interpretation and my recollection of their point may be wrong.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I think they are. I think these questions are a matter of perspective.   For instance, if men lived to be 1000 yrs old, we would still come to the end and say "man that was quick."  But, to an ant, our life span is insanely long.
> 
> The "bad" in the world, at least that which is caused by man, is a result of choices (I think we all agree to that).  Those choices represent freedom to choose the alternative, which would be the "good" in the world.
> 
> Would a loving God take away freedom?
> 
> As a species, do we value security over freedom?  I think human nature has answered that question repeatedly through history.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but we would not be free.


As a Christian where do you believe you would be the "freest/most free?


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> In order for the Bible to be true, it has to be unbelievable.



That is what you have convinced yourself to believe.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Explain, please.



Yes, please explain further.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I completely disagree with your assessment.  But, we've been through that a good bit.








JB0704 said:


> Again, the God we have is not impacted by the god we want.


Have?



JB0704 said:


> I don't know why faith is part of it.  I got no say in the matter.  Life would be easier if God hung out here and made everything ok all the time.....we would all believe, and it would be as natural as trusting the ground beneath our feet.  In fact, we would view it as ordinary.



You have the ONE book that is given to mankind from a supposed omnipotent and omniscient God. It is filled with contradictions, myths, errors, historical inaccuracies and lies. That is exactly what I would expect from a bunch of stories written by men that did not have the understandings of the earth, universe, general area, cultures and ways of life like we understand today. I would expect a God to have that knowledge but this book, which is all we have of this God, does not show it.

Most believers KNOW this stuff is fictional(except for the hardcore fundamentalists). Everything in your mind tells you it not only is not true but it cannot be true so you have to rationalize them as being "supernatural" and use special pleading to make that rationalization make sense in your head.

Faith(whatever that is) is all you have.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Have?



The God which exists.



bullethead said:


> You have the ONE book that is given to mankind from a supposed omnipotent and omniscient God. It is filled with contradictions, myths, errors, historical inaccuracies and lies. That is exactly what I would expect from a bunch of stories written by men that did not have the understandings of the earth, universe, general area, cultures and ways of life like we understand today. I would expect a God to have that knowledge but this book, which is all we have of this God, does not show it.
> 
> Most believers KNOW this stuff is fictional(except for the hardcore fundamentalists). Everything in your mind tells you it not only is not true but it cannot be true so you have to rationalize them as being "supernatural" and use special pleading to make that rationalization make sense in your head.
> 
> Faith(whatever that is) is all you have.



One book and existence....and life.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> As a Christian where do you believe you would be the "freest/most free?



Do you mean geographically?


----------



## Big7

jmharris23 said:


> What an interesting thread





JB0704 said:


> Yes, a trolling thread destined for 100 posts.



Hey.. I ALREADY called bull chips on that!


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> The God which exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JB0704 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One book and existence....and life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be nice and not accuse you of asserting this...i'll pass it off as wishful thinking.
> If one god exists they all exist and I do not see where where the one of the Bible has any more power or credentials over all of the others gods that use the same criteria for existence.
Click to expand...


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> If one god exists they all exist and I do not see where where the one of the Bible has any more power or credentials over all of the others gods that use the same criteria for existence.




I think what you are discussing is perception of God, not existence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I think what you are discussing is perception of God, not existence.



Unless you're equating Quaxicoatl, or Quetzacoatl, to the Christian God, not likely.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Unless you're equating Quaxicoatl, or Quetzacoatl, to the Christian God, not likely.



Not equating anything.  Just pointing out that gods existence is not contingent on what people say.

I could talk about God, but call him Jim, would I be talking about God?

My point is that God either exists or he don't.  It's not a choose your own adventure and somebody gets it right.  In such a scenario, god wouldn't be god because his existence is contingent on what he supposedly created.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Not equating anything.  Just pointing out that gods existence is not contingent on what people say.
> 
> I could talk about God, but call him Jim, would I be talking about God?
> 
> My point is that God either exists or he don't.  It's not a choose your own adventure and somebody gets it right.  In such a scenario, god wouldn't be god because his existence is contingent on what he supposedly created.



Which would be all well and good if we only had monotheistic religions. 

I get what you're saying in that if God exists, or if gods exist, then they don't rely on our belief for that existence. 

I don't know if Jim is God, is he? That's in the eye of the beholder and I doubt polytheists would say that their gods are merely different personal characteristics of one all powerful god any more than monotheists would say that their one God could just be an amalgam of other lesser gods. Some would be open minded and consider it, most would reject you politely, still others would belittle you for even suggesting such a thing.


----------



## Israel

Every man follows his god. And speaks the words his god has put in him, and does the deeds he sees of his god.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I think what you are discussing is perception of God, not existence.





JB0704 said:


> The God which exists.


?????????


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Every man follows his god. And speaks the words his god has put in him, and does the deeds he sees of his god.



So it is all a personal thing?

Or is The One True God responsible for me and my thoughts and me expressing those thoughts here?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Not equating anything.  Just pointing out that gods existence is not contingent on what people say.
> 
> I could talk about God, but call him Jim, would I be talking about God?
> 
> My point is that God either exists or he don't.  It's not a choose your own adventure and somebody gets it right.  In such a scenario, god wouldn't be god because his existence is contingent on what he supposedly created.



You could talk about God, you could call him Jim but Which god are you talking about?

Is it the one you just so happen to believe in? Or have you been able to discredit all the other gods that are currently worshiped and show us that there is one god, he is the best or only god and he is the god of the bible? Can you please show us there is a god to discuss?

Otherwise assumptions and assertions, or faith as you call it, leave the door wide open for all the gods.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> ?????????



If you go back and read the post I was responding to with that sentence I think it will be a little more clear. 

I do believe we "have" a God.  You don't.  Either way, the God we "have" is not impacted by the God we want.......he either is or he ain't.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> You could talk about God, you could call him Jim but Which god are you talking about?



If I am completely wrong, and the Vishnu folks got it right, God is still God.  If we are discussing the creator of everything, well, that's God.  Anything created could not fit that criteria, so we are left with only one option.

If I steal Ambush' lucky crank bait.....and presume it is the omnipotent being in the universe, that does not make it God.

But, if we all sit down, in 100 different languages, and all, at the same time, discuss the omnipotent creator of the universe, we are all discussing God.......'cause, isn't that what God is?  

If God exists, he is everybody's God.....that doesn't mean everybody's right (religion), it just means he is who he is regardless of what we think of him.



bullethead said:


> Is it the one you just so happen to believe in? Or have you been able to discredit all the other gods that are currently worshiped and show us that there is one god, he is the best or only god and he is the god of the bible? Can you please show us there is a god to discuss?
> 
> Otherwise assumptions and assertions, or faith as you call it, leave the door wide open for all the gods.



See above.

And, why are you taking shots at faith?  It's a well defined term, and very applicable to how it is being used in this conversation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> If I am completely wrong, and the Vishnu folks got it right, God is still God.  If we are discussing the creator of everything, well, that's God.  Anything created could not fit that criteria, so we are left with only one option.
> 
> If I steal Ambush' lucky crank bait.....and presume it is the omnipotent being in the universe, that does not make it God.
> 
> But, if we all sit down, in 100 different languages, and all, at the same time, discuss the omnipotent creator of the universe, we are all discussing God.......'cause, isn't that what God is?
> 
> If God exists, he is everybody's God.....that doesn't mean everybody's right (religion), it just means he is who he is regardless of what we think of him.
> 
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> And, why are you taking shots at faith?  It's a well defined term, and very applicable to how it is being used in this conversation.



That's an interesting concept. When anyone talks of God they are talking about the same God as all believers of God, they just don't realize it. They might be explained his attributes or name wrong but he is still the same God because after all, there is only one God.
While that could be true and all God believers could somehow unite in a common belief of God against non-believers, Some of those God fearing believers don't believe in Jesus. They don't have any advantage over the Atheist.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> That's an interesting concept. When anyone talks of God they are talking about the same God as all believers of God, they just don't realize it. They might be explained his attributes or name wrong but he is still the same God because after all, there is only one God.
> While that could be true and all God believers could somehow unite in a common belief of God against non-believers, Some of those God fearing believers don't believe in Jesus. They don't have any advantage over the Atheist.



I think it depends on what they are saying.  It does not make every religion right.  It just means that God is what he is.  "Which God" strikes me as a funny question, it's almost like we put 'em all in a line up and choose which one gets to be the creator of the universe. 

Perhaps the better approach is to define what we mean by God.  There have been lots of false gods.....golden calfs are a good example, which are created, and don't fit the definition.  So, the golden calf isn't in the running to be God in the first place.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> If you go back and read the post I was responding to with that sentence I think it will be a little more clear.
> 
> I do believe we "have" a God.  You don't.  Either way, the God we "have" is not impacted by the God we want.......he either is or he ain't.



If there is one god he is everyone's god.
I believe he ain't.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> I think it depends on what they are saying.  It does not make every religion right.  It just means that God is what he is.  "Which God" strikes me as a funny question, it's almost like we put 'em all in a line up and choose which one gets to be the creator of the universe.
> 
> Perhaps the better approach is to define what we mean by God.  There have been lots of false gods.....golden calfs are a good example, which are created, and don't fit the definition.  So, the golden calf isn't in the running to be God in the first place.



Which God would have to be the Father of Jesus or it is the wrong religion according to Christianity. You can't say the Vishnu God is the Father of Jesus. 
Now if one believes in some type of Universal religion that requires in only a belief in a Great Creator/Architect, then that is a common bond of just having to believe in a Creator. Many people share this belief.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> If I am completely wrong, and the Vishnu folks got it right, God is still God.  If we are discussing the creator of everything, well, that's God.  Anything created could not fit that criteria, so we are left with only one option.
> 
> If I steal Ambush' lucky crank bait.....and presume it is the omnipotent being in the universe, that does not make it God.
> 
> But, if we all sit down, in 100 different languages, and all, at the same time, discuss the omnipotent creator of the universe, we are all discussing God.......'cause, isn't that what God is?
> 
> If God exists, he is everybody's God.....that doesn't mean everybody's right (religion), it just means he is who he is regardless of what we think of him.
> 
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> And, why are you taking shots at faith?  It's a well defined term, and very applicable to how it is being used in this conversation.



Too many Gods to count. No way can we narrow it down to one. In order to tell me about one God you have to eliminate the rest. Biblical god a vishnu are equally assumed.
I would have to agree to the assumption that there God(s) in order to go along with your line of reasoning but so far I cannot without evidence of any god, then all the gods, then the best god, then the only god.

Faith..what definition do you want to use?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I think it depends on what they are saying.  It does not make every religion right.  It just means that God is what he is.  "Which God" strikes me as a funny question, it's almost like we put 'em all in a line up and choose which one gets to be the creator of the universe.
> 
> Perhaps the better approach is to define what we mean by God.  There have been lots of false gods.....golden calfs are a good example, which are created, and don't fit the definition.  So, the golden calf isn't in the running to be God in the first place.



Can we sift through all the gods? Narrow em down to a few dozen and go from there. Not pick a few dozen..can some gods that are still worshiped today be eliminated from the running and by what means or reasons?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Which God would have to be the Father of Jesus or it is the wrong religion according to Christianity. You can't say the Vishnu God is the Father of Jesus.
> Now if one believes in some type of Universal religion that requires in only a belief in a Great Creator/Architect, then that is a common bond of just having to believe in a Creator. Many people share this belief.



Can't assume Jesus is divine until we either prove that a god is his father. Until the God of Abraham is somehow able to make the cut....Jesus isn't even part of the equation.
Right off the bat you have asserted Jesus as having a divine father and all the complexity that goes with it.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> Which God would have to be the Father of Jesus or it is the wrong religion according to Christianity. You can't say the Vishnu God is the Father of Jesus.



Christianity believes Jesus is the Son of God (creator of the universe).

Let's get back to Ambush's lucky crankbait......is it in the running to be God?  Did it create the universe, or was it created? 

Anybody who is worshipping the lucky crankbait is not worshipping God, whether they call it god or not.



Artfuldodger said:


> Now if one believes in some type of Universal religion that requires in only a belief in a Great Creator/Architect, then that is a common bond of just having to believe in a Creator. Many people share this belief.



Let's forget the word God for a moment......and discuss my old dog.

How many people can come up with some kind-of description of my old dog, not knowing anything about my old dog, and be completely wrong about my dog......and still be talking about my dog?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:
			
		

> Faith..what definition do you want to use?



Hebrews 11:1.


----------



## bullethead

Even if your faith is extremely strong in some particular proposition, e.g. that God loves you, it’s important to recognize that there’s a chance you are mistaken. That should be an important part of any respectable road to knowledge. So you are faced with (at least) two alternative ideas: first, that God exists and really does love you and has put that belief into your mind via the road of faith, and second, that God doesn’t exist and that you have just made a mistake. 

    The problem is that you haven’t given yourself any way to legitimately decide between these two alternatives. Once you say that you have faith, and that it comes directly from God, there is no self-correction mechanism. You can justify essentially any belief at all by claiming that God gave it to you directly, despite any logical or evidence-based arguments to the contrary. This isn’t just nit-picking; it’s precisely what you see in many religious believers. An evidence-based person might reason, “I am becoming skeptical that there exists an all-powerful and all-loving deity, given how much random suffering exists in the world.” But a faith-based person can always think, “I have faith that God exists, so when I see suffering, I need to think of a reason why God would let it happen.” 
~Sean Carroll ~


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Hebrews 11:1.



Yikes a definition from the book that says you MUST have faith?


----------



## bullethead

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Yikes a definition from the book that says you MUST have faith?



You asked which one I wanted to use.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> You asked which one I wanted to use.



Yes I did and now I guess we have to go through the multiple definitions and see how they all fit.

I'll give you credit for getting the easy one out of the way.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Christianity believes Jesus is the Son of God (creator of the universe).
> 
> Let's get back to Ambush's lucky crankbait......is it in the running to be God?  Did it create the universe, or was it created?
> 
> Anybody who is worshipping the lucky crankbait is not worshipping God, whether they call it god or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's forget the word God for a moment......and discuss my old dog.
> 
> How many people can come up with some kind-of description of my old dog, not knowing anything about my old dog, and be completely wrong about my dog......and still be talking about my dog?



First I have to assume you actually had an old dog.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> First I have to assume you actually had an old dog.



Yes, you would.  I did, but I get your point as well.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Yes I did and now I guess we have to go through the multiple definitions and see how they all fit.
> 
> I'll give you credit for getting the easy one out of the way.



A person of my belief system will hold that one in higher regard then others, but, we can use one of your preference for the sake of discussion.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Yes, you would.  I did, but I get your point as well.



You can easily show us pics of your old dog, show us the kennel or bed he slept in, show us the toys he fetched and chewed, show us the file that his veterinarian kept about his growth and health. You might even go so far as to have some of his shed hair tested to confirm it actually was a dog. You might..in order to prove there was a dog show us where he is buried and actually dig him up...if you really wanted to prove to use that it was a dog you owned.
 It would eliminate the need to make  uninformed guesses about most things about your dog and immediately give us a clearer understanding about your dog so that we can make better informed guesses. We would be convinced there is a dog and it is your dog. As we get into more details we can still get some things wrong about your dog, we can have faith that what we believe about your dog is true even though you know it is incorrect...ultimately we still would be wrong.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> A person of my belief system will hold that one in higher regard then others, but, we can use one of your preference for the sake of discussion.



The stanford link describes a few.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Christianity believes Jesus is the Son of God (creator of the universe).
> 
> Let's get back to Ambush's lucky crankbait......is it in the running to be God?  Did it create the universe, or was it created?
> 
> Anybody who is worshipping the lucky crankbait is not worshipping God, whether they call it god or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's forget the word God for a moment......and discuss my old dog.
> 
> How many people can come up with some kind-of description of my old dog, not knowing anything about my old dog, and be completely wrong about my dog......and still be talking about my dog?




Whoa! Leave my crankbait out of this.  I just said that it has magic powers that I confirm by faith 'cause I believe.  Try to tell me I'm wrong.  By the way, whenever I use it to conjure fish, it always answers: "Yes, No or Wait."  Never lied to me yet.  It's supernatural.  Don't try to use your carnal mind to understand it.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Whoa! Leave my crankbait out of this.  I just said that it has magic powers that I confirm by faith 'cause I believe.  Try to tell me I'm wrong.  By the way, whenever I use it to conjure fish, it always answers: "Yes, No or Wait."  Never lied to me yet.  It's supernatural.  Don't try to use your carnal mind to understand it.



  I was wonderin' if I could drag you into this'n.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I was wonderin' if I could drag you into this'n.




You tried real hard.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Whoa! Leave my crankbait out of this.  I just said that it has magic powers that I confirm by faith 'cause I believe.  Try to tell me I'm wrong.  By the way, whenever I use it to conjure fish, it always answers: "Yes, No or Wait."  Never lied to me yet.  It's supernatural.  Don't try to use your carnal mind to understand it.



Yeah.
It can be supernatural without being god.


----------



## bullethead

This link discusses some of the common uses of faith.
https://humanism.org.uk/about/humanist-philosophers/faq/whats-so-wrong-with-faith/


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> This link discusses some of the common uses of faith.
> https://humanism.org.uk/about/humanist-philosophers/faq/whats-so-wrong-with-faith/



We could probably do a whole thread on that essay.  I read the first 5 or so paragraphs and already found a few points of contention.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> We could probably do a whole thread on that essay.  I read the first 5 or so paragraphs and already found a few points of contention.



It is the message...look past the contention.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> It is the message...look past the contention.



Will do, I'll finish it tomorrow at some point.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Will do, I'll finish it tomorrow at some point.



You caught the dog/god reference but you missed this essay/bible one.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> So it is all a personal thing?
> 
> Or is The One True God responsible for me and my thoughts and me expressing those thoughts here?


Yes.
To both.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> You caught the dog/god reference but you missed this essay/bible one.



Yes, I sure did......


----------



## ambush80

"Everything had to come from something......except this one thing."

Do I have that right?

Then why not two eternal somethings?  Why not a Billion?

Why does it have to be ONE thing? 

At that point, why can't it be everything?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> "Everything had to come from something......except this one thing."
> 
> Do I have that right?
> 
> Then why not two eternal somethings?  Why not a Billion?
> 
> Why does it have to be ONE thing?
> 
> At that point, why can't it be everything?


Because if there is more than ONE thing, the whole story falls apart.
The entirety of Christianity is based on it. There is no other option. Which is one of the stories major flaws.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Because if there is more than ONE thing, the whole story falls apart.
> The entirety of Christianity is based on it.



Any Polytheists in the house?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Any Polytheists in the house?


I don't think we have ever had one chat here. Would be really interesting.
At least Polytheism addresses the logic of - if its possible there is one God its also possible there is more than one.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think we have ever had one chat here. Would be really interesting.
> At least Polytheism addresses the logic of - if its possible there is one God its also possible there is more than one.




The point is that when you allow one you allow all kinds of things.

this "ONE" idea has no basis.

Where's Centerpin with a clip of Curly from City Slickers.


----------



## JB0704

Doesn't one god elliminate the possibility of others?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Doesn't one god elliminate the possibility of others?



Wouldn't the possibility of more than one eliminate the "truth" that one is Alpha and Omega?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Multiple gods in a hierarchical arrangement worked for the Egyptians, the Greeks, and many other religions throughout history. One god did not preclude the others from existing.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Doesn't one god elliminate the possibility of others?




Only if you think like a human.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Doesn't one god elliminate the possibility of others?



Perhaps they rule by consortium.  I don't know.  I'm just a mortal.  Perhaps "they" are Everything.  That's what Kwai Chang Caine might say.  How could you know?  And if you can't know, why bother?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Wouldn't the possibility of more than one eliminate the "truth" that one is Alpha and Omega?



That it would.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Maybe the trinity is but the tip of the iceberg and we instead, pardon what may seem like a flame, have a god with multiple personality disorder. 

They are distinct unto themselves but occupy the same "body". 


There's a scary thought. God sitting up in Heaven mumbling to his other personalities.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe the trinity is but the tip of the iceberg and we instead, pardon what may seem like a flame, have a god with multiple personality disorder.
> 
> They are distinct unto themselves but occupy the same "body".
> 
> 
> There's a scary thought. God sitting up in Heaven mumbling to his other personalities.



I can't believe that we even discuss what it says in the Bible as possibly being real, still.


----------



## gemcgrew

gemcgrew said:


> In order for the Bible to be true, it has to be unbelievable.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Explain, please.


Sure. The God of the Bible says that it is foolishness to the natural man and that he can not understand it. If this is not the case, just one time, it would be false.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> Sure. The God of the Bible says that it is foolishness to the natural man and that he can not understand it. If this is not the case, just one time, it would be false.



Ok, but understanding and belief are two different things, and I was always lead to believe that belief in the Bible and God and Jesus was the core tenet of Christianity. 

Forgive me, but that sounds like double speak. I can accept that understanding it would be impossible, having said many times that I wish believers would quit using words like "truth, facts, and knowledge" when referring to anything about their faith other than the black and whit words of the Bible. But I don't get how something can be believed in and still be unbelievable. They're direct opposite words, actually it's the opposite conjugation of the same word.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I can't believe that we even discuss what it says in the Bible as possibly being real, still.



Well, it depends on who "we" are and to which parts you are referring. Some aspects of the Bible happened. Others are more supernatural and I'm skeptical about them. You don't get credibility purely by inclusion from me.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Sure. The God of the Bible says that it is foolishness to the natural man and that he can not understand it. If this is not the case, just one time, it would be false.


Wouldn't that make the whole "go forth and spread the word" thing a complete contradiction?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Wouldn't that make the whole "go forth and spread the word" thing a complete contradiction?




I know that it's the definition of Apologetics but I still think it's weird that anyone would try to use logic to explain religious beliefs.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> I know that it's the definition of Apologetics but I still think it's weird that anyone would try to use logic to explain religious beliefs.



I would agree.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Wouldn't that make the whole "go forth and spread the word" thing a complete contradiction?


No, it reaffirms that what the Bible says is true. When we "go forth and spread the word", the natural man will not believe it.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Wouldn't the possibility of more than one eliminate the "truth" that one is Alpha and Omega?



I think logically it is harder to justify the possibility of many than one......in order for there to be many, they would have to have created the universe simultaneously.  Since there is only one.....

I'm thinking logic would conclude that if there are many, there are none.

Beyond this universe, who knows.  But, if we open the possibility to existence beyond the universe, then the logical possibilites expand infinitely.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I can't believe that we even discuss what it says in the Bible as possibly being real, still.


It is problematic for you. In formulating your argument against the existence of God, you first have to consider the very existence of God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> No, it reaffirms that what the Bible says is true. When we "go forth and spread the word", the natural man will not believe it.



So you hold yourself to be different than "natural man"?

Is "Natural man" just how we are when we are born, and without any knowledge of such things?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> I think logically it is harder to justify the possibility of many than one......in order for there to be many, they would have to have created the universe simultaneously.  Since there is only one.....
> 
> I'm thinking logic would conclude that if there are many, there are none.
> 
> Beyond this universe, who knows.  But, if we open the possibility to existence beyond the universe, then the logical possibilites expand infinitely.



A) You're presuming that their actions would be contradictory. What if each deity was responsible for a certain cosmological constant? 

B) Well logic concludes that, even with many people saying there is one, that there is nothing to support even that one. I don't see hard, cold logic supporting any actually. 

C) Again, not logical. Speculative, perhaps, but not logical. The only things we truly understand, and there are precious few even then, exist solely _within_ this universe. There is no comprehension of what goes on outside of it any more than there is comprehension about what goes on in a singularity. Everything breaks down, or at least is beyond our scope of understanding, since nothing can be communicated across either boundary zone. 

Beyond the space of the universe, if the big bang theory, and I stress theory there, is correct, there is nothing. 0 energy content, 0 matter content since that envelope was created with the singularity of the big bang expanded. With no energy and no matter there can be nothing for us to apply our "known" natural laws to, so there can be no understanding.

EDIT: I swear my computer has autocorrect, I wouldn't confuse communicated with communication.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

gemcgrew said:


> It is problematic for you. In formulating your argument against the existence of God, you first have to consider the very existence of God.



Only in the same manner that one has to ponder the existence of Santa Claus to come to the conclusion that he doesn't exist. 

Contemplation and consideration are not cornerstones of existence.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> It is problematic for you. In formulating your argument against the existence of God, you first have to consider the very existence of God.



What about the people who consider a gods existence and have been searching for evidence to confirm a god exists but have not found any?


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A) You're presuming that their actions would be contradictory. What if each deity was responsible for a certain cosmological constant?



You would then have to assume all were simultaneous, and equally interdependent, or equally independent.  If any one of them got the ball rolling, the rest ain't God.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> B) Well logic concludes that, even with many people saying there is one, that there is nothing to support even that one. I don't see hard, cold logic supporting any actually.



Existence is evidence of an original cause, unless existence is infinite.....which would require everything in the universe to be infinite.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> C) Again, not logical. Speculative, perhaps, but not logical. The only things we truly understand, and there are precious few even then, exist solely _within_ this universe. There is no comprehension of what goes on outside of it any more than there is comprehension about what goes on in a singularity. Everything breaks down, or at least is beyond our scope of understanding, since nothing can be communicated across either boundary zone.



The universe is expanding.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Beyond the space of the universe, if the big bang theory, and I stress theory there, is correct, there is nothing. 0 energy content, 0 matter content since that envelope was created with the singularity of the big bang expanded. With no energy and no matter there can be nothing for us to apply our "known" natural laws to, so there can be no understanding..



There is no way to know whether this bang happened inside envolope A, and that bang happened inside envelope B.  Our existence proves existence is possible.  If once, why not again?


----------



## centerpin fan

I wonder if this is what Rebel 6 was hoping for.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> You would then have to assume all were simultaneous, and equally interdependent, or equally independent.  If any one of them got the ball rolling, the rest ain't God.
> 
> 
> 
> Existence is evidence of an original cause, unless existence is infinite.....which would require everything in the universe to be infinite.
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is expanding.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to know whether this bang happened inside envolope A, and that bang happened inside envelope B.  Our existence proves existence is possible.  If once, why not again?



A) Perhaps all of them could have got the ball rolling, but only one was needed. Maybe this one pulled the trigger this time, where the other could have. Why should there only be one? Nothing in this universe is created singularly why should a deity be any different? 

B) Original cause, yes. But not all causes have intents. 

C) Yes, but there is literally nothing, so far as we can infer, on the other side of the envelope. All energy and matter expanded out from a central point into nothingness, infinite nothingness as far as we know, and on one side of the fence you have matter and energy (the universe) and on the other you have pure nothingness. 

D) The envelope is merely an event boundary. The big bang couldn't have happened outside of itself any more than you can exist outside of yourself, without arguing the soul aspect, and survive. There is a boundary layer where one is outside of the universe and in the nothingness that the BB is expanding into, and on the other side they are inside and subject to our laws and understandings. Imagine a balloon's clearly defined boundary between inside and outside. Now imagine that the only things that exist are within that balloon and the only thing outside of that is nothing. No energy, no matter, no nothing. Once you get something inside of the nothing, it's not nothing anymore and therefore becomes a part of the universe.


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> I wonder if this is what Rebel 6 was hoping for.



Some of this is what he was hoping for.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Some of this is what he was hoping for.



All of it is why this forum exists anyway. We discuss things like this all the time. There's no need for self-righteous chest thumping to get it going. 

We're all more adult than that.


----------



## bullethead

If absolutely nothing ever existed there would still be absolutely nothing.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> All of it is why this forum exists anyway. We discuss things like this all the time. There's no need for self-righteous chest thumping to get it going.
> 
> We're all more adult than that.



I agree but I was answering CenterPin based off of the OP's original post.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> If absolutely nothing ever existed there would still be absolutely nothing.



It depends on how you define nothing.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It depends on how you define nothing.



    No thing; not anything.

    No part; no portion.

    No consequence, significance, or interest.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> I know that it's the definition of Apologetics but I still think it's weird that anyone would try to use logic to explain religious beliefs.



Why? Isn't that the main purpose of logic......to use reason to explain and understand that which is not concrete but instead conceptual.  Just wondering aloud.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> No thing; not anything.
> 
> No part; no portion.
> 
> No consequence, significance, or interest.



Ok, it's one of those distinctions that have to be made since we discovered that matter can arise from energy, and some people think that space within the universe is nothing, which couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok, it's one of those distinctions that have to be made since we discovered that matter can arise from energy, and some people think that space within the universe is nothing, which couldn't be further from the truth.



I agree.
I am of the belief that there always was something and energy is the most probable. 
If there was absolutely nothing there would still be nothing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> If absolutely nothing ever existed there would still be absolutely nothing.



I think I would have to agree with this.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> I agree.
> I am of the belief that there always was something and energy is the most probable.
> If there was absolutely nothing there would still be nothing.



Given our current understanding of the universe, reality seems to agree with you. 

However, I'm open to both ideas until one is ruled out unequivocally. We didn't know energy could transform into matter until Einstein, who's to say that we're not missing something in E=mc^2 that doesn't account for 100% of the variables. Our resolution may just not be good enough to notice we're missing it yet. But that's just my speculation.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Given our current understanding of the universe, reality seems to agree with you.
> 
> However, I'm open to both ideas until one is ruled out unequivocally. We didn't know energy could transform into matter until Einstein, who's to say that we're not missing something in E=mc^2 that doesn't account for 100% of the variables. Our resolution may just not be good enough to notice we're missing it yet. But that's just my speculation.



Again I agree.
Things certainly could be found that would change our current understanding but for right now I am going with what we got.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I agree.
> I am of the belief that there always was something and energy is the most probable.



Despite all our differences it's kind of amazing that on a base level our views are not that very much apart.  You think energy has always existed.  I do too.  I just attribute it to a Being.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Again I agree.
> Things certainly could be found that would change our current understanding but for right now I am going with what we got.



Same here, I accept it as the best fit model, but nothing more.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

SemperFiDawg said:


> Despite all our differences it's kind of amazing that on a base level our views are not that very much apart.  You think energy has always existed.  I do too.  I just attribute it to a Being.



That's only the result of looking at it from human eyes. 

I'm not trying to insult, but if you step out of your human perspective and look at it, what do you think the odds are, given the enormity of the universe and all the wacky conditions that exist within it, that the Creator would be like us?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Despite all our differences it's kind of amazing that on a base level our views are not that very much apart.  You think energy has always existed.  I do too.  I just attribute it to a Being.



I knew that in our first posts with each other.
I stopped at energy because I could not find anything beyond energy.
I could attribute energy to being whatever I wanted but it would just be speculation.
I do not find it at all odd that a being would attribute everything else to another being. I just have not found it to be true.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why? Isn't that the main purpose of logic......to use reason to explain and understand that which is not concrete but instead conceptual.  Just wondering aloud.



Because logic doesn't allow for the supernatural.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's only the result of looking at it from human eyes.
> 
> I'm not trying to insult, but if you step out of your human perspective and look at it, what do you think the odds are, given the enormity of the universe and all the wacky conditions that exist within it, that the Creator would be like us?



Precisely.
Our planet is 4.5 billion years old and only recently(on the earth's timeline) have humans existed on it. It took an awfully LONG time for us to inhabit a planet that was made just for us.
I feel that we are a product of the planet and the timing of our existence was right for the particles, chemicals and conditions at hand.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's only the result of looking at it from human eyes.
> 
> I'm not trying to insult, but if you step out of your human perspective and look at it, what do you think the odds are, given the enormity of the universe and all the wacky conditions that exist within it, that the Creator would be like us?





bullethead said:


> I knew that in our first posts with each other.
> I stopped at energy because I could not find anything beyond energy.
> I could attribute energy to being whatever I wanted but it would just be speculation.
> I do not find it at all odd that a being would attribute everything else to another being. I just have not found it to be true.




"The God of triangles has three sides."

                                      --Old Yiddish Proverb


----------



## Israel

Perhaps think less of numerical oneness than unity. Not to the exclusion of numerical oneness, nor to the annihilation of individual identity.
But one cannot explain this anymore than this could be explained.
I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless..._I live_, yet _not I_ but Christ lives within me. And the life _I now live in the flesh _I live by the faith of the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

God is one...
One may at once experience passenger, spectator, and participator...just _not_ originator. But I can't explain that either...it is a remarkable place of rest. .


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Perhaps think less of numerical oneness than unity. Not to the exclusion of numerical oneness, nor to the annihilation of individual identity.
> But one cannot explain this anymore than this could be explained.
> I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless..._I live_, yet _not I_ but Christ lives within me. And the life _I now live in the flesh _I live by the faith of the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
> 
> God is one...
> One may at once experience passenger, spectator, and participator...just _not_ originator. But I can't explain that either...it is a remarkable place of rest. .



Always lots of words for not being able to explain.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> No, it reaffirms that what the Bible says is true. When we "go forth and spread the word", the natural man will not believe it.


Or even understand it.  So why do it?
How does one who doesn't understand it and doesn't believe it then pass it on to someone else?


----------



## Israel

Yeah, I know.
Life can't be explained. Just lived.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

israel said:


> yeah, i know.
> Life can't be explained. Just lived.



s o c k s


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Yeah, I know.
> Life can't be explained. Just lived.



Now that is more like it....it has a very non-believer ring to it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Because logic doesn't allow for the supernatural.



Not sure that's true.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's only the result of looking at it from human eyes.
> 
> I'm not trying to insult, but if you step out of your human perspective and look at it, what do you think the odds are, given the enormity of the universe and all the wacky conditions that exist within it, that the Creator would be like us?



No offense taken.  Not sure it's possible to divorce our thought from being homocentric any more than it is to accurately think outside the constraints of time.  Both seem to be innate to our make-up.  What other perspective could/can we accurately use.  We're the only living beings that we know of with our level intelligence.  

 As far as the odds of something/someone else being out there, to my understanding the odds of there being another planet out there capable of supporting life ( and I may be mistaken on the exact wording of this) are one in one hundred trillion, trillion, trillion.  

I think the appearance of design is a valid argument for a designer and one that can't be summarily dismissed without a stronger explanation.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> No offense taken.  Not sure it's possible to divorce our thought from being homocentric any more than it is to accurately think outside the constraints of time.  Both seem to be innate to our make-up.  What other perspective could/can we accurately use.  We're the only living beings that we know of with our level intelligence.
> 
> As far as the odds of something/someone else being out there, to my understanding the odds of there being another planet out there capable of supporting life ( and I may be mistaken on the exact wording of this) are one in one hundred trillion, trillion, trillion.
> 
> I think the appearance of design is a valid argument for a designer and one that can't be summarily dismissed without a stronger explanation.



I think you are very mistaken on the odds of another planet being out there that is capable of supporting life.

A carpenter is a designer or creator but he didn't make the molecules that make the wood. He just forms it into the table.
The randomness and chaos in the universe does not lend well to well designed.

We know the molecules and particles and atoms that came from the Big Bang are the make-up of everything in us and our universe.
Adding a god to the mix just complicates it or is an attempt to try to understand what is not understood. Same goes for your next comment of : "God created/designed the Big Bang".
It is a total assertive and assumed statement.


----------



## bullethead

http://www.space.com/15433-alien-life-red-dwarfs-habitable-planets.html

http://discovertheodds.com/the-odds-of-life-on-another-planet/

and those are but a few a quick search brings up.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not sure that's true.




Go find a definition of logic that you like and then we can discuss it.


----------



## Israel

Oh, now we are talking odds?
Men tell me that of the gazillion (ok, some slightly smaller number) little swimmers doing the intrauterine freestyle, the "one" that won, of which, together with the egg makes me uniquely "me"...well, I don't have to go to far with all the other permutations for my dad and mom to be, his dad and mom, my mom's dad and mom, etc, etc.
Yeah, men can say that, and men might even say "hey, you're supposed to be somebody else!" But, hey, I get that a lot, (and I trust it might even be familiar to some others) from almost everybody except One.
He's the one who affrims, confirms, and even when needed, re-affirms...I am not only here...but supposed to be. And I am what I am.
I understand this man:

Hope had become very foreign to him.
There was a time in his youthful and sophomoric musings that he’d considered the accidents of his being. He’d ruminated over the biological imperatives thrust upon him by such simple things as spermatic motility. Who would he have been, and to what degree would he share consciousness with the person that might have been thrust down the birth canal if some other contender had won that race in the opposite direction those nine months before? And he understood that “he” wouldn’t then be, at all. 
The mature egg that donated half his identity would have remained the same, but who was potentially swimming besides him in that intrauterine freestyle? More than simply brothers or sisters, but less or more than him. And it really wasn’t “him” swimming, only the potential for him, or in a very poor analogy, half of him. 
He was the conjugation of both the swimmer and the target, and could not be conceived as one or the other. No pun intended. If indeed that seemingly fated swimmer (Binder knew as Binder) had veered up the left fallopian tube when the prize lay in the right, who would be? Would he be? Would she be? And ultimately what would the consciousness of “that one” perceive of this one? 
It had long since been settled somewhere deep inside Binder that he might have been someone else. It seemed for him now that somewhere the real winner was robbed of his victory, and he himself was the product of someone’s musings as to the alternative of what should have been. He felt that existence vaguely beyond his apprehension, but like an amputated limb he was continuously aware of the pain with which this phantom life tormented him. If there truly were a “better self”, Binder was sure he was not it. 
He was, precisely, Willy Loman in surgical scrubs.


And though I now laugh with him, for him, I am not...him.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Oh, now we are talking odds?
> Men tell me that of the gazillion (ok, some slightly smaller number) little swimmers doing the intrauterine freestyle, the "one" that won, of which, together with the egg makes me uniquely "me"...well, I don't have to go to far with all the other permutations for my dad and mom to be, his dad and mom, my mom's dad and mom, etc, etc.
> Yeah, men can say that, and men might even say "hey, you're supposed to be somebody else!" But, hey, I get that a lot, (and I trust it might even be familiar to some others) from almost everybody except One.
> He's the one who affrims, confirms, and even when needed, re-affirms...I am not only here...but supposed to be. And I am what I am.
> I understand this man:
> 
> Hope had become very foreign to him.
> There was a time in his youthful and sophomoric musings that he’d considered the accidents of his being. He’d ruminated over the biological imperatives thrust upon him by such simple things as spermatic motility. Who would he have been, and to what degree would he share consciousness with the person that might have been thrust down the birth canal if some other contender had won that race in the opposite direction those nine months before? And he understood that “he” wouldn’t then be at all. The mature egg that donated half his identity would have remained the same, but who was potentially swimming besides him in that intrauterine freestyle? More than simply brothers or sisters, but less or more than him. And it really wasn’t “him” swimming, only the potential for him, or in a very poor analogy, half of him. He was the conjugation of both the swimmer and the target, and could not be conceived as one or the other. No pun intended. If indeed that seemingly fated swimmer had veered up the left fallopian tube when the prize lay in the right, who would he be? Would he be? Would she be? And ultimately what would the consciousness of “that one” perceive of this one?
> It had long since been settled somewhere deep inside Binder that he might have been someone else. It seemed for him now that somewhere the real winner was robbed of his victory, and he himself was the product of someone’s musings as to the alternative of what should have been. He felt that existence vaguely beyond his apprehension, but like an amputated limb he was continuously aware of the pain with which this phantom life tormented him. If there truly were a “better self”, Binder was sure he was not it.
> He was, precisely, Willy Loman in surgical scrubs.
> 
> 
> And though I now laugh with him, for him, I am not...him.



survival of the fittest


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Or even understand it.  So why do it?
> How does one who doesn't understand it and doesn't believe it then pass it on to someone else?



The one passing on the information doesn't need to understand it. God uses good and evil for his purpose. Meaning even a non-believer could relay the message of God.
The more you witness to people, the more you should come to the realization that a person’s eyes are open to the truth only if God opens them. We can spend hours, days, or weeks discussing aspects of Christianity with someone and yet, if their eyes are never open to the truth we speak, there is nothing we can do about it.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> survival of the fittest


Indeed! But life!
And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it. Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look into it; 

and one of the elders said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, _has overcome_ so as to open the book and its seven seals."

Overcoming death...in all its forms and myriad presentations...yes...indeed, the Fittest One.
The Fitting One.
And he did it...for you...and me, too.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Indeed! But life!
> And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it. Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look into it;
> 
> and one of the elders said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, _has overcome_ so as to open the book and its seven seals."
> 
> Overcoming death...in all its forms and myriad presentations...yes...indeed, the Fittest One.
> The Fitting One.
> And he did it...for you...and me, too.



I am beginning to think there is something more going on with you than just being very religious.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> The one passing on the information doesn't need to understand it. God uses good and evil for his purpose. Meaning even a non-believer could relay the message of God.
> The more you witness to people, the more you should come to the realization that a person’s eyes are open to the truth only if God opens them. We can spend hours, days, or weeks discussing aspects of Christianity with someone and yet, if their eyes are never open to the truth we speak, there is nothing we can do about it.


If man cant understand and God is the only one who can open their eyes, there was nothing you could have done about it to begin with.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I think you are very mistaken on the odds of another planet being out there that is capable of supporting life.
> 
> A carpenter is a designer or creator but he didn't make the molecules that make the wood. He just forms it into the table.
> The randomness and chaos in the universe does not lend well to well designed.
> 
> We know the molecules and particles and atoms that came from the Big Bang are the make-up of everything in us and our universe.
> Adding a god to the mix just complicates it or is an attempt to try to understand what is not understood. Same goes for your next comment of : "God created/designed the Big Bang".
> It is a total assertive and assumed statement.



You are correct.  I was mistaken.  One in One hundred trillion, trillion, trillion is the number put forth that represents the probability of a universe forming that is capable of sustaining life.  It says nothing regarding how much life and certainly doesn't address the possibility elsewhere.

Regarding your comment as to the chaos and randomness of the universe.  I would only point you to Paul Davies book The Goldilocks Egngima.  Davies is a noted cosmologist, physicist, and astro biologist as well as a skeptic.  I differ with his conclusions, but he makes a very good summation as to where current scientific thought lies, and that is, there is no denying that the universe "appears" so fine tuned to support life that the inference to a designer is a natural one.  I would encourage you to read it if for no other reason than it's outline on various contemporary scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe.  It's an as unbiased presentation as I think can be put forth.

Regarding the positing of God into the mix making it more complicated I disagree.  What's simpler to cover all the bases than "God did it."  It's almost comical until one starts to think about all the bases it truely covers.  Just one example, but what other concept not only offers an explanation for the origin of the universe as well as the origin of love, the value of integrity, and the explanation of destiny, just to name a few.  This is a great concept for a new thread, but God is truely THE unifying concept that ties all of existence together, but that's as deep as I will go with that here.



As to your last point, let's just state the obvious.  When you push the envelope that far back to what came before the Big Bang every theory incorporates an assumption, none of which can be proven.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> If man cant understand and God is the only one who can open their eyes, there was nothing you could have done about it to begin with.



I'm only a vessel of clay whose job it is to spread the word.
There is nothing I can do, salvation is from God. I do not know why God chose man to spread his word. Being a supreme being one would think he would have picked a better means of communication. I'm thinking logically of course.
I'm glad logic isn't a part of religion. The two just don't jive with each other.
Logically speaking the whole Adam sinned, God designed Adam to fail, the whole Old Testament was to show us we couldn't quit sinning, thus a need for God to save the day by sending us his Son, isn't logical.
Then there is all that stuff about sacrifices, blood, men over women, Jews, Gentiles, and that everything has already been predetermined. Not very logical at all.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm only a vessel of clay whose job it is to spread the word.
> There is nothing I can do, salvation is from God. I do not know why God chose man to spread his word. Being a supreme being one would think he would have picked a better means of communication. I'm thinking logically of course.
> I'm glad logic isn't a part of religion. The two just don't jive with each other.
> Logically speaking the whole Adam sinned, God designed Adam to fail, the whole Old Testament was to show us we couldn't quit sinning, thus a need for God to save the day by sending us his Son, isn't logical.
> Then there is all that stuff about sacrifices, blood, men over women, Jews, Gentiles, and that everything has already been predetermined. Not very logical at all.



Good for you.  You've come a  long way.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct.  I was mistaken.  One in One hundred trillion, trillion, trillion is the number put forth that represents the probability of a universe forming that is capable of sustaining life.  It says nothing regarding how much life and certainly doesn't address the possibility elsewhere.
> 
> Regarding your comment as to the chaos and randomness of the universe.  I would only point you to Paul Davies book The Goldilocks Egngima.  Davies is a noted cosmologist, physicist, and astro biologist as well as a skeptic.  I differ with his conclusions, but he makes a very good summation as to where current scientific thought lies, and that is, there is no denying that the universe "appears" so fine tuned to support life that the inference to a designer is a natural one.  I would encourage you to read it if for no other reason than it's outline on various contemporary scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe.  It's an as unbiased presentation as I think can be put forth.
> 
> Regarding the positing of God into the mix making it more complicated I disagree.  What's simpler to cover all the bases than "God did it."  It's almost comical until one starts to think about all the bases it truely covers.  Just one example, but what other concept not only offers an explanation for the origin of the universe as well as the origin of love, the value of integrity, and the explanation of destiny, just to name a few.  This is a great concept for a new thread, but God is truely THE unifying concept that ties all of existence together, but that's as deep as I will go with that here.
> 
> 
> 
> As to your last point, let's just state the obvious.  When you push the envelope that far back to what came before the Big Bang every theory incorporates an assumption, none of which can be proven.



Does the author support life on other planets or not?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Good for you.  You've come a  long way.



Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

One would need to use faith instead of logic to understand the Bible. But first one's eyes must be opened.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct.  I was mistaken.  One in One hundred trillion, trillion, trillion is the number put forth that represents the probability of a universe forming that is capable of sustaining life.  It says nothing regarding how much life and certainly doesn't address the possibility elsewhere.


Could you show me where you got those numbers?

All odds tell us is that in so many tries an outcome will occur. They do not tell us on which number it will happen. It could happen on the last digit in the last trillion or it could happen on the first try or anywhere in between.
It does Not account for multiple tries going on at the same time.
For each additional concoction of particles getting together the odds go in favor of it happening. Your numbers are for one try one time only.
It is the along the lines of One person making a full court basketball swish while blindfolded. The odds are against him for sure, darn near impossible. But... put a thousand blindfolded shooters on the line and have them throw basketballs as fast as they can for 1 minute, 1hr, or 1 day, or 1 year, or a million years, or 8.5 billion years and you will find the odds are vastly in favor of a Swish happening.
The Earth is approx 4.5 Billion years old and the Universe is approx 13 Billion years old. That is a lot of time for an awful lot of particles to get together.



SemperFiDawg said:


> Regarding your comment as to the chaos and randomness of the universe.  I would only point you to Paul Davies book The Goldilocks Egngima.  Davies is a noted cosmologist, physicist, and astro biologist as well as a skeptic.  I differ with his conclusions, but he makes a very good summation as to where current scientific thought lies, and that is, there is no denying that the universe "appears" so fine tuned to support life that the inference to a designer is a natural one.  I would encourage you to read it if for no other reason than it's outline on various contemporary scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe.  It's an as unbiased presentation as I think can be put forth.


I will check it out but here is a review I read on it:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=462
the comments underneath the review are good too.



SemperFiDawg said:


> Regarding the positing of God into the mix making it more complicated I disagree.  What's simpler to cover all the bases than "God did it."  It's almost comical until one starts to think about all the bases it truely covers.  Just one example, but what other concept not only offers an explanation for the origin of the universe as well as the origin of love, the value of integrity, and the explanation of destiny, just to name a few.  This is a great concept for a new thread, but God is truely THE unifying concept that ties all of existence together, but that's as deep as I will go with that here.


It is so simple that is why it is complicated. It leaves out all other possibilities with one brushstroke. 
Other scientific theories are based off what what is known and what is likely to happen or have happened based off of that knowledge.





SemperFiDawg said:


> As to your last point, let's just state the obvious.  When you push the envelope that far back to what came before the Big Bang every theory incorporates an assumption, none of which can be proven.



Well many scientific versions are more educated guesses based off of current knowledge that was gotten from in depth studies.
There are volumes of research that show in detail how they came to the possibilities.
No scientific theories are just a one word cover all the bases assumption.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm only a vessel of clay whose job it is to spread the word.
> There is nothing I can do, salvation is from God. I do not know why God chose man to spread his word. Being a supreme being one would think he would have picked a better means of communication. I'm thinking logically of course.
> I'm glad logic isn't a part of religion. The two just don't jive with each other.
> Logically speaking the whole Adam sinned, God designed Adam to fail, the whole Old Testament was to show us we couldn't quit sinning, thus a need for God to save the day by sending us his Son, isn't logical.
> Then there is all that stuff about sacrifices, blood, men over women, Jews, Gentiles, and that everything has already been predetermined. Not very logical at all.



An anonymous guy said this on another blog about the stories in the Bible.
"these stories are hagiography – a tribe of people telling fictional and exaggerated [sic] tales about its glorious history and importance. Every ancient culture that wrote their own history did this. It would be rather shocking if the Israelites were the only ancient people to record a literal, accurate history of their own tribe."


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct.  I was mistaken.  One in One hundred trillion, trillion, trillion is the number put forth that represents the probability of a universe forming that is capable of sustaining life.  It says nothing regarding how much life and certainly doesn't address the possibility elsewhere.
> 
> Regarding your comment as to the chaos and randomness of the universe.  I would only point you to Paul Davies book The Goldilocks Egngima.  Davies is a noted cosmologist, physicist, and astro biologist as well as a skeptic.  I differ with his conclusions, but he makes a very good summation as to where current scientific thought lies, and that is, there is no denying that the universe "appears" so fine tuned to support life that the inference to a designer is a natural one.  I would encourage you to read it if for no other reason than it's outline on various contemporary scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe.  It's an as unbiased presentation as I think can be put forth.
> 
> Regarding the positing of God into the mix making it more complicated I disagree.  What's simpler to cover all the bases than "God did it."  It's almost comical until one starts to think about all the bases it truely covers.  Just one example, but what other concept not only offers an explanation for the origin of the universe as well as the origin of love, the value of integrity, and the explanation of destiny, just to name a few.  This is a great concept for a new thread, but God is truely THE unifying concept that ties all of existence together, but that's as deep as I will go with that here.
> 
> 
> 
> As to your last point, let's just state the obvious.  When you push the envelope that far back to what came before the Big Bang every theory incorporates an assumption, none of which can be proven.





> What's simpler to cover all the bases than "God did it."  It's almost comical until one starts to think about all the bases it truely covers.  Just one example, but what other concept not only offers an explanation for the origin of the universe as well as the origin of love, the value of integrity, and the explanation of destiny, just to name a few.


Its interesting to me that because the story offers so much this is quickly forgotten/ignored  -


> What's simpler to cover all the bases than "God did it."


Based on your one example, I have to wonder if belief in God had no payoffs - no heaven, no seeing anybody in the after life, no explanations, no payoff at all, what the level of interest/belief would be.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> Does the author support life on other planets or not?



If you're speaking of Davies, that's not what the book is about.  I don't even think he mentions that.  He has other books.  He may in those.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Those are the very kind words.
> I was, to myself, once the chaos, unknowing.
> The only difference now, is, I know I may still be that.
> But I also see other things.
> Hope.
> It seems such a weak thing...hope.
> It sounds such a weak thing...hope.
> In the midst of all finitude, where even best efforts of anything, everything must yield to the immutable finality of death, words like right and wrong, good and bad, even best and less crumble, even before the nature of the thing that has "created" them...death, I live.
> "You only live once, make the best of it", I once heard and believed...but the truth of it, twisted by embracing a lie...escaped me.
> "Are "they" saying...(am I being told)...since you only have 50...70,90,105 years...make the best of them?" What is "the best" of anything matter then...(what could "best of" even possibly mean...when death is the final definer/arbiter of all?) if death awaits all, a finality so conclusive and irremediable, that it truly alone is all man is destined to from conception?"
> "Be the best person you can be" why? (What does "best person" you can...even mean?)
> "be nice"...why?
> Even "get all you can" in whatever sense that may be understood by the hearer...why?
> What matters at all if a gun is pointed to my head from the beginning?
> Nice man, wretched man, rich man, poor man, sated man hungry man, smart man, stupid man...what does it matter at all?
> Really, what matters?
> Oh, I compromised with death, make no mistake, I thought "allowing" for it was a prudence of sorts...but I didn't know the toll. Couldn't know the toll. Blinder than the darkest soul I stumbled into everything and hollered to a universe "why did _you move_ the furniture?"
> 
> Yes, at some time, in some way, I was "touched".
> "The furniture is and has always been precisely where it is...you are the one whirling like a drunken dervish inside, STOP!" (I didn't know that being told something could actually make something happen...after all, all of my "own" words had yielded nothing of fruition, but more chaos...but then, I really didn't know who was speaking...nor his power)
> 
> I didn't know then what that meant in its power.
> I didn't know then that Jesus wasn't sent to help me be "good", better, nicer, things of which I could esteem myself more.
> But I can't now deny what I _have_ seen as the result of hearing "stop".
> The perfection of the order is not some, is not more or less, is not "mostly"...but all.
> And what shall I call you, you who has told me to stop, to see, to behold all I never imagined was or could perceive?
> "Daddy"
> OK
> "How much more is there to see?"
> "Everything"
> 
> In this "everything" I do not see, yet, the very present understanding...when all is waiting to be seen, puts me no further "ahead" in line than anyone else. I remain a dot...a point...waiting...not only for the line to be revealed, not even a plane, but the wholeness of three dimensions.
> I see now, as never before, Jesus didn't come to make me "good", or better, or any of all the myriad words I once used to gain advantage in my thinking of myself, over others. He came that what didn't know itself at all, and couldn't, might begin to see, and reach out, and in the reaching, in hope, become as real as the one calling.
> For that, I was stopped.
> For that, I am stopped.
> Death did its best to trick me, and was for me, far more than a worthy adversary, he easily won every time.
> I couldn't reason around him, I couldn't "outnice" him, I couldn't run his treadmill fast enough, long enough in hope of finding for myself the one thing I might learn before his final knock that might bring me a "knowing"...a peace with him.
> But when life came, when Jesus came, and the light switch was thrown...I couldn't help but see and admit, "Knock?" I had already invited him in as welcome lover. Death was not "out there" waiting...he was already my roommate and best friend. And I brought him to everything and everyone I touched.
> I have now a new friend, and he remains always, and ever, new.



Less is more


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Less is more



http://


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct.  I was mistaken.  One in One hundred trillion, trillion, trillion is the number put forth that represents the probability of a universe forming that is capable of sustaining life.  It says nothing regarding how much life and certainly doesn't address the possibility elsewhere.



I don't know if you have ever watched this series. 

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/other-shows-how-the-universe-works-videos.htm

Most of it is a best educated guess based off of what we observe and is testable. But if you want to really get a visual on how energy becomes mass and particles get together to form bigger particles and how they form planets and how a never ending process can turn into life then do yourself a favor and watch the series.

There is nothing alive on this planet that is made up of anything that cannot be found in this universe.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Those are the very kind words.
> I was, to myself, once the chaos, unknowing.
> The only difference now, is, I know I may still be that.
> But I also see other things.
> Hope.
> It seems such a weak thing...hope.
> It sounds such a weak thing...hope.
> In the midst of all finitude, where even best efforts of anything, everything must yield to the immutable finality of death, words like right and wrong, good and bad, even best and less crumble, even before the nature of the thing that has "created" them...death, I live.
> "You only live once, make the best of it", I once heard and believed...but the truth of it, twisted by embracing a lie...escaped me.
> "Are "they" saying...(am I being told)...since you only have 50...70,90,105 years...make the best of them?" What is "the best" of anything matter then...(what could "best of" even possibly mean...when death is the final definer/arbiter of all?) if death awaits all, a finality so conclusive and irremediable, that it truly alone is all man is destined to from conception?"
> "Be the best person you can be" why? (What does "best person" you can...even mean?)
> "be nice"...why?
> Even "get all you can" in whatever sense that may be understood by the hearer...why?
> What matters at all if a gun is pointed to my head from the beginning?
> Nice man, wretched man, rich man, poor man, sated man hungry man, smart man, stupid man...what does it matter at all?
> Really, what matters?
> Oh, I compromised with death, make no mistake, I thought "allowing" for it was a prudence of sorts...but I didn't know the toll. Couldn't know the toll. Blinder than the darkest soul I stumbled into everything and hollered to a universe "why did _you move_ the furniture?"
> 
> Yes, at some time, in some way, I was "touched".
> "The furniture is and has always been precisely where it is...you are the one whirling like a drunken dervish inside, STOP!" (I didn't know that being told something could actually make something happen...after all, all of my "own" words had yielded nothing of fruition, but more chaos...but then, I really didn't know who was speaking...nor his power)
> 
> I didn't know then what that meant in its power.
> I didn't know then that Jesus wasn't sent to help me be "good", better, nicer, things of which I could esteem myself more.
> But I can't now deny what I _have_ seen as the result of hearing "stop".
> The perfection of the order is not some, is not more or less, is not "mostly"...but all.
> And what shall I call you, you who has told me to stop, to see, to behold all I never imagined was or could perceive?
> "Daddy"
> OK
> "How much more is there to see?"
> "Everything"
> 
> In this "everything" I do not see, yet, the very present understanding...when all is waiting to be seen, puts me no further "ahead" in line than anyone else. I remain a dot...a point...waiting...not only for the line to be revealed, not even a plane, but the wholeness of three dimensions.
> I see now, as never before, Jesus didn't come to make me "good", or better, or any of all the myriad words I once used to gain advantage in my thinking of myself, over others. He came that what didn't know itself at all, and couldn't, might begin to see, and reach out, and in the reaching, in hope, become as real as the one calling.
> For that, I was stopped.
> For that, I am stopped.
> Death did its best to trick me, and was for me, far more than a worthy adversary, he easily won every time.
> I couldn't reason around him, I couldn't "outnice" him, I couldn't run his treadmill fast enough, long enough in hope of finding for myself the one thing I might learn before his final knock that might bring me a "knowing"...a peace with him.
> But when life came, when Jesus came, and the light switch was thrown...I couldn't help but see and admit, "Knock?" I had already invited him in as welcome lover. Death was not "out there" waiting...he was already my roommate and best friend. And I brought him to everything and everyone I touched.
> I have now a new friend, and he remains always, and ever, new.



Less is more simple.
You lose too much in the clutter.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Based on your one example, I have to wonder if belief in God had no payoffs - no heaven, no seeing anybody in the after life, no explanations, no payoff at all, what the level of interest/belief would be.



If I am not mistaken, there are religions out there which do not have "payoffs," and folks still believe.

Personally, I don't like discussing it, it just seems impossible to comprehend.  For instance, not too long ago I had a stretch of a few years where I had two very close friends and several acquaintances pass away for various reasons.  All of these folks were between the ages of 25 and 46.   WAY too young.  At each and every funeral there was reference to them "looking down from heaven."   I just couldn't wrap my head around that.  It is certainly comforting, and a good thought, for sure.   But, I would always catch myself wondering if they were given the choice would they have chosen to stay........it's a troubling question, and I don't like dwelling on it, so I moved on.

Sure, I believe in heaven, as the Bible teaches.  But, it has absolutely zero impact on whether or not I believe in God or why I am a Christian.


----------



## Israel

JB0704 said:


> If I am not mistaken, there are religions out there which do not have "payoffs," and folks still believe.
> 
> Personally, I don't like discussing it, it just seems impossible to comprehend.  For instance, not too long ago I had a stretch of a few years where I had two very close friends and several acquaintances pass away for various reasons.  All of these folks were between the ages of 25 and 46.   WAY too young.  At each and every funeral there was reference to them "looking down from heaven."   I just couldn't wrap my head around that.  It is certainly comforting, and a good thought, for sure.   But, I would always catch myself wondering if they were given the choice would they have chosen to stay........it's a troubling question, and I don't like dwelling on it, so I moved on.
> 
> Sure, I believe in heaven, as the Bible teaches.  But, it has absolutely zero impact on whether or not I believe in God or why I am a Christian.



If I may.


----------



## JB0704

Israel said:


> If I may.



Yea, your answer was better.


----------



## Israel

JB0704 said:


> Yea, your answer was better.


No. I was just provoked to consider what you were saying about "those"...who have left their mortal bodies.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> From:
> 0(h) x 0(w) x 0(d)
> 
> To:
> ∞(h) x ∞(w) x ∞(d)
> 
> hope indeed


yes!


----------



## JB0704

Israel said:


> No. I was just provoked to consider what you were saying about "those"...who have left their mortal bodies.



Did you delete your post?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> If I am not mistaken, there are religions out there which do not have "payoffs," and folks still believe.
> 
> Personally, I don't like discussing it, it just seems impossible to comprehend.  For instance, not too long ago I had a stretch of a few years where I had two very close friends and several acquaintances pass away for various reasons.  All of these folks were between the ages of 25 and 46.   WAY too young.  At each and every funeral there was reference to them "looking down from heaven."   I just couldn't wrap my head around that.  It is certainly comforting, and a good thought, for sure.   But, I would always catch myself wondering if they were given the choice would they have chosen to stay........it's a troubling question, and I don't like dwelling on it, so I moved on.
> 
> Sure, I believe in heaven, as the Bible teaches.  But, it has absolutely zero impact on whether or not I believe in God or why I am a Christian.


By now you know I respect your opinions and thoughts but Im not sure anyone is actually able to say that even with the best of intentions.
If the Bible read -
I am God. I created you.
Worship me.
The End
I personally tend to think the lake would be a little busier on Sunday mornings.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> .....I personally tend to think the lake would be a little busier on Sunday mornings.



That gave me a good laugh


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> By now you know I respect your opinions and thoughts but Im not sure anyone is actually able to say that even with the best of intentions.



When I was a kid, I was taught that all I would do is sing for eternity.  Since I hated singing, that was not really a motivator for me.


----------



## Israel

somebody used to have a sig line..."Religion is sitting in church thinking about fishing, spirituality is fishing while you think about God."
I guess if someone thought "spiritualtiy" was _the_ goal, instead of simply accepting we are spiritual creatures, "church" as such (or at least defined by the original writer), might then be thought "off limits". And it sure makes a great rationale for doing what your gonna think about, anyway.
Maybe it's really OK to think about fishing while in a boat...as OK to think about God as "in" a church.
But, as much as I have loved fishing, it's greatest pleasures are always found in my mind, while I find the god of _my mind_ always being corrected by the realities of experience.
Very specifically corrected.


----------



## gordon 2

Quote: "Sure, I believe in heaven, as the Bible teaches. But, it has absolutely zero impact on whether or not I believe in God or why I am a Christian." End quote.

I think there are and have been more believers who think this way than we suspect. 

Luke 20-38


He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

Six of one, half dozen of the other for Gordo.


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> http://



This has got to be the first time Yngwie has ever been referenced in the Spiritual forum.


----------



## ambush80

centerpin fan said:


> This has got to be the first time Yngwie has ever been referenced in the Spiritual forum.



Appropriate, no?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Appropriate, no?



In a guitar forum. lololol
I am trying to discourage not encourage.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> I don't know if you have ever watched this series.
> 
> http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/other-shows-how-the-universe-works-videos.htm
> 
> Most of it is a best educated guess based off of what we observe and is testable. But if you want to really get a visual on how energy becomes mass and particles get together to form bigger particles and how they form planets and how a never ending process can turn into life then do yourself a favor and watch the series.
> 
> There is nothing alive on this planet that is made up of anything that cannot be found in this universe.



Except life itself


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bullet and Walt.  I'll get back to you an your posts.  Been real busy and just had time to hit the simple replies.


----------



## Melvin4730

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm


----------



## Melvin4730

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html


----------



## Israel

Because of my reproval, I now ask, what is a "sheeple"?


----------



## WaltL1

Melvin4730 said:


> http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm


Many A/A's believe Jesus, the man, existed, was a teacher and was executed for his teachings.
Beyond that, No.
Lots of examples throughout our history of us giving our "folk heroes" attributes and actions that they never had or did.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Many A/A's believe Jesus, the man, existed, was a teacher and was executed for his teachings.
> Beyond that, No.
> Lots of examples throughout our history of us giving our "folk heroes" attributes and actions that they never had or did.



Jesus the "folk hero"?
How true are the words?
Which in one case were either spoken by him, or in another, "just" attributed to him?
"Had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have stoned the prophets..."
Had we lived in the days of our fathers...we would not have been "duped(?)"

Dupes, one...and all.
Requiring light.
Or not.
But perhaps consciousness trips us up?
And by it leads us to communication? 
And communication is the de facto proof of an innner conviction of our "purpose"...and leaves us in the irrefutable place of "if purpose, then purposer"?
For communication is the express assumption of necessity.
"I am" necessary.
Otherwise, silence.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Many A/A's believe Jesus, the man, existed, was a teacher and was executed for his teachings.
> Beyond that, No.
> Lots of examples throughout our history of us giving our "folk heroes" attributes and actions that they never had or did.



And executed for treason under the law of Blasphemy against the Temple. He was a trouble maker in the eyes of the Romans and the Jewish leaders.
Don't forget, the people that lived among Jesus for the three years that he preached.. broke the laws and insulted authority, were the ones that chose him to die.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Jesus the "folk hero"?
> How true are the words?
> Which in one case were either spoken by him, or in another, "just" attributed to him?
> "Had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have stoned the prophets..."
> Had we lived in the days of our fathers...we would not have been "duped(?)"
> 
> Dupes, one...and all.
> Requiring light.
> Or not.
> But perhaps consciousness trips us up?
> And by it leads us to communication?
> And communication is the de facto proof of an innner conviction of our "purpose"...and leaves us in the irrefutable place of "if purpose, then purposer"?
> For communication is the express assumption of necessity.
> "I am" necessary.
> Otherwise, silence.



Since all you use is the Bible for your proof go back and check who Pontius Pilate let decide the fate of Jesus.
According to your book the people that lived in the days of our fathers not only felt duped but they crucified their prophet because they did not believe a word he said.


----------



## Israel

It's hard to admit you would have nothing to add to the conversation were it not for the theist.
It's impossible to admit there's nothing to add to the is.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> It's hard to admit you would have nothing to add to the conversation were it not for the theist.
> It's impossible to admit there's nothing to add to the is.



I am not sure who exactly you are speaking to because you do not quote what it is you are replying to.

If it is me you replying to, just explain to me...according to scripture...who decided to let one prisoner go and crucify the other?
Was it Pilot or the people?


----------



## Israel

Pilate asked them who they wanted...Jesus or Barabbas.
Either way, they got a son of the Father.
Bar abbas=Father's son.
It's just the seemingly longer way round we always take.
"For we can do nothing against the truth, only for it"
Every man will see the murderer's reprieve at the expense of the true son.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Pilate asked them who they wanted...Jesus or Barabbas.
> Either way, they got a son of the Father.
> Bar abbas=Father's son.
> It's just the seemingly longer way round we always take.
> "For we can do nothing against the truth, only for it"
> Every man will see the murderer's reprieve at the expense of the true son.



The people did not choose him because they thought he was anything but a trouble maker and because he repeatedly broke the laws. (actually history would tell it differently but we have to use the Bible here so I am going with scripture not facts)
All that added father nonsense has nothing to do with the facts. Ben. Bar. Bat. quite popular among Jewish names so they are all the son of or daughter of a father.


----------



## bullethead

From: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-02-23/
(source used is because quite frankly no theist would make these valid points)

The Two Trials of Jesus

According to the gospels, Jesus is arrested at night after being betrayed by Judas and is taken under the cover of darkness to a secret trial before the high priest Ciaphas. In Mark when Ciaphas asks Jesus if he is “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (Mk. 14:61) Jesus answers emphatically (v.62), “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming in the clouds of heaven.” In Lk. 22:67-70 Jesus is less forthright, using the, “You say that I am” idiomatic affirmative rather than a simple “yes.” Yet he still says that “the Son of man will be seated at the right hand of power.” Jesus’ answer in Mt. 26:64 falls between those of Mark and Luke. In Jn. 18:19-24 Ciaphas merely asks about Jesus’ disciples and teachings. Jesus says that his teachings are a matter of public record. The claim of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) that the priest would see him coming on the clouds, is part of the apocalyptic nature of his ministry and an indication that he expected the world to end in his generation. In his book, Gospel Fictions, Dr. Randel Helms notes that this trial is impossible to accept as historical, at least in its particulars (Helms 1988, p. 118):

    Mark’s account of the trial must be speculative, since there were no followers of Jesus present to report on it later: “the disciples all deserted him and ran away” at his arrest (Mark 14:50). Early Christians, in composing an account of the trial, followed the usual method of gathering information about Jesus in the absence of real evidence: they went to the Old Testament.

Specifically, Helms cites Daniel 6:4 and verses from Psalms 27:12 and 35:11 In Dan. 6:4 the satraps of the Persian Empire seek grounds to lodge charges against him, but can find none, which parallels Mk. 15:55 in which the chief priests seek testimony by which they might put Jesus to death, but can find none. In Mk. 14:56, 57 we are told that many bore false witness against Jesus and that their testimony did not agree. Both psalm verses concern false witnesses. In Ps. 27:12 the psalmist says, “false witnesses have risen against me,” and Ps. 35:11 says: “Malicious witnesses rise up/they ask me of things that I know not.”

Fundamentalists often claim that the similarities between events in the gospels and material from the Jewish scriptures indicates that what happened in the life of Jesus was plainly foretold in the Old Testament. But Helms points out time and again that the Greek of the gospels and the Greek of the Septuagint (the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek for the benefit of Hellenized Diaspora Jews who no longer spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic) is so close to word use and phrasing, sometimes being identical, that the gospel writers had to have been copying the material. Also, his point that there were no witnesses sympathetic to Jesus at his supposed trial before Ciaphas would seem irrefutable. Believers might say that members of the court who would have reported the unfairness of the trial were there and kept silent during the proceedings, only revealing the false testimony to the gospel writers later. But in fact the gospels make mention of no such people. Thus, they either didn’t exist or, if revealing them would imperil them, they would more likely have kept silent, rather than give the author of Mark an exclusive interview some 20 or more years later.

In fact, the gospels do mention two well situated men who were followers of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. If we were to accept the gospels as historical to any degree, we would have to accept that the association of these men with Jesus was common knowledge. Thus, if they had witnessed the trial at least one of the gospels would have mentioned that fact. This only leaves Jesus as a sympathetic witness, which means that he had to have imparted a narrative of the trial during one of his post-resurrection appearances, none of which are mentioned in Mark. This is stretching things a bit, and using Jesus as the supernatural source means that we have to accept his divinity and the gospel record as divinely inspired in order to use the gospels as a source upon which to base the opinion that Jesus was divine and did what the gospels (when they agree) say he did. In other words, the reasoning gets circular.

As to what happened after the first trial, Mark 15 has only a brief hearing before Pilate (verses 1-5), whose character is not developed at all, before the mob chooses between Jesus and Barabbas. The same is true of Mt. 27:11-14. In Lk. 23:1-25 everyone seems afraid to deal with Jesus. The priests give him to Pilate to try. He says that he sees no fault in the man, but upon finding that he is a Galilean, he sends him to Herod Antipas. Herod questions him at length and gets no answer. His soldiers mock and abuse Jesus, something the Romans do in the other gospels. Then he sends Jesus back to Pilate, who says he will chastise and release Jesus, but the Jews demand Barabbas be released instead. In Jn. 18:28-19:22 Pilate is fully developed and quite sympathetic.

There are five points I would like to examine concerning Jesus before Pilate. They are:

    the equivocal answers Jesus makes,
    the increasing development of the character of Pilate,
    the origins of the Barabbas episode,
    the growing anti-semitism of the mob scene, and
    the historicity of the whole segment.


----------



## bullethead

Same source:

1. Jesus

Let us begin with the response of Jesus to Pilate’s questions. In Mk. 15:1-5 Pilate asks the question that is important to the Romans: “Are you the king of the Jews?” He gets no answer. In Mt. 27: 11 Jesus answers, “You have said so.” This could be an affirmative answer, or perhaps Jesus is merely deflecting the question. The Jewish priests and elders then make many charges against Jesus before Pilate, who says (Mt. 27; 13), “Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?” But Jesus gives him no answer. In Lk. 23:4 Jesus’ equivocal answer causes Pilate to say, “I find no crime in this man.” To this the Jewish authorities respond that Jesus has been stirring up the people in both Galilee and Judea. This prompts Pilate to ask if Jesus is a Galilean, and when he finds that he is, he sends Jesus to Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, who is in Jerusalem at the time, presumably for the Passover (though the Herodeans are treated in the gospels as being less than pious). This enables Luke to say that Herod’s soldiers, not Pilate’s, mocked and abused Jesus, even arraying him in “gorgeous apparel” (Lk. 23:11).

This is at variance with all the other gospels, and, given that in Mark and Matthew the mocking of Jesus is because he has been found guilty of claiming to be the king of the Jews, that Luke has Herod do it to a man he hasn’t found guilty shows it to be an obvious fiction. Jesus is as mute before Herod as he had been before Pilate. Why is this? If Jesus intended to die and rise from the grave, there would be no reason for him not to say that he was the king of the Jews just as he had said to the Sanhedrin that he was the Son of man, who they would see coming in the clouds seated at the right hand of power. If, on the other hand, he had no intention of making such a claim, then disputing the charges would have been his logical course. The reason for the silence of Jesus is that the song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (Is. 52:13-53:12) was taken to be prophetic of Jesus, and in Is. 53:7 we are told of the suffering servant that he was oppressed but “opened not his mouth.” Instead he was led like lamb to the slaughter and, like a sheep, is dumb before its shearers. While this poem was mined for allusions that could be applied to Jesus, the servant songs of Isaiah in many cases refer to the servant as the Jewish people (see Is. 42:18-24; 44:1, 2, 49:3). That the silence of Jesus doesn’t make sense except in the context of making Is. 53:7 prophetic indicates that the material of the gospels has been made to fit Isaiah rather than Isaiah being prophetic of Jesus.

In John, Jesus is anything but mute. When Pilate first asks him if he is the king of the Jews, Jesus asks him a question in turn Qn. 18:34): “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it about me?” When Pilate presses the issue, Jesus answers (Jn. 18:36): “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world my servants would fight that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not of this world.”

Pilate persists in asking Jesus if he is a king, which leads to the climactic exchange between them (Jn. 18:37, 38):

    Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

As Frank Miele has noted, this perfect opportunity for Jesus to expound on the nature of truth was either missed by the Savior or the author of the gospel, leaving us—Christians and non-Christians alike—to find the truth on our own. Despite failing to answer this specific question, however, Jesus, in conversing with Pilate, appears not to be fulfilling any prophecy out of Isaiah in John’s very different rendition of his final trial.


----------



## bullethead

Same source:

2. Pilate

In Jn. 29:1-16, his soldiers having scourged Jesus and crowned him with thorns, Pilate repeatedly tries to release him (verses. 4-6, 12, 14-16). However, against his will, the people demand that Jesus be crucified. Pilate’s final act is to write the sign posted on the cross in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” When the chief priests of the Jews ask him not to write that Jesus was a king but that he claimed to be king, he says (Jn. 19:22), “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate, then, has accepted what the Jews cannot, that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. In Luke 23 and Matthew 15 Pilate attempts to free Jesus three times, and in Mt. 27:19 Pilate’s wife sends him word not to have anything to do with “that righteous man” since she has suffered from a bad dream about him already that day. Accordingly, Pilate, having asked the Jews twice whether they would rather have Jesus or Barabbas released to them, excuses himself from executing Jesus in the famous scene from Mt. 27:24-26:

    So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” Then he released for them Barabbas and having scourged Jesus, delivered him up to be crucified.

There are two related themes that are developed to their fullest in John and Matthew in these accounts which contrast the reluctance of Pilate to crucify Jesus with the vehemence of the crowd to see him die. These are the near sanctification of Pontius Pilate, reaching its culmination in John, and the rise in anti-semitism culminating in Matthew with the people eagerly saying, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” This verse, the infamous blood libel, has, unfortunately, been the justification of much bloodshed, in that the Jews are seen as actively taking on the guilt of putting Jesus to death.

Whence came this anti-semitism? It is likely that the earliest of the gospels, Mark, was written after the fall of Jerusalem in CE 70. In the revolt against Rome, those Jews of the Christian sect took a pacifist stance, believing no doubt that the struggle was pointless because Jesus was soon to return in glory to set up the heavenly kingdom. It was probably at this point that the other Jews completely severed relations with the Christians. Hence, increasingly the gospels show antagonism toward the Jews. In Jn. 18:36 Jesus specifically tells Pilate that, had his kingdom been of this world his servants wouldn’t have allowed him to be handed over to the Jews. Here it would seem that Jesus doesn’t see either himself or his followers as being Jewish. As the Jews became the villains of the piece, the Roman official in charge of sentencing Jesus to be crucified had to be increasingly rehabilitated. This also fit the Christian policy of not actively opposing the Roman state. Thus, if the Jews were the real culprits, then the Christians could say that they really didn’t oppose the will of Rome.


----------



## bullethead

same source:

3. Barabbas

What the gospels needed to shift the blame to the Jews was a mechanism whereby the Romans could offer to let Jesus go free, and the Jews could refuse the offer. Enter Barabbas. In Mk. 15:7 and Lk. 23:19 he is identified as one who had committed murder and insurrection. In Mt. 27:16 he is merely referred to as a “notorious prisoner,” and in Jn. 18:40 he is reduced to being a mere robber. It seems that, along with the Jews, Barabbas is successively denigrated in Matthew and John. Therefore, the question becomes: Who was Barabbas? Many Bible dictionaries translate the name as Aramaic for “son (bar) of Abba,” which they say was a common enough name. According to other interpretations, he is the son of a rabbi or teacher, as in bar Rabba. In fact, if we also translate the last part of his name, he becomes “son (bar) of the father (abba).” That some early versions of Matthew refer to him as Jesus Barabbas helps clarify Pilate’s question in Mt. 27:17: “Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” There really isn’t any reason for adding “who is called the Christ” to the question unless the two men have the same name. It’s simpler for Pilate to say, “Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus?” But “who is called the Christ” makes sense if the question originally read, “Whom do you want me to release to you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” Now, however, we have a bit of an identity crisis, since one of the men is “Jesus son of the father” and the other is “Jesus Christ who has admitted being the Son of God.” Thus, the next question that comes to mind is: Was Barabbas a real person?

To understand the Barabbas episode one must remember that there was a Babylonian festival called Zagmuku, which was the source of the Jewish holiday Purim, and especially the source for the opposite fates of Mordecai and Haman in the Book of Esther. During Zagmuku, the king was replaced by a mock king called Zoganes, usually a condemned prisoner. He was allowed to wear the king’s crown, given the king’s scepter, and even free run of the royal harem. But at the end of the festival he was stripped of his royal robes and crown, scourged and put to death either by hanging or crucifixion. The gospels all record the scourging and mocking of Jesus. The graphic depiction of that event in Mt. 27:27-30 is particularly reminiscent of the end of the mock king in the Zagmuku festival:

    Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they spat upon him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe, and put his own clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him.

In a play given during Zagmuku, two actors portrayed characters who were the source of the roles of Mordecai and Haman in Esther, in that one expects royal honors but is put to death, while one seems destined for death but escapes with his life. This would also seem to be the source of Jesus called the Christ and Jesus Barabbas. However, given that the Romans would have been likely to first humiliate a man they perceived as raising a revolt before putting him to a protracted and painful death, how can we know whether the story of Barabbas and the mocking of Jesus are real or mythical?


----------



## bullethead

Same source:

4. The Mob

To answer that question let us ask another. What do we have to accept as true to believe the gospel accounts of the freeing of Barabbas and the scourging of Jesus? We have to accept that the Romans would acquiesce to the whims of a subject people to the degree that they would release—according to the demands of a mob—a man guilty of insurrection, precisely the crime for which Jesus was being put to death. We would also have to believe that Pilate had so little control of the situation that the mob could force him to release a violent criminal and let someone he had found not guilty be put to death. Further, we have to believe that letting Barabbas go was somehow tied to putting Jesus to death. If such a custom as letting a condemned man go free existed, there is no reason to believe that such an action required the execution of an innocent man. However, such a symmetry would fit a work of fiction and it certainly fits the Zagmuku play. The idea that Pilate would or even could let a condemned rebel go free or that he could afford to let a mob dictate even a small part of his policy seems unlikely. The usual Roman response to a show of force on the part of a rabble would most likely have been lethal. Further, we must remember that Pilate was mentored by Lucius Aelius Sejanus, a captain of the Praetorian Guard who attempted to take over the Roman Empire during the reign of Tiberius. Sejanus was a complete scoundrel, and, as his protege, Pilate would hardly have been as saintly as he was painted in Matthew and John.

Another possible source of the mocking of Jesus is the Athenian festival of Thargelia in which either a misshapen or condemned man, along with a deformed woman were driven out of the city as scapegoats. This parallels the scapegoat given to the demon Azazel in the Yom Kippur ceremony in ancient Israel. So such festivals, in which a condemned man was either mocked before being put to death or bore the sins of the community as a subsitutionary atonement, were prevalent long before the time of Jesus. In fact, the ritual laying of sins on a chosen human or animal appears to be a nearly universal practice. Thus, it seems likely that the whole Barabbas incident derives from the same genre of powerful mythic material upon which the idea of Jesus dying for our sins was based.


----------



## bullethead

Same source:

5. So, who really killed Jesus?

Given all the mythic elaboration on whatever historical kernel lies at the base of the Passion narratives, can we say who killed Jesus? Some comentators, defending Gibson’s film, have pointed out that Jewish authorities writing in the Talmud accepted responsibility for the death of Jesus. However, one must remember that by the time of these writings, in the second century CE, the lines of conflict between Jews and Christians—whom the Rabbinical writers considered heretics—had hardened to the degree that the claim to having put Jesus to death was considered a righteous defense of Jewish orthodoxy. Also, I might add that if Jewish writers of the second century can be considered reliable sources then the same must be said of Roman writers of the time. In Book 1, chapter 15 of his Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus (ca 55-ca. 120 CE), says of the Christians:

    Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started), but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capitol.

Here Tacitus, showing the same antagonism for Christianity evidenced in the Talmudic writers, says that it was temporarily checked when Pontius Pilate—not the Jewish authorities—executed Jesus. In summation, the trial before Ciaphas, the Barabbas episode, the reluctance of Pilate to condemn Jesus, and the Jewish mob demanding his death are, like every other aspect of the Passion and Resurrection narratives, pure fiction. The bare bones of the historical core of what is essentially grand myth is that Jesus was put to death by the Romans—not the Jews—for sedition.


----------



## ambush80

So I was up late last night and I happened to catch one of those commercials for copper compression sleeves.  It made many claims about how they help improve your life, so I looked up the product on the interwebs.    I went to the section titled "Tech" and this is what I found:
_
COPPER FACTS
TOMMIE COPPER PRO+IONIC COPPER-INFUSED FABRIC TECHNOLOGY

High Density activated copper is permanently-infused into all Tommie Copper performance yarns. The proprietary PRO+IONIC™ copper technology provides natural and permanent anti-odor protection by inhibiting the growth of odor causing bacteria and fungi (mold and mildew) for advanced skin health benefits.

Some benefits of copper are:

    Increases oxygen transport in compression products
    Neutralizes "free radicals"
    Improves muscle tone
    Emits ions
    Has been used in medicine for thousands of years
    Is one of the necessary micro-nutrients found naturally in the body_

One of the things that struck me was the line "Has been used in medicine for thousands of years".  Is that really a major selling point?  Also of interest is this buzz word "free radicals".  It's become very popular in holistic medicine circles.  I wonder how strong the "science" behind these claims is?   The commercial was FULL of testimonials.  

I'm sure my point is understood by now.  So what are some of testimonials Christians use to demonstrate improvement in their lives?  What is some of the "science" behind how belief works?

I see so many parallels between Belief in Christ and belief in copperwear.  "I didn't believe it worked but I gave it a try and 'Voila!'"  "It really works. Try it and you'll see."  

So what are some testimonials for Christ?


----------



## Israel

Jesus never explained the truth, he simply stated it, and who it is.
Also who life and the way are.
Yes, it got him into a lot of trouble in a world of quid pro quo, where souls are bartered.
But, he knew that, from the beginning.
What he gave and gives freely remains. God's grace is as near as ever.
For me, and you.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Jesus never explained the truth, he simply stated it, and who it is.
> Also who life and the way are.
> Yes, it got him into a lot of trouble in a world of quid pro quo, where souls are bartered.
> But, he knew that, from the beginning.
> What he gave and gives freely remains. God's grace is as near as ever.
> For me, and you.



No, actually, that is not what got Jesus in trouble.
All that other stuff you throw in is just extra unsubstantiated assertion.


----------



## Israel

He gives a Kingdom to any and all who know they have nothing to give in return.
It does something about the man who will be the taker, giver, the helper, the doer of all things.
Of anything.
It does something for the lone man.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> He gives a Kingdom to any and all who know they have nothing to give in return.
> It does something about the man who will be the taker, giver, the helper, the doer of all things.
> Of anything.
> It does something for the lone man.



Nonsense
Poetic drivel

EDIT:
Not to say you do not have a talent for stating things in an eloquent manner.
But just because the words are so beautifully arranged doesn't make them more true. 
I can appreciate your artistic embellishments but cannot agree with them.


----------



## Israel

I once didn't believe the stuff I believe now, either.
I just never knew how small a seed could be.
(Poetry warning)
He had to become so small as to enter me without destroying me.
And, he did.
And being found in fashion as a man, (small) he humbled himself, (smaller yet) and became obedient unto death, (Smaller still) even the death of the cross. (gone)


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I once didn't believe the stuff I believe now, either.
> I just never knew how small a seed could be.
> (Poetry warning)
> He had to become so small as to enter me without destroying me.
> And, he did.
> And being found in fashion as a man, (small) he humbled himself, (smaller yet) and became obedient unto death, (Smaller still) even the death of the cross. (gone)



I cannot argue what you think works for you.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I once didn't believe the stuff I believe now, either.
> I just never knew how small a seed could be.
> (Poetry warning)
> He had to become so small as to enter me without destroying me.
> And, he did.
> And being found in fashion as a man, (small) he humbled himself, (smaller yet) and became obedient unto death, (Smaller still) even the death of the cross. (gone)



Funny thing is..
That I once believed the stuff I don't believe now.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I cannot argue what you think works for you.


I can tell you, as defective a man as ever could be, for me _it_ not only works...but requires none of my own.
Don't get me wrong, I once thought it was a self help repair kinda thing, and man, even though _it_ says it's not, I gave it my best "shot". 
Just shows how defective I really am, not even following the instructions I said I believe. I was probably more of an unbeliever than you've ever met. 
I'm the guy that says "let me restart this and see if it really was a rod knock...BOOM!"
I seem to always know just enough to make matters worse.
But, I have hope.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I can tell you, as defective a man as ever could be, for me _it_ not only works...but requires none of my own.
> Don't get me wrong, I once thought it was a self help repair kinda thing, and man, even though _it_ says it's not, I gave it my best "shot".
> Just shows how defective I really am, not even following the instructions I said I believe. I was probably more of an unbeliever than you've ever met.
> I'm the guy that says "let me restart this and see if it really was a rod knock...BOOM!"
> I seem to always know just enough to make matters worse.
> But, I have hope.



My best to you..


----------



## Israel

that's kind, thanks


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Jesus the "folk hero"?
> How true are the words?
> Which in one case were either spoken by him, or in another, "just" attributed to him?
> "Had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have stoned the prophets..."
> Had we lived in the days of our fathers...we would not have been "duped(?)"
> 
> Dupes, one...and all.
> Requiring light.
> Or not.
> But perhaps consciousness trips us up?
> And by it leads us to communication?
> And communication is the de facto proof of an innner conviction of our "purpose"...and leaves us in the irrefutable place of "if purpose, then purposer"?
> For communication is the express assumption of necessity.
> "I am" necessary.
> Otherwise, silence.





> Jesus the "folk hero"?





> 1.Folk hero
> A folk hero or national hero is a type of hero, real, fictional, or mythological. The single salient characteristic which makes a character a folk hero is the imprinting of the name, personality and deeds of the character in the popular consciousness. This presence in the popular consciousness is evidenced by mention in folk songs, folk tales and other folklore. Folk heroes are also the subject of literature and some films. Although some folk heroes are historical public figures, they generally are not. Because the lives of folk heroes are generally not based on historical documents, the characteristics and deeds of a folk hero are often exaggerated to mythic proportions. The folk hero often begins life as a normal person, but is transformed into someone extraordinary by significant life events, often in response to social injustice, and sometimes in response to natural disasters. One major category of folk hero is the defender of the common people against the oppression or corruption of the established power structure. Members of this category of folk hero often, but not necessarily, live outside the law in some way.


I think my use of "folk hero" is not unreasonable.


> How true are the words?


Depends on who you ask.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> So what are some testimonials for Christ?



Is that rhetorical?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

Seen too many answers to prayer to not believe that Yahweh is the one true God.


----------



## bullethead

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Seen too many answers to prayer to not believe that Yahweh is the one true God.



Priceless

Have you ever prayed to anyone else?

Do you admit that people in other religions have prayers answered from their God(s)?

Have you ever had a prayer go unanswered?


----------



## WaltL1

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Seen too many answers to prayer to not believe that Yahweh is the one true God.


You should spend a day at a childrens hospital like St. Jude so you can round out your experience about answered prayers.


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> You should spend a day at a childrens hospital like St. Jude so you can round out your experience about answered prayers.



God wanted those poor little children in heaven with him, so he let them get sick, suffer tremendously, and break the hearts of the parents, just so he could have them.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> You should spend a day at a childrens hospital like St. Jude so you can round out your experience about answered prayers.



Nail=Head


----------



## Israel

oh, brothers, I would to God you had not gone there for the sake of a point.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> You should spend a day at a childrens hospital like St. Jude so you can round out your experience about answered prayers.



"Gods always behave like the people who created them"
 -- Zora Neale Hurston

"Pray: To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." 
 -- Ambrose Bierce 

"I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a lack of confidence." 
 -- Doug McLeod


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> oh, brothers, I would to God you had not gone there for the sake of a point.


Personally I find it far more offensive to ignore it or try to explain it away so that one can feel more comfortable with their beliefs.
Making the point acknowledges the kids.
Ignoring it acknowledges the self.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Personally I find it far more offensive to ignore it or try to explain it away so that one can feel more comfortable with their beliefs.
> Making the point acknowledges the kids.
> Ignoring it acknowledges the self.



Acknowledging the failure of my own unanswered prayers led me here.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Seen too many answers to prayer to not believe that Yahweh is the one true God.



I never claimed that the evidence by which Yahweh has proven himself to me is easy for others to accept.  Ultimately, faith is personal.  If you would like the one true God to prove himself to you, I recommend you seek God through reading Scripture and prayer.  Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find ...

If your approach is to mock and ridicule the testimony of those who have met Yahweh and trust in him, your chances of God revealing himself to you are slim.  You are like a student demanding a mathematical proof, but who won't make the effort to learn the Calculus necessary to understand the proof.  

A student who refuses to learn Calculus clearly is not really interested in understanding a proof that requires it.


----------



## bullethead

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I never claimed that the evidence by which Yahweh has proven himself to me is easy for others to accept.  Ultimately, faith is personal.  If you would like the one true God to prove himself to you, I recommend you seek God through reading Scripture and prayer.  Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find ...



It is almost unanimous that we were all believers once. We are well read on scripture and we prayed a lot. Not only that but we were "good" followers.
We asked and we seeked. Still do.



LittleDrummerBoy said:


> If your approach is to mock and ridicule the testimony of those who have met Yahweh and trust in him, your chances of God revealing himself to you are slim.  You are like a student demanding a mathematical proof, but who won't make the effort to learn the Calculus necessary to understand the proof.


If your approach is to come in here make a claim and then ignore any and all questions that present a challenge to what you are claiming then you are in the wrong place.
You are a calculus major that doesn't take tests.



LittleDrummerBoy said:


> A student who refuses to learn Calculus clearly is not really interested in understanding a proof that requires it.



Many of us that have our doctorate in "calculus" have found that the homework didn't match up with the answers on the tests. Turns out religious calculus doesn't add up.


----------



## WaltL1

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I never claimed that the evidence by which Yahweh has proven himself to me is easy for others to accept.  Ultimately, faith is personal.  If you would like the one true God to prove himself to you, I recommend you seek God through reading Scripture and prayer.  Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find ...
> 
> If your approach is to mock and ridicule the testimony of those who have met Yahweh and trust in him, your chances of God revealing himself to you are slim.  You are like a student demanding a mathematical proof, but who won't make the effort to learn the Calculus necessary to understand the proof.
> 
> A student who refuses to learn Calculus clearly is not really interested in understanding a proof that requires it.


How about those suffering kids? Too young for Calculus?
This was your point -


> Originally Posted by LittleDrummerBoy View Post
> Seen too many answers to prayer to not believe that Yahweh is the one true God.


Pointing out the flip side is not ridicule or mocking.
Im curious, in your mind, how many unanswered prayers would it take to beat out the answered ones?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Turns out religious calculus doesn't add up.



Most everyone we've seen in here would admit to this part freely and that's why it's called the mystery of faith, and not the certainty of knowing.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Most everyone we've seen in here would admit to this part freely and that's why it's called the mystery of faith, and not the certainty of knowing.



Oh I agree.
I have a hard time when people pop in and out of here and tell us "this is all you have to do and it will work"...meanwhile we have SOOOO been there and done that it is borderline sickening.
It seems like faith is great when it works out and excuses are made or outcomes are completely ignored when it doesn't. You don't hear the testimonials that state " I prayed for my niece but she died in severe pain anyway"
But plenty of " God wanted my niece".
I've been there myself. 3 part prayers...
I have prayed for a recovery and then after watching the agony prayed for their swift and painless death, then prayed(more liked begged) for the horrific long lasting suffering to please stop. 
Some would say one of my prayers were answered.
I say they went unheard.

Now some will think I wasn't worthy...or I did it wrong...or I screwed up somehow...
But I can tell you the lady that was being eaten alive from the inside was as a devoted religious person as I have ever met in my entire life. She prayed. She was surrounded by friends and family that prayed and congregations prayed for her. Funny thing is the same people prayed at her funeral while making excuses as to why she is no longer here.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Oh I agree.
> I have a hard time when people pop in and out of here and tell us "this is all you have to do and it will work"...meanwhile we have SOOOO been there and done that it is borderline sickening.
> It seems like faith is great when it works out and excuses are made or outcomes are completely ignored when it doesn't. You don't hear the testimonials that state " I prayed for my niece but she died in severe pain anyway"
> But plenty of " God wanted my niece".
> I've been there myself. 3 part prayers...
> I have prayed for a recovery and then after watching the agony prayed for their swift and painless death, then prayed(more liked begged) for the horrific long lasting suffering to please stop.
> Some would say one of my prayers were answered.
> I say they went unheard.



Some would say that we're not being open minded, or asking often enough, stringently enough, or just being told no and discrediting it based on that rather than counting the blessings we do have. 

I would say that we, on both sides, can no sooner tell each other what will work until we both know what has been tried.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Some would say that we're not being open minded, or asking often enough, stringently enough, or just being told no and discrediting it based on that rather than counting the blessings we do have.
> 
> I would say that we, on both sides, can no sooner tell each other what will work until we both know what has been tried.



Yeah.
I did an edit while you were typing.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Oh I agree.
> I have a hard time when people pop in and out of here and tell us "this is all you have to do and it will work"...meanwhile we have SOOOO been there and done that it is borderline sickening.
> It seems like faith is great when it works out and excuses are made or outcomes are completely ignored when it doesn't. You don't hear the testimonials that state " I prayed for my niece but she died in severe pain anyway"
> But plenty of " God wanted my niece".
> I've been there myself. 3 part prayers...
> I have prayed for a recovery and then after watching the agony prayed for their swift and painless death, then prayed(more liked begged) for the horrific long lasting suffering to please stop.
> Some would say one of my prayers were answered.
> I say they went unheard.
> 
> Now some will think I wasn't worthy...or I did it wrong...or I screwed up somehow...
> But I can tell you the lady that was being eaten alive from the inside was as a devoted religious person as I have ever met in my entire life. She prayed. She was surrounded by friends and family that prayed and congregations prayed for her. Funny thing is the same people prayed at her funeral while making excuses as to why she is no longer here.





> It seems like faith is great when it works out and excuses are made or outcomes are completely ignored when it doesn't.


Perfect example in the last few posts.
Yahweh is real because of the answered prayers.
What about the unanswered ones?
Oh that's ridiculing and mocking.
Yeah ok.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Perfect example in the last few posts.
> Yahweh is real because of the answered prayers.
> What about the unanswered ones?
> Oh that's ridiculing and mocking.
> Yeah ok.



Your hospital suggestion will go untried because never do we read the headlines that say:
"Man goes into children's hospital, prays, and every child is cured within the hour."

What really happens (and we all know there is prayer going on in there 24/7/365) is that some kids are completely cured, some go into remission and have it come back and die, and some never leave that hospital at all.
The means at which people justify those outcomes is the most interesting part.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Yeah.
> I did an edit while you were typing.



It's all good, I think we understand each other pretty well. 

I went through the darkest time in my life about 6 years ago this month. When I say dark, I mean that pitch in an enclosed barrel would have been supernova by comparison. Some would say that God carried me through that, but all I know is that I sat in rooms, contemplating dark things, while praying, pleading and begging God to do anything to alleviate the suffering my kids were being made to feel until the tears would come no more and I finally passed out in a puddle of my own sick. 

Not only were my prayers NOT answered, the situation was to get worse even after that. Some will say that I was being tested and tempered for something greater, but that does me no good as I never really felt the hand of God before that or since, and if that was the hand of God moving in those moments all He did was crush my grapes, spit in my face, and leave me with no answers for any of it. 

I've never been as happy as I am now, believing that I am the only one in control of what is controllable within my life, and that if something bad happens it's because bad things just occur and that it's not all of the whim, or plan, or pleasures of a divine being that has yet to reveal himself, or herself, or itself, to us in any real meaningful way that even the most ardent skeptic would have no choice but to accept.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's all good, I think we understand each other pretty well.
> 
> I went through the darkest time in my life about 6 years ago this month. When I say dark, I mean that pitch in an enclosed barrel would have been supernova by comparison. Some would say that God carried me through that, but all I know is that I sat in rooms, contemplating dark things, while praying, pleading and begging God to do anything to alleviate the suffering my kids were being made to feel until the tears would come no more and I finally passed out in a puddle of my own sick.
> 
> Not only were my prayers NOT answered, the situation was to get worse even after that. Some will say that I was being tested and tempered for something greater, but that does me no good as I never really felt the hand of God before that or since, and if that was the hand of God moving in those moments all He did was crush my grapes, spit in my face, and leave me with no answers for any of it.
> 
> I've never been as happy as I am now, believing that I am the only one in control of what is controllable within my life, and that if something bad happens it's because bad things just occur and that it's not all of the whim, or plan, or pleasures of a divine being that has yet to reveal himself, or herself, or itself, to us in any real meaningful way that even the most ardent skeptic would have no choice but to accepts.



Belief is a burden.
If I felt as free as I do now as when I was a religious person...I would have never left.
Once I accepted that life is what you make it and that there was no eternal babysitter things got much clearer, made more sense and I do not have to make excuses for the non-existent.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Your hospital suggestion will go untried because never do we read the headlines that say:
> "Man goes into children's hospital, prays, and every child is cured within the hour."
> 
> What really happens (and we all know there is prayer going on in there 24/7/365) is that some kids are completely cured, some go into remission and have it come back and die, and some never leave that hospital at all.
> The means at which people justify those outcomes is the most interesting part.


Yep.
Want me to worship you?
Fix it without even being asked. Do it because you are good and loving with no begging required.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> oh, brothers, I would to God you had not gone there for the sake of a point.



It is not healthy to ignore reality.

What would have been a better example to use?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Yep.
> Want me to worship you?
> Fix it without even being asked. Do it because you are good and loving with no begging required.



Or we could just do away with cancer, and prevent the whole saving them thing from even needing to occur.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or we could just do away with cancer, and prevent the whole saving them thing from even needing to occur.



It makes me wonder if an intelligent designer designed cancer too?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or we could just do away with cancer, and prevent the whole saving them thing from even needing to occur.


Yeah that's an even bigger can of worms if you go with the whole "He controls everything" story.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah that's an even bigger can of worms if you go with the whole "He controls everything" story.



It is all a can of worms and faith requires that excuses be made for the inexcusable.


----------



## 660griz

According to what I have read, if prayer works, it was God's will. 
If prayer doesn't work, it was God's will.
Why pray?


----------



## bullethead

If you believe in God and pray for outcomes to change you must think that an all knowing and all powerful God has done something wrong and that you can instruct him on how to correct it.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> According to what I have read, if prayer works, it was God's will.
> If prayer doesn't work, it was God's will.
> Why pray?


So if things work out in your favor you can say He is real and if things don't work out in your favor you can say He is real.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> According to what I have read, if prayer works, it was God's will.
> If prayer doesn't work, it was God's will.
> Why pray?



Human compulsion to control everything they interact with. The only thing scarier than a vengeful God is the thought that things are uncontrollable. Praying gives them the illusion that they participate, rather than just receive, in the randomness of the universe.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Is that rhetorical?



No.  I really want to know.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> No.  I really want to know.



Testimonials for Christ?  I know plenty have come on here and discussed what they believe Jesus has done in their life.  Generally, these are dismissed quickly as a person improving himself and giving the credit to Jesus.

Are you asking for physical encounters?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Testimonials for Christ?  I know plenty have come on here and discussed what they believe Jesus has done in their life.  Generally, these are dismissed quickly as a person improving himself and giving the credit to Jesus.
> 
> Are you asking for physical encounters?



They aren't dismissed quickly.    It is simply pointed out that there's no direct correlation between the experience and belief in Christ.  There was a guy in here that said he rebuked a tornado by the power of Christ.

Like in the copper knee brace ad, someone says "Since I've been wearing it my knee doesn't hurt when I exercise.  I have more energy."

Would that be enough proof for you that it works?  I'd like an example like "I put the gas in my car and now it runs. Gas makes the car go."  Or even "I got 5 more miles to the gallon with this new additive.  It really works!"


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> They aren't dismissed quickly.    It is simply pointed out that there's no direct correlation between the experience and belief in Christ.



You have to admit that this looks a lot like dismissing them if you're on the other side of this fence.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Testimonials for Christ?  I know plenty have come on here and discussed what they believe Jesus has done in their life.  Generally, these are dismissed quickly as a person improving himself and giving the credit to Jesus.
> 
> Are you asking for physical encounters?





> I know plenty have come on here and discussed what they believe Jesus has done in their life.  Generally, these are dismissed quickly as a person improving himself and giving the credit to Jesus.


That can be a tricky one.
If you yourself physically did nothing, nothing would change.
For some, Jesus "made them" physically do something that created change.

Does the gas make the car work or does the car make the gas work?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> There was a guy in here that said he rebuked a tornado by the power of Christ.



Somehow I missed that one.  I've heard similar claims, though.  




ambush80 said:


> Would that be enough proof for you that it works?  I'd like an example like "I put the gas in my car and now it runs. Gas makes the car go."  Or even "I got 5 more miles to the gallon with this new additive.  It really works!"



No, it wouldn't.  But I am a skeptic when it comes to such products, much the same as you are a skeptic when it comes to faith.  I'm also skeptical when people claim to rebuke tornados and turn hurricanes and heal the sick, etc.  

A better analogy would be "I went to Bill's House of Psychiatry, and now I'm no longer depressed!"  

I believe in Jesus, and I believe there is a value in faith, and I believe in prayer.  Explaining why to you guys would be difficult, given that the standard is generally the same as any consumer good, yet the product is very different.  There are plenty of people who do not believe there is any value in psychiatry, there are plenty of people who have been aided and assisted through counseling.  The results are only tangible to the individual experiencing them, though they can be evident to anybody witnessing them.  It's not like an engine where we can calculate the gas mileage.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Somehow I missed that one.  I've heard similar claims, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  But I am a skeptic when it comes to such products, much the same as you are a skeptic when it comes to faith.  I'm also skeptical when people claim to rebuke tornados and turn hurricanes and heal the sick, etc.
> 
> A better analogy would be "I went to Bill's House of Psychiatry, and now I'm no longer depressed!"
> 
> I believe in Jesus, and I believe there is a value in faith, and I believe in prayer.  Explaining why to you guys would be difficult, given that the standard is generally the same as any consumer good, yet the product is very different.  There are plenty of people who do not believe there is any value in psychiatry, there are plenty of people who have been aided and assisted through counseling.  The results are only tangible to the individual experiencing them, though they can be evident to anybody witnessing them.  It's not like an engine where we can calculate the gas mileage.



Excellent analogy.


----------



## bullethead

Pray to God. 50/50
Pray to Jesus 50/50
Pray to old Oak stump in yard 50/50

Something either works out to your satisfaction or it doesn't.
Why would a God step in for some instances and not in others?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Somehow I missed that one.  I've heard similar claims, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  But I am a skeptic when it comes to such products, much the same as you are a skeptic when it comes to faith.  I'm also skeptical when people claim to rebuke tornados and turn hurricanes and heal the sick, etc.
> 
> A better analogy would be "I went to Bill's House of Psychiatry, and now I'm no longer depressed!"
> 
> I believe in Jesus, and I believe there is a value in faith, and I believe in prayer.  Explaining why to you guys would be difficult, given that the standard is generally the same as any consumer good, yet the product is very different.  There are plenty of people who do not believe there is any value in psychiatry, there are plenty of people who have been aided and assisted through counseling.  The results are only tangible to the individual experiencing them, though they can be evident to anybody witnessing them.  It's not like an engine where we can calculate the gas mileage.



So what does Jesus cure?  Were you depressed but no longer?  Were you empty inside?  Would something else have worked as well?  Did you try something else?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Pray to God. 50/50
> Pray to Jesus 50/50
> Pray to old Oak stump in yard 50/50
> 
> Something either works out to your satisfaction or it doesn't.
> Why would a God step in for some instances and not in others?



I often hear believers say "God answers prayers in three ways: Yes, No or Wait."

He's batting 1000


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I often hear believers say "God answers prayers in three ways: Yes, No or Wait."
> 
> He's batting 1000



That could be true.
If so, my Oak stump will see him in the prayers Hall of Fame.
Yes, No, Wait ...the stump is batting a grand too!


----------



## JB0704

What would you guys expect to be the split between yes's and no's?

Should God say yes 100%, 50%, 20%?

Should "wait" and "no" be out of the question?

If "yes" was the only possible answer, wouldn't that make God a servant of man?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> What would you guys expect to be the split between yes's and no's?
> 
> Should God say yes 100%, 50%, 20%?
> 
> Should "wait" and "no" be out of the question?



I just don't know.
But reading studies done by doctors and hospitals that show groups of people who were specifically prayed for did not fair out any better than the ones who were not prayed for lead me to believe God doesn't have a part in the equation.



JB0704 said:


> If "yes" was the only possible answer, wouldn't that make God a servant of man?



If God is all knowing and all powerful why pray?
Can you change his mind?

Do you honestly believe that he specifically chose to grant a prayer request of yours while denying a prayer request to someone else?

Taking all the people in literally life or death situations, do you believe that God looks through their scenario, past actions, current beliefs, ways of worship and prayer and 10 million other possibilities and makes a Yes or NO decision?


----------



## bullethead

I always see the footage of tornado victims being interviewed after the carnage... There is always someone thanking Jesus for sparing them while telling the story about how their neighbor and his entire family have been wiped off the face of the earth.

I just wish there was some way to interview the missing neighbors.
Because I'd bet while crouched in the tub they were praying too.


----------



## bullethead

If God is THE designer and he designed an organism that eats the living cells in a living creature so that it kills them(population control maybe??), do you think praying to him to stop that(cancer) would make him change his mind?
Would he stop it for all people and things?
Some?
None?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> What would you guys expect to be the split between yes's and no's?
> 
> Should God say yes 100%, 50%, 20%?
> 
> Should "wait" and "no" be out of the question?
> 
> If "yes" was the only possible answer, wouldn't that make God a servant of man?


I think the % should at least be appropriate to God being all powerful, loving and good as the story goes.
Certainly not 100% but there certainly shouldnt be a need for a St. Jude.
Billy praying for Johnny's girlfriend to break up with him so Billy can her ask out might go into the ignore bin though. Or praying to win the lottery etc.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I think the % should at least be appropriate to God being all powerful, loving and good as the story goes.
> Certainly not 100% but there certainly shouldnt be a need for a St. Jude.
> Billy praying for Johnny's girlfriend to break up with him so Billy can her ask out might go into the ignore bin though. Or praying to win the lottery etc.



Exactly!
For every person thanking God/Jesus for a new love interest, a big fish, a nascar win, $100 scratch off payday,etc etc etc..(and there is NO WAY you could convince them God/Jesus did not have a hand in it)...there was another person in DIRE straights, literally life or death scenario/ or some horrible experience that did not make it or made it and will be traumatized and forever affected by the event.
Unless God/Jesus was busy answering the rapists prayer, murderers prayer, tornadoes prayer, molesting uncle's prayer, cancers prayer.......I just do not see a divine entity that is supposed to be the ultimate representation of "good" and compassion having ANY sort of role in it whatsoever.


----------



## 660griz

Seems the prayer, for all people, should be the same. "Please God, do what you think is best." Still worthless but, at least the outcome is expected.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> What would you guys expect to be the split between yes's and no's?
> 
> Should God say yes 100%, 50%, 20%?
> 
> Should "wait" and "no" be out of the question?
> 
> If "yes" was the only possible answer, wouldn't that make God a servant of man?



Wouldn't just one yes to a prayer mean the same thing?


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Seems the prayer, for all people, should be the same. "Please God, do what you think is best." Still worthless but, at least the outcome is expected.



That's what I'm getting at.  Is the copper compression sleeve worthless?   Does it only work if I believe that it does?  Could a platinum compression sleeve work just as well?  

I just realized that what I was looking for was affirmation that I'm not missing out on anything because I abandoned the Christ thing.

More and more I realize that I could have replaced Him with any other compression sleeve or, as it turns out, none at all.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Wouldn't just one yes to a prayer mean the same thing?



How do you know?  That's the testimony I want to hear.  How do you know that it was Christ, specifically, working the magic?   How do you know nothing else would have worked?  And how do you know that it's working?


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> How do you know?  That's the testimony I want to hear.  How do you know that it was Christ, specifically, working the magic?   How do you know nothing else would have worked?  And how do you know that it's working?



As has been mentioned, there is some power in positive thinking. i.e. placebo affect. 
However, there are limitations. 
A lost limb is a lost limb. No amount of prayer, positive thinking or pills is going to make it grow back. 
If that worked, I would live a more dangerous life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> How do you know?  That's the testimony I want to hear.  How do you know that it was Christ, specifically, working the magic?   How do you know nothing else would have worked?  And how do you know that it's working?



I don't. That's why I'm agnostic. 

My question was about JB's point about God essentially working for man if he answers many prayers. My argument is that if he answers even 1 then he works for man.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't. That's why I'm agnostic.
> 
> My question was about JB's point about God essentially working for man if he answers many prayers. My argument is that if he answers even 1 then he works for man.



I agree.  I was using "you" in the general sense.  I pose the same question again to believers:

_"How do you know? That's the testimony I want to hear. How do you know that it was Christ, specifically, working the magic? How do you know nothing else would have worked? And how do you know that it's working?"_

Am I working for my dog when she begs me for scraps and I give her some?
__________________


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't. That's why I'm agnostic.
> 
> My question was about JB's point about God essentially working for man if he answers many prayers. My argument is that if he answers even 1 then he works for man.



Not if God's will just happened to coincide with what was asked for.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Not if God's will just happened to coincide with what was asked for.



Then, according to most, that was already the plan. Perhaps the prayer is included in the plan. 

Now I'm confused.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then, according to most, that was already the plan. Perhaps the prayer is included in the plan.
> 
> Now I'm confused.



Good. Here comes the collection plate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Good. Here comes the collection plate.



Sweet money. If I build a fancy building and wear a 12carat diamond ring will you give me more?

What if I tell you I know a guy who can give your eternal soul a nice place to sleep when you die?


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Good. Here comes the collection plate.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Sweet money. If I build a fancy building and wear a 12carat diamond ring will you give me more?
> 
> What if I tell you I know a guy who can give your eternal soul a nice place to sleep when you die?



That people use religion to gain financially is an unfortunate given.  

I'm more interested in how and why belief affects peoples lives in positive ways that can only be attributed to the belief.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> That people use religion to gain financially is an unfortunate given.
> 
> I'm more interested in how and why belief affects peoples lives in positive ways that can only be attributed to the belief.



Or is it attributed to chemicals released by the pleasure centers of our brains having synergistic interactions with their initial desire to improve their lives?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or is it attributed to chemicals released by the pleasure centers of our brains having synergistic interactions with their initial desire to improve their lives?



Those activated nerve centers can be monitored and the signals can be measured.  Is God doing that? How would you know?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Those activated nerve centers can be monitored and the signals can be measured.  Is God doing that? How would you know?



Same answer. It's impossible to know.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Same answer. It's impossible to know.




Then why do people insist that God is responsible?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Then why do people insist that God is responsible?



You'd probably be better off asking someone who insists that, rather than someone who is dubious about it all.


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> Then why do people insist that God is responsible?





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You'd probably be better off asking someone who insists that, rather than someone who is dubious about it all.



I was asking everybody/anybody.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I was asking everybody/anybody.



Most times the people who we directly target with these questions cannot accurately answer them so they refuse to try.
I THINK because giving too much thought to those questions causes them to question their own beliefs and it is easier to avoid it rather than meet it head on.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> I agree.  I was using "you" in the general sense.  I pose the same question again to believers:
> 
> _"How do you know? That's the testimony I want to hear. How do you know that it was Christ, specifically, working the magic? How do you know nothing else would have worked? And how do you know that it's working?"_


I don't know. I have faith that God is answering my prayers.


----------



## stringmusic

WaltL1 said:


> I think the % should at least be appropriate to God being all powerful, loving and good as the story goes.


I certainly think it is.



> Certainly not 100% but there certainly shouldn't be a need for a St. Jude.


Of course there is a reason for St. Jude, they help people live by treating them medically.  God not shooting a lighting bolt down from the sky and healing someone doesn't mean He isn't doing anything.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I certainly think it is.
> 
> 
> Of course there is a reason for St. Jude, they help people live by treating them medically.  God not shooting a lighting bolt down from the sky and healing someone doesn't mean He isn't doing anything.



What might he be doing?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I was asking everybody/anybody.


If someone believes God is responsible for everything what other answer would they give?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> I don't know. I have faith that God is answering my prayers.



With "Yes, No or Wait", of course?



WaltL1 said:


> If someone believes God is responsible for everything what other answer would they give?



But how and why does one know that God is the cause? Might something else work just as well?


----------



## ambush80

C'mon y'all.  Testify.  Apologeticize.  Tell me how it works, what it fixes and how you can tell.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> I don't know. I have faith that God is answering my prayers.



Do you own a copper compression sleeve?  If not, why not?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> C'mon y'all.  Testify.  Apologeticize.  Tell me how it works, what it fixes and how you can tell.



I'm struggling figuring out what you are looking for here.  The world is full of folks who claim to have seen things, heard things, and witnessed things that you will not believe (in most cases I do not believe either).  So, you are in a situation where you are gonna have to have a "talking donkey" moment, as everything else will leave you disappointed.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> But how and why does one know that God is the cause? Might something else work just as well?



If one believes God directs things, there is no other conclusion.  If God existed, is there a better option?


----------



## WaltL1

> But how and why does one know that God is the cause? Might something else work just as well?


We hear all the time of how somebody had a big problem in their life be it drinking, drugs etc and how nothing helped until they "turned themselves" over to God and then they had the strength/motivation to fix their problem.
So while rehab, cold turkey, etc may have worked just as well, they didn't have the motivation or strength to do any of those things until they turned themselves over to God.
If, for them, God had to come first before the fixing of the problem, its awfully hard to argue that God or the belief in God wasn't the cause (for them).


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> If one believes God directs things, there is no other conclusion.  If God existed, is there a better option?



If one believes Unicorns directs things, there is no other conclusion. If Unicorns existed, is there a better option?

Both of our sentences are equally as valid giving the very large freeway that believers allow.

How do we make a better case for one over the other especially when we start inserting other gods or what seem to be other imaginary things in their place?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I'm struggling figuring out what you are looking for here.  The world is full of folks who claim to have seen things, heard things, and witnessed things that you will not believe (in most cases I do not believe either).  So, you are in a situation where you are gonna have to have a "talking donkey" moment, as everything else will leave you disappointed.



I want to hear "talking donkey" accounts.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I'm struggling figuring out what you are looking for here.  The world is full of folks who claim to have seen things, heard things, and witnessed things that you will not believe (in most cases I do not believe either).  So, you are in a situation where you are gonna have to have a "talking donkey" moment, as everything else will leave you disappointed.





bullethead said:


> If one believes Unicorns directs things, there is no other conclusion. If Unicorns existed, is there a better option?
> 
> Both of our sentences are equally as valid giving the very large freeway that believers allow.
> 
> How do we make a better case for one over the other especially when we start inserting other gods or what seem to be other imaginary things in their place?



Exactly.  I want to know what criteria people use to make those distinctions.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I want to hear "talking donkey" accounts.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


>



I still don't believe.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Do you own a copper compression sleeve?  If not, why not?


No, I don't have any particular ailments at the moment.

But, if my elbow starts hurting tomorrow, and I buy a copper sleeve and it stops hurting, then I'll believe it worked.


----------



## stringmusic

WaltL1 said:


> We hear all the time of how somebody had a big problem in their life be it drinking, drugs etc and how nothing helped until they "turned themselves" over to God and then they had the strength/motivation to fix their problem.
> So while rehab, cold turkey, etc may have worked just as well, they didn't have the motivation or strength to do any of those things until they turned themselves over to God.
> If, for them, God had to come first before the fixing of the problem, its awfully hard to argue that God or the belief in God wasn't the cause (for them).


This is pretty much spot on.

I would like to say something about the part I highlighted. I imagine there are many many people that have tried everything to stop doing....., and they turned to God, the God of the Bible, and somehow they are able to stop/their lives change entirely. For me, that is evidence. Not to say that rehab does not help people, but when people have tried everything, except God, and then turn to Him and their lives are changed, that appeals to me.


WaltL1 said:


>


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> If one believes Unicorns directs things, there is no other conclusion. If Unicorns existed, is there a better option?
> 
> Both of our sentences are equally as valid giving the very large freeway that believers allow.
> 
> How do we make a better case for one over the other especially when we start inserting other gods or what seem to be other imaginary things in their place?


Can you find anybody that has prayed to a unicorn and somehow had their life change dramatically?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> This is pretty much spot on.
> 
> I would like to say something about the part I highlighted. I imagine there are many many people that have tried everything to stop doing....., and they turned to God, the God of the Bible, and somehow they are able to stop/their lives change entirely. For me, that is evidence. Not to say that rehab does not help people, but when people have tried everything, except God, and then turn to Him and their lives are changed, that appeals to me.



Do you accept that many people have had their lives turned around for the better by Hinduism, Buddhism, even Satanism, Nature worship and atheism?

Would you say in each individual case that they are all equal in their healing powers?


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> Can you find anybody that has prayed to a unicorn and somehow had their life change dramatically?



No, cause most people know that unicorns don't exist.

However, I have heard folks take up Buddhism, join a cult, go to prison, loose a friend, get and beat cancer, etc. All 'changed' their life. 
Common denominator, motivation. Different people respond to different stimuli. 
Me, being of troubleshooting mind, fixed it myself. Didn't need any imaginary being or group of like 'broken' individuals to turn me on the correct path. 

I have always stated that religion is necessary. Scary part is all the millions of folks out there that are held back from mass murder, rape, drug abuse, theft, just because they believe in God and he says it is wrong. For those, I am glad they believe. Of course, I wish they had conscious, empathy, and respect for human life without God but, I'll take what I can get.


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> This is pretty much spot on.
> 
> I would like to say something about the part I highlighted. I imagine there are many many people that have tried everything to stop doing....., and they turned to God, the God of the Bible, and somehow they are able to stop/their lives change entirely. For me, that is evidence. Not to say that rehab does not help people, but when people have tried everything, except God, and then turn to Him and their lives are changed, that appeals to me.





> For me, that is evidence.


I agree that it is evidence but I don't think we agree on what the evidence points to. I assume for you its evidence of God. For me its evidence that people need different things to motivate them/give them strength.
For the people who went to rehab on their own is that evidence that there is no God?
For the person who hires a personal trainer because if there wasn't someone there pushing them they would be sitting on the couch with a cold beer and a bag of Cheetos - does that make the personal trainer a god?
Is the alcoholic Muslim who turned to Allah and quit drinking evidence that there is no Christian God?


> when people have tried everything, except God, and then turn to Him and their lives are changed, that appeals to me.


It appeals to me too. 
Having over come some of the mentioned challenges in my own life, I don't care what it takes for a person to get clean, quit drinking etc. If turning to God helps their problem I certainly hope they turn to God. If they didn't believe in God I would even suggest that they give religion a try. Maybe they are one of the people that for them belief in God will be what it takes.
And glad to see you around !


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bullet.  Sorry for the delay.  Super busy, but I wanted to get back to you on the stat I gave earlier.  " 1 in 100 trillion, trillion, trillion. " 

I had actually heard it on the radio but thought I could find it on the net.  As of yet I haven't.  What I did find was this, which is even more staggering.

The term “entropy” describes the degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more? 

Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang. 

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10123 to 1. 

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [1079] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros. 

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10 to the 103 power is a number that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Teleological Argument – Practical Impossibility
In practical terms, in probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 1050 equals "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the “accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility. 

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments: 

"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's." Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

Note:  after posting I noticed the exponents didn't paste accurately.  For example 10123 should be 10 to the power of 123,  1079' 10 to the 79 th power, etc


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Do you accept that many people have had their lives turned around for the better by Hinduism, Buddhism, even Satanism, Nature worship and atheism?


Physically, yes, spiritually, no.



> Would you say in each individual case that they are all equal in their healing powers?


No.


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> No, cause most people know that unicorns don't exist.
> 
> However, I have heard folks take up Buddhism, join a cult, go to prison, loose a friend, get and beat cancer, etc. All 'changed' their life.
> Common denominator, motivation. Different people respond to different stimuli.
> Me, being of troubleshooting mind, fixed it myself. Didn't need any imaginary being or group of like 'broken' individuals to turn me on the correct path.
> 
> I have always stated that religion is necessary. Scary part is all the millions of folks out there that are held back from mass murder, rape, drug abuse, theft, just because they believe in God and he says it is wrong. For those, I am glad they believe. Of course, I wish they had conscious, empathy, and respect for human life without God but, I'll take what I can get.





WaltL1 said:


> I agree that it is evidence but I don't think we agree on what the evidence points to. I assume for you its evidence of God. For me its evidence that people need different things to motivate them/give them strength.
> For the people who went to rehab on their own is that evidence that there is no God?
> For the person who hires a personal trainer because if there wasn't someone there pushing them they would be sitting on the couch with a cold beer and a bag of Cheetos - does that make the personal trainer a god?
> Is the alcoholic Muslim who turned to Allah and quit drinking evidence that there is no Christian God?
> 
> It appeals to me too.
> Having over come some of the mentioned challenges in my own life, I don't care what it takes for a person to get clean, quit drinking etc. If turning to God helps their problem I certainly hope they turn to God. If they didn't believe in God I would even suggest that they give religion a try. Maybe they are one of the people that for them belief in God will be what it takes.


I'm didn't mean to indicate that people don't have their lives changed by myriad of things, only that there is a spiritual way to healing, which obviously means not physical i.e. rehab or health coach. 

To me, that is evidence that there is "something", possibly spiritual, that can help people overcome hurdles in their life. Which "something" is another question.




> And glad to see you around !


Thanks


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet.  Sorry for the delay.  Super busy, but I wanted to get back to you on the stat I gave earlier.  " 1 in 100 trillion, trillion, trillion. "
> 
> I had actually heard it on the radio but thought I could find it on the net.  As of yet I haven't.  What I did find was this, which is even more staggering.
> 
> The term “entropy” describes the degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
> 
> Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang.
> 
> According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10123 to 1.
> 
> It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [1079] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
> 
> Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10 to the 103 power is a number that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
> 
> Teleological Argument – Practical Impossibility
> In practical terms, in probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 1050 equals "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the “accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
> 
> Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
> 
> "This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's." Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
> 
> Note:  after posting I noticed the exponents didn't paste accurately.  For example 10123 should be 10 to the power of 123,  1079' 10 to the 79 th power, etc





> Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
> "This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been,


Before we get too excited, I think we need to clarify what he means by "creator" considering that -


> Religious views
> Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine, Quoting Penrose's blurb for Harris's book Letter to a Christian Nation and refers to himself as an atheist.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> I agree that it is evidence but I don't think we agree on what the evidence points to. I assume for you its evidence of God. For me its evidence that people need different things to motivate them/give them strength.
> For the people who went to rehab on their own is that evidence that there is no God?
> For the person who hires a personal trainer because if there wasn't someone there pushing them they would be sitting on the couch with a cold beer and a bag of Cheetos - does that make the personal trainer a god?
> Is the alcoholic Muslim who turned to Allah and quit drinking evidence that there is no Christian God?
> 
> It appeals to me too.
> Having over come some of the mentioned challenges in my own life, I don't care what it takes for a person to get clean, quit drinking etc. If turning to God helps their problem I certainly hope they turn to God. If they didn't believe in God I would even suggest that they give religion a try. Maybe they are one of the people that for them belief in God will be what it takes.
> And glad to see you around !



I'll echo that.  Good to see you back String.


----------



## JB0704

Ambush, I typed out a very long personal story last night and deleted it relevant to a direct story in my life where prayer had an impact.....I just figured, and since it was past midnight maybe I was being cynical, that it would be a waste, because, ultimately, the story has nothing concrete.  

Long story short, it invovles me going through something awful, a complete stranger on the forum asking if I'm ok out of the blue, and a better understanding and peace with the universe in the end.  

All this happened around December 2012 - January 2013.  Good story I'll tell ya over a beer someday.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Physically, yes, spiritually, no.
> 
> 
> No.



Wow.  You REALLY need to believe that you guys are the only ones who have it right.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> No, I don't have any particular ailments at the moment.
> 
> But, if my elbow starts hurting tomorrow, and I buy a copper sleeve and it stops hurting, then I'll believe it worked.



....and you would tell all your friends about how awesome it is.  Then you run into someone with a platinum compression sleeve who says that it works better.  Or someone who rubs their elbow with a crystal.  What then?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> ....and you would tell all your friends about how awesome it is.  Then you run into someone with a platinum compression sleeve who says that it works better.  Or someone who rubs their elbow with a crystal.  What then?



Are you working your way up to the "god sleeve" here?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Before we get too excited, I think we need to clarify what he means by "creator" considering that -



Not sure it matters honestly.  If the math is correct it makes no difference what Penrose believes.  Some explanation has to account for the 1 in 10 to the 123.  If not my God then Bullets energy.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not sure it matters honestly.  If the math is correct it makes no difference what Penrose believes.  Some explanation has to account for the 1 in 10 to the 123.  If not my God then Bullets energy.





> Some explanation has to account for the 1 in 10 to the 123.


I agree. Although those numbers are only based on what we know now. One additional piece of knowledge and those numbers could go up or down.


> If not my God then Bullets energy


Or neither.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Has the OP been back at all?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Has the OP been back at all?


I think Strings double dog dare and the platinum compression sleeve scared him away


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I think Strings double dog dare and the platinum compression sleeve scared him away



So weird. I looked at his page and he hasn't even logged in since middle of last week. Some guys may just want to watch the world burn, but it usually helps to stick around after you toss the IG to actually see it.


----------



## JB0704

.....either way, OP did good work.  Almost 400 posts now on an obvious troll.  That's quality stuff.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So weird. I looked at his page and he hasn't even logged in since middle of last week. Some guys may just want to watch the world burn, but it usually helps to stick around after you toss the IG to actually see it.


I think some guys expect (in this case) the Atheist/Agnostic to immediately jump on their bandwagon and start cheering them on. When they then get questioned by everybody including the A/As they figure out its not the Christian bashing love fest they were looking for and lose interest. 
In this case I think his use of "sheeple" right off the bat kind of supports that.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> In this case I think his use of "sheeple" right off the bat kind of supports that.



Yep.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> .....either way, OP did good work.  Almost 400 posts now on an obvious troll.  That's quality stuff.



I think that speaks more about us than him. We all recognized the troll and re-purposed the thread to something productive. 



WaltL1 said:


> I think some guys expect (in this case) the Atheist/Agnostic to immediately jump on their bandwagon and start cheering them on. When they then get questioned by everybody including the A/As they figure out its not the Christian bashing love fest they were looking for and lose interest.
> In this case I think his use of "sheeple" right off the bat kind of supports that.



Perhaps. I don't think he even hung around long enough to see that. 

It's more like a drive by fruiting. 

10 points for whomever identifies the source of my joke.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think that speaks more about us than him. We all recognized the troll and re-purposed the thread to something productive.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps. I don't think he even hung around long enough to see that.
> 
> It's more like a drive by fruiting.
> 
> 10 points for whomever identifies the source of my joke.


Being a fan of Robin Williams I'll take my 10 points now


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Being a fan of Robin Williams I'll take my 10 points now



And here's your prize. A picture of a very young HunteRR with Mr. Williams in Kuwait in 2003. 

I deleted the first attempt at this because it wasn't right to have my friend's faces in here.


----------



## WaltL1

Awesome!
While I can live without his movies I think his stand up comedy borders on genius.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Awesome!
> While I can live without his movies I think his stand up comedy borders on genius.



Agreed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Awesome!
> While I can live without his movies I think his stand up comedy borders on genius.



I agree.  Maybe it's because in the movies he's having to deliver someone's else's sub par lines.  If he wrote AND directed it I bet it would be awesome.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> I agree. Although those numbers are only based on what we know now. One additional piece of knowledge and those numbers could go up or down.
> 
> Or neither.



Or both.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Or both.



Or any number of things.  Who knows?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Can you find anybody that has prayed to a unicorn and somehow had their life change dramatically?



No actually I cannot. I can provide you with URL after URL of very happy and satisfied customers of every major religion, dozens of whacky off-shoot beliefs and people who worship the strangest of objects that will all testify to the validity of the positive outcomes of whatever it is they pray to.
But me personally, I have an oak stump in my back yard that I have asked for things and those things came true. From the outcomes of sporting events and hunting success to the positive outcome of major health issues and operations of friends and family.
You are welcomed at anytime to come by and say a quick prayer or two to it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> No actually I cannot. I can provide you with URL after URL of very happy and satisfied customers of every major religion, dozens of whacky off-shoot beliefs and people who worship the strangest of objects that will all testify to the validity of the positive outcomes of whatever it is they pray to.
> But me personally, I have an oak stump in my back yard that I have asked for things and those things came true. From the outcomes of sporting events and hunting success to the positive outcome of major health issues and operations of friends and family.
> You are welcomed at anytime to come by and say a quick prayer or two to it.



And, unlike the unicorn or God, you can see stump.


----------



## stringmusic

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll echo that.  Good to see you back String.


----------



## stringmusic

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And, unlike the unicorn or God, you can see stump.



Let's hope he doesn't evangelize any blind people.


----------



## stringmusic

WaltL1 said:


> I think Strings double dog dare and the platinum compression sleeve scared him away



LOL, I knew that would get him.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> ....and you would tell all your friends about how awesome it is.  Then you run into someone with a platinum compression sleeve who says that it works better.  Or someone who rubs their elbow with a crystal.  What then?



Try those out and see if they work.

Is this a metaphor, or are you genuinely concerned about any ailments I may have in my elbows or knees in the future?


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet.  Sorry for the delay.  Super busy, but I wanted to get back to you on the stat I gave earlier.  " 1 in 100 trillion, trillion, trillion. "
> 
> I had actually heard it on the radio but thought I could find it on the net.  As of yet I haven't.  What I did find was this, which is even more staggering.
> 
> The term “entropy” describes the degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
> 
> Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang.
> 
> According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10123 to 1.
> 
> It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [1079] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
> 
> Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10 to the 103 power is a number that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
> 
> Teleological Argument – Practical Impossibility
> In practical terms, in probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 1050 equals "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the “accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
> 
> Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
> 
> "This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's." Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
> 
> Note:  after posting I noticed the exponents didn't paste accurately.  For example 10123 should be 10 to the power of 123,  1079' 10 to the 79 th power, etc



It is much easier to give you this link than it is for me to try to explain it.
It will tell you why Penrose starts with unsubstantiated assumptions and then goes into great detail to explain why his calculations do not add up.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

The assumptions that you start with will take your calculations in the direction you want them to go. Penrose wants to prove that life on earth was a miracle. Based off of the facts that we have I think that life was inevitable.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Let's hope he doesn't evangelize any blind people.



But string...explain the "powers" of the stump.
I am not at all kidding about the stump.
I have watched sporting events, peered out the window and asked the stump to help, and the outcome has changed. Sometimes I guess the stump is busy or not in a good mood and the outcome does not change, but like believers in most religions I only want to talk about the times the stump did change things to my liking.
Please, how would you explain the "powers" of the stump?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Try those out and see if they work.
> 
> Is this a metaphor, or are you genuinely concerned about any ailments I may have in my elbows or knees in the future?



It can be a metaphor.  It's more about how belief and faith work and how people interpret events.  And how people sell things.



bullethead said:


> But string...explain the "powers" of the stump.
> I am not at all kidding about the stump.
> I have watched sporting events, peered out the window and asked the stump to help, and the outcome has changed. Sometimes I guess the stump is busy or not in a good mood and the outcome does not change, but like believers in most religions I only want to talk about the times the stump did change things to my liking.
> Please, how would you explain the "powers" of the stump?



Can you ask the stump to help me with my ankle?  (I've got a compression sleeve on it already but not the kind with copper in it.)


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Can you ask the stump to help me with my ankle?  (I've got a compression sleeve on it already but not the kind with copper in it.)




OMS! (Oh My Stump)
I sure will ask it.
I sure am pulling for you but be forewarned, an answer of Yes, No or Maybe is possible...but the stump WILL answer.

If you have no pain right now the answer was Yes.
Or if your pain goes away soon, 1 yr, 10 years 35yrs etc...answer was still yes.
If you die with the pain the answer MIGHT be NO until death, but if you happen to make it to the Big Bog after death you will have no pain...so the answer was still a Yes but no timetable. (You really have to get to know the stump to get a better understanding of the Stump which cannot be understood)
But then please do not overlook Maybe...


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> It is much easier to give you this link than it is for me to try to explain it.
> It will tell you why Penrose starts with unsubstantiated assumptions and then goes into great detail to explain why his calculations do not add up.
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
> 
> The assumptions that you start with will take your calculations in the direction you want them to go. Penrose wants to prove that life on earth was a miracle. Based off of the facts that we have I think that life was inevitable.



Maybe you missed Walt's post, but Penrose is an atheist.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe you missed Walt's post, but Penrose is an atheist.



I know about Penrose.
Why would Penrose being an atheist change my post?


----------



## Melvin4730

Faith in God has nothing to do with everything in life working out for you. The Bible specifically tells us that Christians will have problems in life. You don't get saved, so now life is great. Bad things happen in life. Free will....one of the main gifts from God...you know...the thing that got us in trouble to begin with...eating the apple...everyone has free will. Free to kill, free to rape, free to steal, free to cheat, free to abuse, free to love, free to honor your mother...Due to this, people cause most of the bad things to themselves and other people. They choose to make bad decisions, which affects their lives and everyone around them.

The bible is about Jesus. It touches on the time before Jesus......Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection...all of which was predicted in the Old Testament. The Jews believe that a messiah was coming, born of a virgin, who would perform miracles, who would ride a young donkey to his death...pierced to his death. There are hundreds of Messianic prophecies foretold before Jesus was born. I believe he fulfilled all of them.

Jesus was a real person. There's no denying that. The question is who was he really?

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm


----------



## Melvin4730

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/


----------



## Artfuldodger

Melvin4730 said:


> Faith in God has nothing to do with everything in life working out for you. The Bible specifically tells us that Christians will have problems in life. You don't get saved, so now life is great. Bad things happen in life. Free will....one of the main gifts from God...you know...the thing that got us in trouble to begin with...eating the apple...everyone has free will. Free to kill, free to rape, free to steal, free to cheat, free to abuse, free to love, free to honor your mother...Due to this, people cause most of the bad things to themselves and other people. They choose to make bad decisions, which affects their lives and everyone around them.
> 
> The bible is about Jesus. It touches on the time before Jesus......Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection...all of which was predicted in the Old Testament. The Jews believe that a messiah was coming, born of a virgin, who would perform miracles, who would ride a young donkey to his death...pierced to his death. There are hundreds of Messianic prophecies foretold before Jesus was born. I believe he fulfilled all of them.
> 
> Jesus was a real person. There's no denying that. The question is who was he really?
> 
> http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm



Interesting link, to me it shows that God used science to make a planet to support his creation.


----------



## 660griz

Melvin4730 said:


> Faith in God has nothing to do with everything in life working out for you.



Absolutely true. It is about the after life. The entire purpose of religions is to answer the unknowns.
Where did we come from?
What happens when we die?
There were lots of other questions but, most have been answered.


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> Faith in God has nothing to do with everything in life working out for you. The Bible specifically tells us that Christians will have problems in life. You don't get saved, so now life is great. Bad things happen in life. Free will....one of the main gifts from God...you know...the thing that got us in trouble to begin with...eating the apple...everyone has free will. Free to kill, free to rape, free to steal, free to cheat, free to abuse, free to love, free to honor your mother...Due to this, people cause most of the bad things to themselves and other people. They choose to make bad decisions, which affects their lives and everyone around them.
> 
> The bible is about Jesus. It touches on the time before Jesus......Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection...all of which was predicted in the Old Testament. The Jews believe that a messiah was coming, born of a virgin, who would perform miracles, who would ride a young donkey to his death...pierced to his death. There are hundreds of Messianic prophecies foretold before Jesus was born. I believe he fulfilled all of them.
> 
> Jesus was a real person. There's no denying that. The question is who was he really?
> 
> http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm



If you are a writer with a bias towards someone who you THINK was the messiah, and you have a list of prophesies that were written a thousand years earlier, would it be so hard to work these prophesies into your story about a real man and embellish the story to fit the prophesy?

If you are serious about learning of OT prophesies then research why the Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah. They have had other men fulfill more requirements than Jesus and those men still did not make the cut because not all of the prophesies were fulfilled.
Jesus most likely was a real man than had followers. After his death he was made into more than he ever was. This has been done to many throughout religious history. Some are popular right away, some die out immediately, and some smolder for hundreds of years and become popular....but history has shown these beliefs eventually are morphed into a new religion and slowly fade out of favor.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

stringmusic said:


> Let's hope he doesn't evangelize any blind people.



He'd probably have about the same success rate, so I'd say go for it if it gives people comfort.


----------



## Melvin4730

bullethead said:


> If you are a writer with a bias towards someone who you THINK was the messiah, and you have a list of prophesies that were written a thousand years earlier, would it be so hard to work these prophesies into your story about a real man and embellish the story to fit the prophesy?
> 
> If you are serious about learning of OT prophesies then research why the Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah. They have had other men fulfill more requirements than Jesus and those men still did not make the cut because not all of the prophesies were fulfilled.
> Jesus most likely was a real man than had followers. After his death he was made into more than he ever was. This has been done to many throughout religious history. Some are popular right away, some die out immediately, and some smolder for hundreds of years and become popular....but history has shown these beliefs eventually are morphed into a new religion and slowly fade out of favor.






I've studied the Bible and know the prophesies layed out in it.

One of the problems with your argument about the Bible, is that the Bible isn't the only writing about Jesus. Its been over 2000 years since his death and there are still non-biblical/non christian writings that document his life.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources	

Michael Gleghorn	
Written by Michael Gleghorn

Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"


----------



## Melvin4730

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/evidence.html


----------



## Melvin4730

Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod--Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37?-101?) mentions Jesus--Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.  He was [the] Christ.  And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.  And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus.  For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus--Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii.  But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus--Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt
Thallus (Circa A.D. 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time.  His writings are only found as citations by others.  Julius Africanus, who wrote about A.D. 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.  This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion?  Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon.  It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon.  Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion.  It may not have been.
Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor.  Pliny wrote ten books.  The tenth around AD 112.
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
The Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged.  For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.  Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf."  But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
Luke 22:1-2, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching.  2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.  All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people
___________________


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> I've studied the Bible and know the prophesies layed out in it.


Can you then tell me, using your knowledge of the Bible, why does Judaism NOT recognize Jesus as fulfilling the prophesies? 



Melvin4730 said:


> One of the problems with your argument about the Bible, is that the Bible isn't the only writing about Jesus. Its been over 2000 years since his death and there are still non-biblical/non christian writings that document his life.


I have, in numerous threads on here shown time after time how these writings that you are providing were falsified and added to later in order to fit Jesus in there.[/quote]

Being you must have missed it before I will do you a favor and add the link under every one of your examples that refutes every one of your examples.
Do yourself a favor and please read them. If you do not believe them then research the Christian scholars that agree these writings are forgeries.



Melvin4730 said:


> Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
> 
> Michael Gleghorn
> Written by Michael Gleghorn
> 
> Evidence from Tacitus
> 
> Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.
> 
> Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
> 
> Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}
> 
> What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
> 
> But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?


http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm



Melvin4730 said:


> Evidence from Pliny the Younger
> 
> Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}
> 
> At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
> 
> They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}
> 
> This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
> 
> Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.


Same link as given above. It covers them both.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm



Melvin4730 said:


> Evidence from Josephus
> 
> Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}
> 
> As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
> 
> About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}
> 
> Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}
> 
> For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
> 
> But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!


http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm



Melvin4730 said:


> Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
> 
> There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
> 
> On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}
> 
> Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}
> 
> The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
> 
> Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.


http://shelf3d.com/i/Jesus in the Talmud
Seems as though the Jewish writers were talking about another Jesus that lived 100 years later.
But by all means read through the link and you can check the sources and references. Don't take my word for it.




Melvin4730 said:


> Evidence from Lucian
> 
> Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
> 
> The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}
> 
> Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."
> 
> Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!


This one deals with Lucian, all the others you have given, and a few more that you missed.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html



Melvin4730 said:


> Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!
> 
> I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"



I hope that you see that the next time you want to use these examples you cannot say you did not know that they have been refuted many times over and that many Christian scholars do not agree with them.


----------



## Melvin4730

Wow...you really need to stay off the internet.

Jesus, is an actual historical figure, as in...pretty much all evidence (biblical and otherwise) points to His existence. It's generally accepted by most historians, not to mention by biblical historians. There are 2 events that are universally recognized and verified outside of the Gospels, those being Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist and the other being the crucifixion. There is also archeological evidence of Jesus' existence as well as the existence of Nazareth at the time Jesus lived. You can just google it if you like. As far as archeological evidence, at an ossuary there is an inscription found reading "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" that has been researched, challenged and ultimately recognized as authentic. 

There is a movement of people who speculate that Jesus is nothing but a myth, the tenets of which seem to be behind much of what has been said here. 

As far as Old Testament vs New Testament...what it really boils down to is...Before Christ, believers were under the Mosaic Covenant, but Jesus' life, death and resurrection, brought believers to the Covenant of Grace, thankfully. 

Yes, I am a Christian, I don't want to spout many spiritual things here, but how could you not be moved by the life and teachings of Jesus? His teachings speak of love! Just READ! Jesus teaches us to help those who need help, love EVERYONE, put yourself last....not only are these things He said, they are reflected in the life He lived. I mean even if you don't ascribe to Christianity, living by the teachings of Jesus is just a good way to live.

Unfortunately so many twist Christian teachings into actions of hate and words of hate, which go against everything Jesus stood for. 

Historical Jesus

Important historical evidence comes from the pen of the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56–120). He was a careful scholar, so his brief reference to the historical Jesus is very important. His collection of books called The Annals includes the famous story about the six-day fire, that burned much of Rome in July AD 64 and was thought by some Romans to have been set by Emperor Nero himself. To put that rumor to rest, Nero blamed Christians for setting the fire. [1] Tacitus describes the support for the homeless provided by Nero and the rebuilding of the city. [2] However, none of this did away with the suspicion that the fire had been started on Nero's orders:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [i.e., Crucifixtion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[3][4]

 I provided a well documented reference that includes documentation of Jesus and of his crucifixion...which you just off handedly say that the annals were fake. 
The Tacitus annals are considered the authoritative history of the Roman Empire for that time period..**NOT** by Christians, but by historical scholars who know more than any of us here. 
Much of what is known about the Roman Empire at that time comes from these same annals that you claim are fake. Are you saying that just his reference to Jesus is fake or Tacitus' entire work? I mean, if so we need to rethink what is known about the Roman Empire at the time of Nero.


I could provide other references from acknowledgded Jewish and Roman historians, but what's the point? You will just declare them as fakes as well. 
While I'm certain there are errors in all of these historical writings, I'll be more inclined to believe the history that has stood up to challenges over the thousands of years as opposed to the views you simply reiterate from fringe websites.
I know I will not change your mind and am sure you know you won't change mine...but I do enjoy reading your views.


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> Wow...you really need to stay off the internet.


Oh sorry..I forgot YOU wrote all these articles about Josephus,Tacitus and Pliney...




Melvin4730 said:


> Jesus, is an actual historical figure, as in...pretty much all evidence (biblical and otherwise) points to His existence. It's generally accepted by most historians, not to mention by biblical historians. There are 2 events that are universally recognized and verified outside of the Gospels, those being Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist and the other being the crucifixion. There is also archeological evidence of Jesus' existence as well as the existence of Nazareth at the time Jesus lived. You can just google it if you like. As far as archeological evidence, at an ossuary there is an inscription found reading "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" that has been researched, challenged and ultimately recognized as authentic.


1. I agree Jesus was a real person. I disagree he was anything more.
2. John the Baptist baptized many people and many people were crucified. They are all regular ol humans too.
3. You decide:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/25/opinion/la-oe-burleigh-bible-ossuary-forgery-20120325



Melvin4730 said:


> There is a movement of people who speculate that Jesus is nothing but a myth, the tenets of which seem to be behind much of what has been said here.


I think Jesus was real. I think his accomplishments were embellished after his death.



Melvin4730 said:


> As far as Old Testament vs New Testament...what it really boils down to is...Before Christ, believers were under the Mosaic Covenant, but Jesus' life, death and resurrection, brought believers to the Covenant of Grace, thankfully.


There are very good reasons that the Non-Believers do not believe. Many of those follow the OT.



Melvin4730 said:


> Yes, I am a Christian, I don't want to spout many spiritual things here, but how could you not be moved by the life and teachings of Jesus? His teachings speak of love! Just READ! Jesus teaches us to help those who need help, love EVERYONE, put yourself last....not only are these things He said, they are reflected in the life He lived. I mean even if you don't ascribe to Christianity, living by the teachings of Jesus is just a good way to live.


For the 86,732 time..I did read. I still read. The stories are touching. I just do not know if they are THE personal stories of Jesus or stories by others of what they wanted Jesus to be.



Melvin4730 said:


> Unfortunately so many twist Christian teachings into actions of hate and words of hate, which go against everything Jesus stood for.


That is called religion.



Melvin4730 said:


> Historical Jesus
> 
> Important historical evidence comes from the pen of the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56–120). He was a careful scholar, so his brief reference to the historical Jesus is very important. His collection of books called The Annals includes the famous story about the six-day fire, that burned much of Rome in July AD 64 and was thought by some Romans to have been set by Emperor Nero himself. To put that rumor to rest, Nero blamed Christians for setting the fire. [1] Tacitus describes the support for the homeless provided by Nero and the rebuilding of the city. [2] However, none of this did away with the suspicion that the fire had been started on Nero's orders:
> 
> Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [i.e., Crucifixtion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[3][4]


Real people, real places some real events intertwined with later additions and forgeries. I provided well documented scholars, some of which are Biblical experts and Christian scholars that have proved it many times over. I provided both Pro and Con sources that all agree.
Where did you get your information?



Melvin4730 said:


> I provided a well documented reference that includes documentation of Jesus and of his crucifixion...which you just off handedly say that the annals were fake.


Then you did not bother to read what I posted nor check the sources. I provided information that refutes your documented references. 


Melvin4730 said:


> The Tacitus annals are considered the authoritative history of the Roman Empire for that time period..**NOT** by Christians, but by historical scholars who know more than any of us here.


I agree to a point. 


Melvin4730 said:


> Much of what is known about the Roman Empire at that time comes from these same annals that you claim are fake. Are you saying that just his reference to Jesus is fake or Tacitus' entire work? I mean, if so we need to rethink what is known about the Roman Empire at the time of Nero.


Now you are catching on. Much...most of his works have been authenticated. The parts that include Jesus have been found to be later additions.
But, if you bothered to read the information I provided (like I have read yours) you would have not had to ask me.




Melvin4730 said:


> I could provide other references from acknowledgded Jewish and Roman historians, but what's the point? You will just declare them as fakes as well.


I will provide proof as to why they are fake backed by Biblical scholars and Christian Scholars. Just as I have done with all the others. 


Melvin4730 said:


> While I'm certain there are errors in all of these historical writings, I'll be more inclined to believe the history that has stood up to challenges over the thousands of years as opposed to the views you simply reiterate from fringe websites.


Unfortunately You are using ONLY the sources that agree with your beliefs.
I use every source available and compare. I then make a decision based off of the knowledge I gained by doing that research. I Have no problem going with a Pro Christian source if I cannot find reliable evidence against it. Unfortunately it is rare.
I will tell you what I have said many times already.
I am not here to disprove God or Jesus. I am here to prove them. So far in 20+ years I am finding more evidence against than for. I started as a devout believer and now I am not based off of my journey so far.


Melvin4730 said:


> I know I will not change your mind and am sure you know you won't change mine...but I do enjoy reading your views.


Ditto.


----------



## Melvin4730

Its amazing what someone will believe,  to not believe.

Do you even realize what you are saying?

You are saying someone forged notes about Jesus in obscure writings from many different writers from many different time periods and places in different languages....that tell basically the same exact story.

Now, people want to write articles about their theory about how history could possibly be wrong....becauce all of written history throughout time was forged.....Really?

As far as my sources....there are no other sources. My source is the only available written documments from that time period. There is not a source from that time period that says Jesus is not a real man, Jesus was not baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus did not perform acts that his followers thought were miracles and Jesus was not crucified. The only thing available that goes against this are opinion pieces written by people.


----------



## 660griz

Melvin4730 said:


> Its amazing what someone will believe,  to not believe.


 It is amazing what someone will believe.



> The only thing available that goes against this are opinion pieces written by people.



 Who/what wrote the pieces that are for?


----------



## Melvin4730

The website cut part of my comment off somehow....

You are reading opinion pieces written by people with an agenda, thousands of years later....saying they dont agree with the written history of the world, so it must be forged....all of it. Even though the experts in that field....both Christian and non Christian (who wants it to fake) for thousands of years have said they are true and genuine. 

Again, You are saying someone forged notes about Jesus in obscure writings from many different writers from many different time periods and places in different languages....that tell basically the same exact story.

You are saying these historical documents written by the actual historians of that time period (people whos job title was to actually record history) are not true, but this websites article or the opinion piece written by an journalist 1000s of years later is.

Again...My source is the only available written documments from that time period. There is not a source from that time period that says Jesus is not a real man, Jesus was not baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus did not perform acts that his followers thought were miracles and Jesus was not crucified.


----------



## Israel

A man raised from the dead...after three days...because death could not hold him. Because of the power of an indestructable life...who could believe such a thing? Who hath believed our report?
The reality of his rising above all principality and power is simple.
And simply marvelous.
To believe.


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> Its amazing what someone will believe,  to not believe.
> 
> Do you even realize what you are saying?
> 
> You are saying someone forged notes about Jesus in obscure writings from many different writers from many different time periods and places in different languages....that tell basically the same exact story.


I can say it because the research that is done by the experts support it.
Don't shoot the messenger.
If you know the History of the religion you would have a better understanding about how and why things like this happen.
Many things in History are being shown to not have happened quite like we once thought. When you have humans writing the stories you will have problems.



Melvin4730 said:


> Now, people want to write articles about their theory about how history could possibly be wrong....becauce all of written history throughout time was forged.....Really?


People can write these things because history is showing that the early years of Christianity, more specifically about 300 years after Jesus death when Christianity started to become an organized and official religion, corruption was a part of the process.
But had you bothered to read the information I provided you would have a better understanding of how these people come to these conclusions.




Melvin4730 said:


> As far as my sources....there are no other sources. My source is the only available written documments from that time period. There is not a source from that time period that says Jesus is not a real man, Jesus was not baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus did not perform acts that his followers thought were miracles and Jesus was not crucified. The only thing available that goes against this are opinion pieces written by people.



Again, it is crystal clear that you did not bother to click on the links let alone read what was inside them. If you did you would not sound silly right now by constantly saying about Jesus baptism and crucifixion and not being real.
From the sources I provided, that contain Biblical experts, the majority agree that Jesus was a real man. Their research shows he was little more. In depth research, hard facts, equal strong conclusions.
These people base their conclusions off of research that tells the facts. They provide sources and details that show how they can draw those conclusions (Like why later 4th century versions of these writings contain passages about Jesus but the earliest versions do not) ( Or why when the early historian refers to them as Christians...but the term Christians was not used until centuries later)...it is clear that these things were added later.You can not only read their reasons but they provide the sources they use and you can research their sources too.
It does not matter to me one way or the other, but when you continually keep posting things that you THINK the articles say because you did not take the time to read what they actually DID say you are doing yourself a disservice.
It is much easier to sit there shaking your head in disbelief rather than educating yourself further.


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> The website cut part of my comment off somehow....
> 
> You are reading opinion pieces written by people with an agenda, thousands of years later....saying they dont agree with the written history of the world, so it must be forged....all of it. Even though the experts in that field....both Christian and non Christian (who wants it to fake) for thousands of years have said they are true and genuine.
> 
> You are saying these historical documents written by the actual historians of that time period (people whos job title was to actual record history) are not actually true, but this websites article or the opinion piece written by an journalist is.



Unlike you I am not saying it to say it.
The facts support what these experts have found.
If the earliest writings do not include the parts about Jesus and later copies of those writings do....How do you think they got in there?
Do you think these Scholars and Historians research WHY or do you think they make a ten second decision without years of research kind of like you are doing now?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> A man raised from the dead...after three days...because death could not hold him. Because of the power of an indestructable life...who could believe such a thing? Who hath believed our report?
> The reality of his rising above all principality and power is simple.
> And simply marvelous.
> To believe.



You consistently go beyond the definition of Apologetics and just blurt things that better fit in the Spiritual forum or Christianity forum.
Religious touretts if you will.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> You consistently go beyond the definition of Apologetics and just blurt things that better fit in the Spiritual forum or Christianity forum.
> Religious touretts if you will.



Not quite. Pay attention to his last statement. It's about belief not knowledge, which is the entire point of this discussion.


----------



## 660griz

Melvin4730 said:


> You are reading opinion pieces written by people with an agenda,



You don't think the writers of a book for a new religion had an agenda?


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> The website cut part of my comment off somehow....
> 
> You are reading opinion pieces written by people with an agenda, thousands of years later....saying they dont agree with the written history of the world, so it must be forged....all of it. Even though the experts in that field....both Christian and non Christian (who wants it to fake) for thousands of years have said they are true and genuine.
> 
> Again, You are saying someone forged notes about Jesus in obscure writings from many different writers from many different time periods and places in different languages....that tell basically the same exact story.
> 
> You are saying these historical documents written by the actual historians of that time period (people whos job title was to actually record history) are not true, but this websites article or the opinion piece written by an journalist 1000s of years later is.
> 
> Again...My source is the only available written documments from that time period. There is not a source from that time period that says Jesus is not a real man, Jesus was not baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus did not perform acts that his followers thought were miracles and Jesus was not crucified.



What I have given you shows in great detail How and Why they have come to these conclusions.
It explains EVERYTHING that you are questioning me about.
If you bothered to read them there would be no need for you to constantly keep stating the same stuff over and over..
Your main problem is that YOUR sources are used in the explanation and they show SPECIFICALLY why your sources are incorrect in detailed in depth explanation.


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> The website cut part of my comment off somehow....
> 
> You are reading opinion pieces written by people with an agenda, thousands of years later....saying they dont agree with the written history of the world, so it must be forged....all of it. Even though the experts in that field....both Christian and non Christian (who wants it to fake) for thousands of years have said they are true and genuine.
> 
> Again, You are saying someone forged notes about Jesus in obscure writings from many different writers from many different time periods and places in different languages....that tell basically the same exact story.
> 
> You are saying these historical documents written by the actual historians of that time period (people whos job title was to actually record history) are not true, but this websites article or the opinion piece written by an journalist 1000s of years later is.
> 
> Again...My source is the only available written documments from that time period. There is not a source from that time period that says Jesus is not a real man, Jesus was not baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus did not perform acts that his followers thought were miracles and Jesus was not crucified.




And....your source is using the later copies of the original.
The originals do not contain what your sources are trying to pass off. Later..3rd/4th century versions contain them. Not earlier versions.


----------



## Melvin4730

Says who?

The same experts that completed research and now say Jesus was a real man, but he was just a man...after 2000 years. Wheres the reasearch that backs that statement. I've read every link you posted and everything I could get my hands on since I was a child..on the subject. You are still reading opinions/theories/theises on the subject.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Melvin4730 said:


> Says who?
> 
> The same experts that completed research and now say Jesus was a real man, but he was just a man...after 2000 years. Wheres the reasearch that backs that statement. I've read every link you posted and everything I could get my hands on since I was a child..on the subject. You are still reading opinions/theories/theises on the subject.



By that logic the faithful should limit themselves to merely quoting the Bible and nothing more, since anything more falls into the same categories...


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> Says who?
> 
> The same experts that completed research and now say Jesus was a real man, but he was just a man...after 2000 years. Wheres the reasearch that backs that statement. I've read every link you posted and everything I could get my hands on since I was a child..on the subject. You are still reading opinions/theories/theises on the subject.


Says who?
The links I provided tells you exactly who.
All I can do is provide you with examples. I can't make you believe them.
I cannot help that additional writings appeared in later copies that were not in the original copies and you still choose to use the later copies to make your case.
If Josephus or Tacitus didn't have them in the first writings and they appeared much later in later copies then someone other than the original author added them. I don't care if you choose to ignore the facts. I am just here to show you something that refutes your claims and examples. And more importantly why.

The Bible is the only place that talks of Jesus the man and Jesus the God-Man.
All other outside sources just have him as a man and all the extra talk of miracles was added later. You can dismiss the evidence but it does not change a thing except that  you are still arguing your side using information that has been proven incorrect...now KNOWING it is incorrect...and you still continue to use it.


----------



## Melvin4730

That is simply not true.


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> That is simply not true.



Can you quote
1.Who you are replying to.
2. What you are replying to.

And can you provide something to back up your statement?


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730,
Do you trust Oded Golan?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/oded-golan-is-not-guilty-of-forgery-so-is-the-james-ossuary-for-real/


----------



## Melvin4730

The trial lasted 7 years and the judge found him not guilty of forgery.

Experts have examined it over and over and find it genuine....both Christian and Non-Christian.

 It’s located in a museum for anyone to study. Have one of your left wing journalist go over with an "expert" and prove its "Fake". Thats how "your experts" explain everything.


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> The trial lasted 7 years and the judge found him not guilty of forgery.


Indeed they did find him not guilty. They could not prove that HE made the alterations.



Melvin4730 said:


> Experts have examined it over and over and find it genuine....both Christian and Non-Christian.


The 14 member panel of the IAA would strongly disagree with that statement.



Melvin4730 said:


> It’s located in a museum for anyone to study. Have one of your left wing journalist go over with an "expert" and prove its "Fake". Thats how "your experts" explain everything.


Me? a Left Winger?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!
You know even less than I gave you credit for!

I appreciate you think of so highly of me that I have personal experts but I just go with the majority and let the facts fall where they may.

I really hate to keep doing this to you but I just want you to be informed for the next person you try to pass this stuff to.

From:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech...ory/2012-03-17/james-ossuary-jesus/53578490/1

Those words inscribed on the so-called James ossuary, a stone burial box that reportedly held the bones of the brother of Jesus, set off a frenzy when the discovery was first announced in a 2002 press conference. The box appeared on the cover of Time magazine, drew thousands to a Toronto exhibit and was featured in a critical 60 Minutes report, in 2008, linking it to an antiquity forgery ring.

The inscription claim was celebrated, denigrated and ultimately prosecuted. And now with a "not guilty" verdict on Wednesday in the forgery trial in Israel of the antiquities dealer, Oded Golan, the long-running saga of the James Ossuary has taken only its latest turn.

Concluding a seven-year case, Jerusalem district court judge Aharon Farkash ruled that evidence presented by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) against Golan was insufficient to prove the last part of the inscription was faked beyond a reasonable doubt. "This is not to say that the inscription is true and authentic and was written 2,000 year ago," Farkash added.

In 2003, Israeli authorities raided Golan's apartment, finding the ossuary sitting atop a rooftop toilet amid a workshop filled with inscription tools, suggesting that the Jesus reference was forged.

No one disputes the ossuary itself is an authentic burial box, likely placed in a crypt near Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. Removing bones from rock tombs and reburying them in ossuaries was fashionable among the wealthy there from the mid-reign of Herod the Great, Herod of the New Testament around 15 B.C., until 70 A.D., when a Roman army sacked Jerusalem.

However, not much agreement remains between archaeologists and those who vouch forthe inscription, such as French ancient-writing expert Andre Lemaire, who authenticated the inscription in 2002. With the verdict's announcement, Golan claimed vindication for his innocence, while the IAA claimed victory because the court held him guilty of separate violations of antiquities laws.


Trial publicity brought a spotlight on the shadowy-but-legal sales of antiquities in Israel, and as a result, "the trade in written documents and seals derived from illicit antiquities excavations has almost been entirely halted ," said an IAA statement. "This in turn has led to a dramatic reduction in the scope of antiquities robbery occurring at biblical sites in Israel."

How Golan and others acquired the box, and what they did with it, was where the controversy started. In 2002, the magazine, Biblical Archaeology Review and the Discovery Channel announced the existence of the ossuary at a press conference, noting that Lemaire vouched that the inscription "very probably" referred to the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.

Many outside experts, however, concluded the inscription's "Jesus" reference was phony, including the scholar Rochelle Altman, who found that it "bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition." In other words, someone had chiseled the Jesus reference onto the box after its discovery and then treated the words with weathering chemicals to artificially age its appearance to match the patina of the stone box, a charge made by Israeli officials against Golan. All in a bid to dupe some wealthy collector into paying more.

"For archaeologists, the court decision doesn't really change anything," says University of North Carolina archaeologist Jodi Magness, author ofStone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus. "There is no way to tell where the ossuary came from, and without that context, the ossuary is worthless."

Adds Magness: "In Biblical archaeology, there are all these things tied up with faith that people want to see evidence for, Exodus, Noah's Ark and especially, Jesus, just him, that people want physical evidence for. And that's never going to happen. Finding physical evidence for Jesus (as an individual) is just not something that archaeology can supply."

Lost in the courtroom debate over the divinity of the James Ossuary is a lot of verified archaeology about the world in the era of Jesus, Magness says. "We know what houses looked like, what they ate, and how they were buried," she says. Hebrew University archaeologist Ehud Netzer reported the discovery of King Herod's tomb five years ago, she notes, "a truly stunning discovery that has received much less attention than the ossuary."

So will archaeological science ever advance enough to determine whether the inscription on the ossuary was real or not? Magness says it's not likely. "What we do know is that only the wealthy were buried in ossuaries, not people like James," who reportedly lived in communal poverty, she says.

In ancient Judaea, there was little shame or status attached to how someone was buried, she adds, just fashion. Most likely, she suggests the ossuary held the bones of a wealthy person , one with fairly-common name for the time.


----------



## Melvin4730

Great...another article.

I wasn't calling you a left wing....You pull a lot of articles from left wing journalist.

Heres a few quotes you may be interested in…

"The inscription is written in the Jewish script, it was done with a sharp instrument and I think it was done by the same hand. It is an authentic inscription," said Professor Gabriel Barkay of Bar-Ilan University.
Golan cites expert evidence from the trial showing the patina - a biological crust formed on ancient objects - inside the grooves of the inscription.
"There is no doubt that it's ancient, and the probability is that it belonged to the brother of Jesus Christ," said Golan.

Two of the world's top paleographers(the art and science of authenticating and dating inscriptions based on the shape and stance of the letters), Ada Yardenit and Andre Lemaire, agree the inscription is authentic and "no other paleographer has offered a substantive critique of their work."
Tel Aviv University clay specialist Yuval Goren, who charged that the ossuary's patina was forged, admitted on the witness stand that he also saw authentic patina inside some of the letters—including in the last word of the inscription.
Former IAA employee Joe Zias, who first raised the issue of forgery when he claimed that he saw the ossuary in an antiquities shop without the second half of the inscription, admitted at the trial that he might have seen a different ossuary.
A statistical analysis by Tel Aviv University professor Camil Fuchs of ancient Jewish names concludes that there were only 1.71 people "named James with a father Joseph and a brother named Jesus" at the time of the ossuary's use.

Here's an article for you to read.
http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=38&Issue=4&ArticleID=2


----------



## Madman

So can the OP be summarized by asking?

"Is there only one eternal being or are there several"?


----------



## bullethead

Melvin4730 said:


> Great...another article.
> 
> I wasn't calling you a left wing....You pull a lot of articles from left wing journalist.
> 
> Heres a few quotes you may be interested in…
> 
> "The inscription is written in the Jewish script, it was done with a sharp instrument and I think it was done by the same hand. It is an authentic inscription," said Professor Gabriel Barkay of Bar-Ilan University.
> Golan cites expert evidence from the trial showing the patina - a biological crust formed on ancient objects - inside the grooves of the inscription.
> "There is no doubt that it's ancient, and the probability is that it belonged to the brother of Jesus Christ," said Golan.
> 
> Two of the world's top paleographers(the art and science of authenticating and dating inscriptions based on the shape and stance of the letters), Ada Yardenit and Andre Lemaire, agree the inscription is authentic and "no other paleographer has offered a substantive critique of their work."
> Tel Aviv University clay specialist Yuval Goren, who charged that the ossuary's patina was forged, admitted on the witness stand that he also saw authentic patina inside some of the letters—including in the last word of the inscription.
> Former IAA employee Joe Zias, who first raised the issue of forgery when he claimed that he saw the ossuary in an antiquities shop without the second half of the inscription, admitted at the trial that he might have seen a different ossuary.
> A statistical analysis by Tel Aviv University professor Camil Fuchs of ancient Jewish names concludes that there were only 1.71 people "named James with a father Joseph and a brother named Jesus" at the time of the ossuary's use.
> 
> Here's an article for you to read.
> http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=38&Issue=4&ArticleID=2



The link you provided will not open but I suspect it is the same article and wording as this:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/juneweb-only/james-ossuary-verdict.html?paging=off

At the end of the article I found this interesting

"On the other hand, Eckhard Schnabel, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, disagrees. "The inscription is not authentic," he said. "The jury is no longer out."

"Even though the prosecutors may have messed up the case, the IAA was right to be suspicious," said Lawrence Geraty, professor of archaeology and Old Testament at LaSierra University. "There are still too many questions about this inscription.""


I guess what it comes down to is Two out of the Top (you did not state how many are in the Top) paleographers say it is authentic, the rest are either unsure or say it is not authentic and we both provided examples that cover each.


----------



## Melvin4730

In all the hubbub and flurry of the verdict last March in the “forgery case of the century,” one question—the central question—seems to have gotten lost: Is the ossuary inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” genuine or not? And if it is, does it refer to Jesus of Nazareth? After all, “Jesus” was a common name at the time.

These are enormously important questions to the world of Christianity, as well as to anyone else interested in the material world as it existed at the time Jesus walked this earth.

As to the authenticity of the inscription, while we should not avoid reasons for doubting the authenticity, neither should we dismiss it simply because it is “too good to be true.”

Is the inscription authentic? The court held only that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the inscription was a forgery. But it surely did not find that the inscription was authentic. I have no doubt, however, that it is.

Why the Inscription Is Authentic

Two world-class experts in paleography (the art and science of authenticating and dating inscriptions based on the shape and stance of the letters) have expressed their view that it is. They are André Lemaire of the Sorbonne and Ada Yardeni of the Hebrew University.

I would like to see any paleographer of any repute get up and state that Lemaire and Yardeni are wrong in their paleographical judgment in this case and then tell us why they believe Lemaire and Yardeni have erred.

I don’t think such a paleographer can be found!

There are scholars who have expressed their doubts about the inscription’s authenticity. The doubter-in-chief is my friend Eric Meyers, professor at Duke University and former president ofASOR- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -(the American Schools of Oriental Research). Read his reaction to the judge’s verdict.1- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -He is very doubtful, but he gives absolutely no reason for his doubts. In fact, he is not even a paleographer. His position is grounded in the fact that he is against unprovenanced artifacts. It is true that we don’t know where the ossuary was found. It was probably looted from some burial cave. But this doesn’t mean it is forged. If it is forged, tell me why you think so. But don’t tell me it is forged simply because it was looted.

Meyers also objects to the way the ossuary was first presented to the public—at a joint meeting of- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ASOR- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -and- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -SBL- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -(the Society of Biblical Literature) at their annual convention; the ossuary was exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto. In Meyers’s view, the inscription should not have been presented in this way. It should have been studied and then published in a scholarly journal, perhaps years after it came to light.

Meyers is quite explicit about why he is doubtful of the inscription’s authenticity. He brags that he was an early objector: “I was among the very first to question the wisdom of such an exhibition [at the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ROM] after the artifact had a questionable provenance and had come to the public’s attention with such hoopla.”

What in the world does this have to do with whether the inscription on the artifact is authentic or not?

Professor Meyers goes on: “I also drew attention to aspects of the inscription that seemed questionable at best.” Please tell us what aspects you are referring to and why you find them questionable.

Although Meyers raises no substantive question as to the authenticity of the inscription in his post-verdict reaction, he is more right than he realizes. All the doubts about the authenticity of the inscription arise because of the “hoopla,” to use Professor Meyers’s word, with which it was brought to the public’s attention. To make matters worse, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) learned of the inscription from this “hoopla,” rather than as an insider. The- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -was furious.

The Real Reason for the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA’s “Doubt”

I first learned of the ossuary and its inscription from Professor Lemaire when we had dinner together at a Jerusalem fish restaurant catty-corner from the King David Hotel. Realizing the potential significance of this ossuary, I arranged (and- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -BAR- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -paid for) a scientific examination of the inscription by the official Geological Survey of Israel (GSI). GSI geologists found no reason to question the authenticity of the inscription. I also arranged for the inscription to be examined by Father Joseph Fitzmyer, the world’s leading expert in Aramaic (the language of the inscription), who gave his imprimatur to the Aramaic. And of course Professor Lemaire had found the inscription paleographically sound. I thought this was enough to publish Professor Lemaire’s article on the ossuary and its inscription, which he wrote at my request.

We announced the find at a press conference on October 21, 2002. The next day the ossuary was on the front page of every newspaper in the world, including- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -The Washington Post- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -and- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -The New York Times. When journalists contacted the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -for comment, they were embarrassed and furious: They knew nothing about the object.

Within a month of this announcement, thousands of Biblical archaeologists and Bible scholars would be having their annual meetings in Toronto. So I arranged for an exhibit of the ossuary at the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ROM. We had a special showing for the scholars and—horrors!—the general public was also allowed to see it. A hundred thousand of them waited in line to do so.

In order to export the ossuary from Israel to Canada, however, we needed the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA’s permission. I asked Oded Golan, the owner of the ossuary, to ask the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -for its permission. He did so, informing the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -of the contents of the inscription and noting that the object had been insured for $1 million. Permission was granted.

If the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -was furious at the announcement of the ossuary at our press conference, it went bonkers at the fact that it was on display in Canada—and with their permission. (When we asked their permission to extend the exhibit for a few weeks because of the crowds who wanted to see the ossuary, the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA, awakened to the importance of the inscription, refused. Permission denied!)

This, then, as Professor Meyers explains, is the “hoopla” that is the real reason for the “doubt” about the authenticity of the inscription. And I can prove it:

Long after the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -brought the criminal case against Oded Golan, it seized an unprovenanced ossuary that also had an inscription. The inscription, like the James Ossuary, is in Aramaic and comes from the same period as the James Ossuary. The inscription reads “Miriam, daughter of Yeshua [the same name translated “Jesus” on the James Ossuary], son of Caiaphas [perhaps a member of the family of the high priest by this name who presided at the trial of Jesus], priest of Ma‘aziah from Beth ’Imri.”a

The big difference between this ossuary and the James Ossuary is that the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -had control of the Miriam Ossuary, unlike the James Ossuary. So the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -arranged for the Miriam Ossuary to be studied by Tel Aviv University clay expert Yuval Goren, who was to be the government’s chief witness in the forgery trial about the James Ossuary and other artifacts. After a single test involving only himself, Goren reported that he had established the authenticity of the inscription on the Miriam Ossuary. He and Israeli archaeologist Boaz Zissu wrote an article on the Miriam Ossuary in the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -Israel Exploration Journal- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -(IEJ). This was the way—the proper way—the Miriam Ossuary inscription was made known to the public. The- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -didn’t even consider it necessary to consult a paleographer to make sure the inscription was authentic. Yuval Goren’s scientific test was enough. (No one asked him why he didn’t apply the same test to the James Ossuary.)

No one—yes, no one, not Professor Meyers nor any other scholar—has raised any question about the authenticity of the Miriam inscription. The difference in the way that the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -(and the scholarly world) has treated this inscription in comparison to the treatment of the James Ossuary inscription is startling. The difference lies not in the inscriptions themselves, but in how they came to (or did not come to) public attention. Professor Meyers tellingly reveals—perhaps unintentionally—the real reason for doubting the authenticity of the James inscription.

Professor Meyers does not pretend to be a paleographer. And he has not specified any aspect of the inscription that is questionable on paleographical grounds. He just has a generalized doubt about seemingly important inscriptions that are unprovenanced and are announced to the public with “hoopla.”

Unlike Professor Meyers, Professor Christopher Rollston is a paleographer of some note. He contributed two pieces to theASOR- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -blog after the judge handed down his verdict in the forgery trial. In one he talks about past forgeries. In the other, he talks about the motivations of forgers. But he says not a word about the inscription on the James Ossuary. He doesn’t even cast “doubt” on the authenticity of the James Ossuary inscription. He doesn’t like unprovenanced inscriptions—in fact, he hates them—and that’s a reason to be suspicious of all of them. But that’s as specific as he gets.

Why the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -Lost the Case, According to the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA

One other point: The- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -would have us believe that it lost the case because it could not get a crucial witness, an Egyptian craftsman or jeweler named Marco, to testify on behalf of the government. His absence from the trial was important enough for the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -to mention it in its post-verdict press release; that’s why the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -lost the case: “During the investigation, the involvement of an Egyptian citizen by the name of Marco became apparent, who acted together with Oded Golan. Marco, a craftsman and jeweler by training, created several of the items for Golan. Nevertheless, all attempts by the state [of .


----------



## Melvin4730

Israel] to bring the Egyptian to Israel in order to testify in court in Jerusalem were unsuccessful.â€� If they could only have gotten Marco to testify, they would have won the case.

On the contrary, the report of the team of Israeli police who went to Egypt to interview Marco says that Marco denied that he did anything wrong. And Marcoâ€™s denial is consistent with what Marco told an Israeli newspaper. And that is consistent with what Marco told me.

I talked with Marco in his small third-floor walk-up workshop in Cairoâ€™s dense Khan Khalili bazaar. He was very clear that he never helped Oded Golan to forge anything.2- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -Itâ€™s a good thing the prosecution did not call Marco as a witness: He would have hurt their case still more.

In any event, to think that Marco, who makes his living crafting tourist trinkets, could forge â€œbrother of Jesusâ€� so skillfully at the end of the inscription on the side of the James ossuary that it would fool André Lemaire and Ada Yardeni is laughable.

Goren Crumbles; Zias Fibs

There is no question that the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -wanted to get Oded Golan. And they found two human vehicles for doing so. The first was the aforementioned clay specialist from Tel Aviv University named Yuval Goren. The second is a former- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -employee named Joe Zias who had been let go during a budget squeeze in 1997.

Early in the governmentâ€™s investigation of the ossuary inscription, Professor Goren discovered a fake patina on the inscription that he said the forger put on it in order to cover up evidence of forgery beneath. Goren cleverly called this fake patina the â€œJames Bondâ€� because, like real patina, it was supposedly bonded to the surface of the ossuary.

Problems quickly developed, but they were just as quickly overlooked. Professor Goren said the James Bond was made of crushed limestone and water, but this mixture wouldnâ€™t bond without the addition of acid, which would easily be detectedâ€”and there was none. Besides, the James Bond wasnâ€™t bonded; it could be removed with a toothpick.

Moreover, in his earliest report Professor Goren admitted that the James Bond could have been produced by cleaning the inscription, something antiquities dealers customarily do to inscriptions to make them â€œshowâ€� better.

Finally, one member of the governmentâ€™s team, a conservationist named Orna Cohen, found original ancient patina in the word â€œJesus,â€� despite Professor Gorenâ€™s contention that it was a forgery covered with James Bond.

In its eagerness to prosecute, the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ignored all these signs of trouble ahead. The criminal indictment alleged that â€œDefendant No. 1 [Oded Golan] ... disguised the fact that part of the inscription was added recently. Defendant No.1 did so by applying various substances on the ossuary, in order that the inscription, when tested, would appear to be an inscription entirely written during the Second Temple period, by virtue of its being covered with patina which is supposedly from the Second Temple period.â€�

Under cross-examination at the trial, Professor Goren crumbled. When shown pictures prepared by the defendantâ€™s expert showing original patina under the James Bond, Professor Goren became flummoxed and asked for a recess so that he could examine the ossuary itself as opposed to the expertâ€™s pictures. The next day, Professor Goren returned to the stand and admitted the original patina was thereâ€”in the word â€œJesusâ€� yet! And if original patina was there, the letters were at least hundreds of years old.

Does this mean Professor Goren now accepts the authenticity of the inscription? Not quite. He has suggested that the forger may have usedâ€”as strokes in the forged lettersâ€”ancient scratches in which natural patina developed over the centuries. In a post-trial blog posted on the Web site- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -Bible and Interpretation, Professor Paul Flesher of the University of Wyoming notes that â€œto date [Professor Goren] remains silent about whether he has changed his mind. But now that the trial is over, it is time for him to provide the scholarly community an explanation about whether he has altered his views of the ossuary, of the scientific analysis of patina and varnish or what.â€� Perhaps by the time these words appear in print, Professor Goren will have obliged.

The second major prop in the governmentâ€™s case was Joe Zias. What he had said was - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ing: He had seen the ossuary in a Jerusalem antiquities shop in the mid-1990s without the critical phrase, â€œbrother of Jesusâ€�! If this were true, the addition of these words had to be a modern forgery.

I first learned of Ziasâ€™s claim from Zias himself at the 2003 annual meeting of- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ASOR- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -and- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -SBL- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -in Atlanta. I hesitated to print this claim based on a casual conversation. However, it turned out that Joe also told this story to Eric Meyers, who published Ziasâ€™s claim. Once Meyers published Ziasâ€™s claim (Meyers obviously believed Ziasâ€™s claim, which, if true, was clear proof of forgery), I felt free to publish it in- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -BAR. I called the piece â€œLying Scholars?â€�b

Since the judgeâ€™s decision in the case has come out, James Tabor of the University of North Carolina has confirmed that Zias had also told him that he (Zias) had seen the ossuary in an antiquities shop without the phrase â€œbrother of Jesus.â€� I have talked to a prominent Jerusalem archaeologist who says Zias made this same claim to him. More importantly, Zias apparently also made this claim to the authorities, for they adopted this theory in the indictment; namely, that the ossuary itself is authentic and the first part of the inscription is authentic, but that Oded Golan added the final phrase â€œbrother of Jesus.â€�

In the words of the criminal indictment: â€œDefendant No. 1 [Oded Golan] used an ancient ossuary â€¦ which bore an engraved inscription of â€˜Jacob [James] son of Joseph.â€™ Defendant No. 1 added to this ossuary, either alone or with the assistance of others, the words â€˜brother of Jesusâ€™ in such a manner that these words were made to appear as part of the original inscription which had already appeared on the ossuary for two thousand years.â€�

The antiquities shop that Zias identified as the one where he had seen the inscription was on the Via Dolorosa, owned by a man named Mahmoud Abushakra. By the time the indictment was filed, Mahmoud Abushakra had closed his shop and moved with his German wife to a little village in Saxony, Germany. When I finally tracked him down, Abushakra told me that he had never had in his shop an ossuary with the inscription that Zias claimed to have seen there. Licensed antiquities dealers, of whom he was one, must keep an inventory of all items in their shop. To have this in the shop without including it in the inventory would have been illegal, not to say dangerous; the- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -IAA- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -had its inspectors coming around regularly to check his inventory. And this ossuary was not in his inventory.

Not long before the judge handed down his decision, Zias admitted that he was only joking when he told me (and presumably others) that â€œbrother of Jesusâ€� was missing from the inscription when he first saw it at Mahmoudâ€™s shop; â€œhaving no sense of humor,â€� I took him seriously, he wrote in an email.c

At the trial, things turned worse. Zias admitted on the stand that he had never seen the inscription on the ossuary in Abushakraâ€™s shop! Indeed, he could not read it even if he had seen it, he admitted. He explained that he was not an epigrapher; his specialties lie elsewhere. Where then did he learn of the inscription? Abushakra told him. Thatâ€™s where he learned of the inscription that became the basis of the criminal indictment!

We have recently learned that indeed Abushakra did have an inscribed ossuary in his shop. But it was not the James Ossuary. Like the James Ossuary, however, it included Joe Ziasâ€™s first name, â€œJoseph,â€� which, alas, Zias could not read. Abushakra kept the Joseph Ossuary, as we may call it, with the inscription side to the wall and would show the inscription only on appropriate occasions. Abushakra originally put a price of $20,000 on it. When he could not sell it, he finally reduced the price to $5,000, perhaps when he was closing his shop. At this price, it was purchased by a private collector.

This was apparently the ossuary that Abushakra mentioned to Zias and that inspired Ziasâ€™s false claim that he had seen the James Ossuary without the words â€œbrother of Jesus.â€�

Robert Deutsch, a defendant who was cleared in the forgery case, has traced the Joseph Ossuary to a private collector who does not wish his name to be used. The Joseph Ossuary from Mahmoudâ€™s shop now sits on a Tel Aviv balcony. Deutsch, a leading antiquities dealer and author of several scholarly books on artifacts and inscriptions in private collections, supplied us with a photograph of the Joseph Ossuary, which is being published here for the first time. The drawing of the inscription is by Ada Yardeni.

The inscription on the Joseph Ossuary reads: â€œJoseph, son of Judah, son of Hadas.â€�

Is It Jesus of Nazareth?

My bottom line is simply this: There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the inscription on the James Ossuary. Whether it refers to Jesus of Nazareth remains a question.

A prominent statistician from Tel Aviv University, Professor Camil Fuchs, has attacked this problem,3- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -but the problem with statisticians is that they never give you a plain or easy answer. They talk only about probabilities expressed in percentages. As Fuchs tells us, a yes/no dichotomy is â€œbeyond the purview of statistics.â€� He can give us only â€œan estimate of the â€˜likelyâ€™ number of such individualsâ€� named James with a father Joseph and a brother Jesus. And even these estimates are based on a number of assumptions.

Let me begin by giving you Fuchsâ€™s (somewhat simplified) answer: There is a 38 percent chance that this is the only instance of a James with a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus in Jerusalem at this time. There is a slightly smaller chance (32 percent) that there were two such men named James in Jerusalem at this time. Whatâ€™s the chance that there were three such people? Only 18 percent. Beyond three, thereâ€™s only a minute chance. In laypersonâ€™s language there were probably one, two or possibly three people with this name at this time. Expressed another way, with a confidence level of 95 percent, we can expect there to be 1.71 individuals in the relevant population named James with a father named Joseph and a brother Jesus.

Fuchsâ€™s methodology is similar to that used in DNA testing: For each site on the DNA, the investigator determines the relative frequency of the specific allele in the relevant population.

A number of assumptions underlie Fuchsâ€™s estimates in addition to the size of the population of Jerusalem at this time. First, however, what is â€œthis timeâ€�? Based on the published research regarding the period of time in which reinterment in ossuaries was practiced, Fuchs assumes it is the period between 6 and 70 A.D. (He always, as here, assumes â€œconservativeâ€� numbers.)

Fuchs assumes the ossuary came from Jerusalem because almost all known stone ossuaries were found there and Oded Golan says the antiquities dealer from whom he bought the ossuary said it came from Silwan, a village that is part of Jerusalem. The next step is to estimate the population of Jerusalem at this time (38,500 in 6 A.D., growing to 82,500 in 70 A.D.). Fuchs reduces this number because we are interested only in males; none of the women can fit the name profile we are looking for. Next, the James whose bones were placed in this ossuary was obviously a grown-up; therefore eliminate children who will not reach manhood from the population pool. Clearly, the bones belong to a Jew; therefore eliminate the non-Jewish population of Jerusalem (5 percent of the population).

Two other overlapping characteristics are relevant: Someone in the family must have been literate; otherwise why inscribe a name (or three names) on the ossuary? (Fuchs assumes a conservatively high literacy rate of 20 percent, more than the accepted figures in highly urban areas, to reflect the unique status of Jerusalem at that time.) And they must have been fairly well-off to be able to afford an ossuary (and a burial cave in which it would be placed). The distribution of the number of children in the families in that period of time was also factored in the equations.

All these factors figure in Fuchsâ€™s computations of probability, often more subtly and in greater detail than I suggest. Fuchs also depends on some assumptions derived from L.Y. Rahmaniâ€™s catalog of ossuaries in the state collection.4- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -Of the approximately 900 ossuaries in the catalog, only 230 are inscribed. Moreover, as Rahmani points out, this â€œseemingly high proportion of inscribed ossuaries is, in many respects, misleading since plain, uninscribed ossuaries were either discarded by the excavators or excluded from the catalogue.â€� Fuchs estimates that no more than 15 percent of all ossuaries bore inscriptions.

A number of reasons account for the inscriptions on ossuariesâ€”to express pride in the social standing of the family or the deceased, to console the bereaved or to allow later burial parties to identify the ossuary of the deceased when placing others in the burial cave. But why include the name of a brother? Only one other ossuary in the catalog lists a brother. Another ossuary inscription mentions the son of the deceased. As Fuchs sensibly observes, â€œThere is little doubt that this was done only when there was a very meaningful reason to refer to a family member of the deceased, usually due to his importance and fame.â€�

Fuchsâ€™s computations also depend on the frequency of the three names in the inscriptions in Rahmaniâ€™s catalog. Among the 241 male names on the ossuaries in the catalog are 88 different names. â€œJamesâ€� (Yaakov- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -in Hebrew) appears 5 times or 2.15 percent of the time; â€œJosephâ€� (and variations) appears 19 times or 7.9 percent of the time; and â€œJesusâ€� (Yeshua- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -in Hebrew) appears 10 times or 4.1 percent of the time. Based on the frequency of these names among the 241 male names on the ossuaries in the catalog, the statistical probability of the three names appearing together is 0.006787 percent.

Fuchs concludes that the estimate for the relevant population includes 7,530 men, and the likelihood of someone named James with a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus in this population is 0.0227 percent. That is, the estimate of the number of individuals in that population who bear the three names with this relation is 1.71. Expressed another way, there is a 38 percent chance that only one individual had this combination, a 32 percent chance that two individuals had this combination, an 18 percent chance that three individuals had it and an 8 percent chance that four individuals had it. And Fuchs can state this with 95 percent confidence.

Thatâ€™s about as simple an answer as statistics can give us


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> You don't think the writers of a book for a new religion had an agenda?



I know they had an agenda.  What do you believe it was?


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> I know they had an agenda.  What do you believe it was?



Control.


----------



## Melvin4730

How is the Agenda to control?

The religion is based on Free Will.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Control.



And they succeeded in controlling you ........How?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> And they succeeded in controlling you ........How?



Let me introduce you to the bell curve, my friend.


----------



## Madman

The bell curve?

The same people that argue against God argue for evolution, yet 90+ % of the worlds population hold some spiritual belief.

It would appear that the evolutionary mechanism sees great benefit in a spiritual belief system.

I see your bell curve and raise you one.


----------



## 660griz

Melvin4730 said:


> How is the Agenda to control?
> 
> The religion is based on Free Will.



No, the religion is based on be good or go to he!!.
Control. Oh, and give money.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> And they succeeded in controlling you ........How?



They did not.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> They did not.



Drats!!     Foiled again.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> No, the religion is based on be good or go to he!!.
> Control. Oh, and give money.



I think that's pretty clearly undercut here:
"there is none good but God".
Doesn't that kinda present a conundrum about the "being good" part?
I mean, I think I understand your point of view as having been popularized to some extent, maybe it has an appeal to folks who can't live, or believe they can't, without some notion of their own goodness.
I can't tell you I'm completely free of it, as though I would then be the "better person". But I can tell you, I am disabused of it daily.
Never really thought a person could live there.
Now, it's about the only place I believe a person can live.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> The bell curve?
> 
> The same people that argue against God argue for evolution, yet 90+ % of the worlds population hold some spiritual belief.
> 
> It would appear that the evolutionary mechanism sees great benefit in a spiritual belief system.
> 
> I see your bell curve and raise you one.



All I was saying was the the bell curve is usually pretty accurate in predicting acceptance of almost any doctrine. 

Some will flatly reject it, some will accept it no matter what the doctrine actually says, but most will fall somewhere into moderate belief or moderate skepticism.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> I think that's pretty clearly undercut here:
> "there is none good but God".
> Doesn't that kinda present a conundrum about the "being good" part?



God created Man in his own image. (And man returned the favor.)


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> God created Man in his own image. (And man returned the favor.)


I have heard that, and can't deny there's a truth to it.
(Especially that first part that is sans parentheses)


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> I have heard that, and can't deny there's a truth to it.
> (Especially that first part that is sans parentheses)



Given that most faithful feel the same way about their God, and I'm talking historically about all gods, what makes the Christian one so different so as to think that they got it right this time? 

I'm only asking because you acknowledge both statements, but weigh the first more heavily than the second. I would suggest that they are 100% equal.


----------



## Israel

I would suggest they are simultaneously true. Yep..."man" made in God's image...can never see farther, understand any deeper than he is allowed. Till he discovers this, that it is always and only a matter of allowance...his God does resemble a pig headed, self absorbed, paranoid, backstabbing narcissist.
Pretty much the image he's made himself famous for.
Self made men are a breed, alright.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> I would suggest they are simultaneously true. Yep..."man" made in God's image...can never see farther, understand any deeper than he is allowed. Till he discovers this, that it is always and only a matter of allowance...his God does resemble a pig headed, self absorbed, paranoid, backstabbing narcissist.
> Pretty much the image he's made himself famous for.
> Self made men are a breed, alright.



But that's not the God you know, though.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I would suggest they are simultaneously true. Yep..."man" made in God's image...can never see farther, understand any deeper than he is allowed. Till he discovers this, that it is always and only a matter of allowance...his God does resemble a pig headed, self absorbed, paranoid, backstabbing narcissist.
> Pretty much the image he's made himself famous for.
> Self made men are a breed, alright.




Does the god of the Bible kill children?


On word answer please.


----------



## Israel

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But that's not the God you know, though.


The God I have seen has mercy, perhaps especially, upon men...like me.
Like that.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Does the god of the Bible kill children?
> 
> 
> On word answer please.


Had I not already made as plain as possible for me that terms as "christian god" are meaningless, and as such, so many of the other things I hear bandied about, not limited to this forum..."biblical christian", etc. I would no doubt, feel compelled to answer.

Now an aside. After being arrested one time and finding myself in jail for no other infraction than standing on a sidewalk without "proper ID" (of course, that was not the charge...) I remember the CO who thought he'd probably find a little fun in dealing with the seemingly vagrant  "gospel preacher".
The "authorities" who felt it was their single duty to extract a confession of a "legitimate" name from that man, went to whatever lengths they could to procure it.
This was also probably part of what this CO figured he might be able to help in. He looked squarely at that man and said..."If you don't tell us who you are, do you know what number we are going to assign you? It's gonna be 666!"
I remember him, and also the shrink they assigned to me to sort out whether I really was a "crazy". (He too was funny, but quite forthcoming, when he related the singular "markers" they often use to discern such things. A hint: It may be why some...even called pastors, feel compelled to get manicures)
Also the other CO who said he hoped they would find out I was linked to Sadam Husssein in some spy capacity (this was at the time of operation Desert Storm in 91) because he said as he poked my chest, "I can't wait to f- you up"

There's much more to it, of course, but your question reminds me quite of them.

for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- _as there are gods many and lords many --_
- Youngs Literal Bible


----------



## gordon 2

ambush80 said:


> Does the god of the Bible kill children?
> 
> 
> On word answer please.



I like this question. What have been the usual one word answers? Yes and No? Others?

Did you ever get CD for an answer from a non sheeples brain? Just in case:

CD.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Does the god of the Bible kill children?
> 
> 
> On word answer please.


The God of the Bible? Yes, as is clearly stated in the Bible.

To be clear, my one word answer is "yes".


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Had I not already made as plain as possible for me that terms as "christian god" are meaningless, and as such, so many of the other things I hear bandied about, not limited to this forum..."biblical christian", etc. I would no doubt, feel compelled to answer.
> 
> Now an aside. After being arrested one time and finding myself in jail for no other infraction than standing on a sidewalk without "proper ID" (of course, that was not the charge...) I remember the CO who thought he'd probably find a little fun in dealing with the seemingly vagrant  "gospel preacher".
> The "authorities" who felt it was their single duty to extract a confession of a "legitimate" name from that man, went to whatever lengths they could to procure it.
> This was also probably part of what this CO figured he might be able to help in. He looked squarely at that man and said..."If you don't tell us who you are, do you know what number we are going to assign you? It's gonna be 666!"
> I remember him, and also the shrink they assigned to me to sort out whether I really was a "crazy". (He too was funny, but quite forthcoming, when he related the singular "markers" they often use to discern such things)
> Also the other CO who said he hoped they would find out I was linked to Sadam Husssein in some spy capacity (this was at the time of operation Desert Storm in 91) because he said as he poked my chest, "I can't wait to f- you up"
> 
> There's much more to it, of course, but your question reminds me quite of them.
> 
> for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- _as there are gods many and lords many --_
> - Youngs Literal Bible



That's all I wanted to know.



gordon 2 said:


> I like this question. What have been the usual one word answers? Yes and No? Others?
> 
> Did you ever get CD for an answer from a non sheeples brain? Just in case:
> 
> CD.



I did not.



gemcgrew said:


> The God of the Bible? Yes, as is clearly stated in the Bible.
> 
> To be clear, my one word answer is "yes".



I like you.  I think I'm one of the elect.  I'm just not done being a vessel of wrath yet.  I'll come around; as it has been written.


----------



## Israel

Make no mistake, it is neither believing "in" election, nor that one is of the elect, that saves the soul. That is accomplished by the Lord, himself.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Make no mistake, it is neither believing "in" election, nor that one is of the elect, that saves the soul. That is accomplished by the Lord, himself.



I understand.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I understand.



and that's wonderful!


----------

