# Interesting developments pertaining to the Higgs Boson



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-unveil-milestone-higgs-boson-hunt-044513533.html

GENEVA (Reuters) - Scientists at Europe's CERN research center have found a new subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe, which appears to be the boson imagined and named half a century ago by theoretical physicist Peter Higgs.

"We have reached a milestone in our understanding of nature," CERN director general Rolf Heuer told a gathering of scientists and the world's media near Geneva on Wednesday.

"The discovery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson opens the way to more detailed studies, requiring larger statistics, which will pin down the new particle's properties, and is likely to shed light on other mysteries of our universe."

Two independent studies of data produced by smashing proton particles together at CERN's Large Hadron Collider produced a convergent near-certainty on the existence of the new particle. It is unclear whether it is exactly the boson Higgs described.

But addressing scientists assembled in the CERN auditorium, Heuer posed them a question: "As a layman, I would say I think we have it. Would you agree?" A roar of applause said they did.

Higgs, now 83, from Edinburgh University was among six theorists who proposed the existence of a mechanism by which matter in the universe gained mass. Higgs himself argued that if there were an invisible field responsible for the process, it must be made up of particles. The particle is the emissary of the field and proves its existence.

He and others were at CERN to welcome news of what, to the embarrassment of many scientists, some commentators have labeled the "God particle" for its role in turning the Big Bang into a living universe: Clearly overwhelmed, his eyes welling up, Higgs told the symposium of fellow researchers: "It is an incredible thing that it has happened in my lifetime."

He later told Reuters of his admiration for the work of the thousands of scientists and engineers who worked on the practical experimental and statistical work which had, finally, confirmed what he and others had described with mathematics.

"I had no expectation that I would still be alive when it happened," he said of the speed with which they found evidence.

"It is very satisfying," he said. "For me personally it's just the confirmation of something I did 48 years ago."

He predicted further investigation by the CERN teams would probably confirm the particle is at least related to his idea: "It would be very odd if it were not any kind of Higgs boson."

"For physics, in one way, it is the end of an era in that it completes the Standard Model," he said of the basic theory physicists currently use to describe what they understand so far of a cosmos built from 12 fundamental particles and four forces.

The two separate teams at CERN worked independently through data, hunting for tiny divergences that might betray the existence of the new boson, a class of particle named for Albert Einstein's Indian collaborator Satyendra Nath Bose.

"It's a boson!" headlined Britain's Science and Technology Facilities Council in a statement on its researchers' role in the delivery of the "dramatic 5 sigma signal" for the existence of the long-sought particle.

Five sigma, a measure of probability reflecting a less than one in a million chance of a fluke in the data, is a widely accepted standard for scientists to accept the particle exists.

"The fact that both our teams have independently come to the same results is very powerful," Oliver Buchmueller, a senior physicist on one of the research teams, told Reuters.

"We know it is a new boson. But we still have to prove definitively that it is the one that Higgs predicted."

Bosons are one of two fundamental classes of subatomic particle. Other bosons include photons, associated with light.

UNIVERSAL THEORY

The Higgs theory explains how particles clumped together to form stars, planets and life itself.

Without the Higgs particle, the universe would have remained a formless soup of particles shooting around at the speed of light, the theory goes.

It is the last undiscovered piece of the Standard Model that describes the fundamental make-up of the universe. The model is for physicists what the theory of evolution is for biologists.

What scientists do not yet know from the latest findings is whether the particle they have discovered is the Higgs boson as described by the Standard Model. It could also be a variant of the Higgs idea or an entirely new subatomic particle that could force a rethink on the fundamental structure of matter.

The last two possibilities are, in scientific terms, the most exciting.

Packed audiences of particle physicists, journalists, students and even politicians filled conference rooms in Geneva, London and a major physics conference in Melbourne, Australia, to hear the announcement.

EXPLORATION AHEAD

Despite the excitement, physicists cautioned that there was still much to learn: "We have closed one chapter and opened another," said Peter Knight of Britain's Institute of Physics.

Buchmueller at CERN said: "If I were a betting man, I would bet that it is the Higgs. But we can't yet say that definitely yet. It is very much a smoking duck that walks and quacks like the Higgs. But we now have to open it up and look inside before we can say that it is indeed the Higgs."

CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci said: "It's hard not to get excited by these results.

"We stated last year that in 2012 we would either find a new Higgs-like particle or exclude the existence of the Standard Model Higgs. With all the necessary caution, it looks to me that we are at a branching point: the observation of this new particle indicates the path for the future."

Joe Incandela, a spokesman for one of the CERN research teams, said the new boson his team observed had a mass of 123.3 gigaelectron volts (GeV).

Reflecting on the scale of the endeavor to find it, he added: "It's been an incredible project over two decades. It has involved around 3,300 scientists to get to this result ... These results are now global and shared by the whole of mankind."

Higgs called it a great achievement for the Large Hadron Collider, the 27-km (17-mile) long particle accelerator built in a tunnel underneath the French-Swiss border where experiments to search for the Higgs boson have taken place.

Of his own scientific career, he conceded he had always been cut out for mathematical theorizing rather than experimental labors in the laboratory: "I certainly did some lab work as a schoolboy in Bristol," he told Reuters. "I was incompetent."


----------



## vowell462 (Jul 4, 2012)

I saw this on the news this morning. Very interesting.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 4, 2012)

Yeah, it has been in the news for years but I have never seen more articles about it than have been posted in the last week. It seems like they have really narrowed their findings down and are continuing to do so.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> ?????? Are you sure your in the right thread?



Your right...I'm not sure I'm in the right tread. Done.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm missing something here.  I am very glad there has been a scientific advancement towards the understanding of how the universe was created.....but, this concept relies on the existence of particles pre-mass in order to create mass.

We are still left guessing as to how the particles got there.....or, even more, why the particles were shooting around at the speed of light in order to create the higgs bosom.

Not trying to stir the pot here, I just don't see how this is any different than anything else that has been speculated relevant to origins.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 5, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'm missing something here.  I am very glad there has been a scientific advancement towards the understanding of how the universe was created.....but, this concept relies on the existence of particles pre-mass in order to create mass.
> 
> *We are still left guessing as to how the particles got there.....or, even more, why the particles were shooting around at the speed of light in order to create the higgs bosom.*
> 
> Not trying to stir the pot here, I just don't see how this is any different than anything else that has been speculated relevant to origins.


I actually thought the same thing. I read the OP and then thought, ummm..... ok. Pretty cool, doesn't really mean that much except in the scientific community.


----------



## Four (Jul 5, 2012)

My brain hurts reading all the tweetks / facebook statuses of people that think just because they nicknamed it 'the god particle' that it somehow proves the existence of God...

"Looks like science just proved atheism wrong, take that! The god particle exists!"

This really has nothing to do with religion at all, it's just a big scientific discovery of a particle that was hypothesized to exist, that we now know to exist, it validates (or helps validate) the standard theory of physics..


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'm missing something here.  I am very glad there has been a scientific advancement towards the understanding of how the universe was created.....but, this concept relies on the existence of particles pre-mass in order to create mass.
> 
> We are still left guessing as to how the particles got there.....or, even more, why the particles were shooting around at the speed of light in order to create the higgs bosom.
> 
> Not trying to stir the pot here, I just don't see how this is any different than anything else that has been speculated relevant to origins.



1. A lot of people are hung up on the notion that there was nothing before our Universe was created in a Big Bang. There is a very good possibility that these particles are ever existing and ever replicating and once in a few Billion upon Billion tries (10 to the Billionth power Or whatever number creationists say it is) the conditions are right for creation as we know it.
2. It was a theory that over in over 40 years has been tested and tried until it was found to be possible.
3.If true,It rules out how some religions say it all happened.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I actually thought the same thing. I read the OP and then thought, ummm..... ok. Pretty cool, doesn't really mean that much except in the scientific community.



I am not a scientist and I think it means a lot.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1. A lot of people are hung up on the notion that there was nothing before our Universe was created in a Big Bang. There is a very good possibility that these particles are ever existing and ever replicating and once in a few Billion upon Billion tries (10 to the Billionth power Or whatever number creationists say it is) the conditions are right for creation as we know it.



I know there is only one scientist who hangs around this board, but does this imply that matter got it's mass through one of these collisions, or trillions of these collisions creating each particle one at a time?  FRom what I used to think about this theory is that one "god particle" was thought to be responsible for it all....not the eventual creation of all particles one at a time. 




bullethead said:


> 2. It was a theory that over in over 40 years has been tested and tried until it was found to be possible.



If one particle created the universe, wouldn't creating one of these particles be a tricky proposition?



bullethead said:


> 3.If true,It rules out how some religions say it all happened.



Bullet, you know religious folks way better than that.  Here ya' go.....

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth (by smashing sub atomic particles into each other to create mass).  

Religious problem solved.  We will have simply discovered the mechanism used.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I know there is only one scientist who hangs around this board, but does this imply that matter got it's mass through one of these collisions, or trillions of these collisions creating each particle one at a time?  FRom what I used to think about this theory is that one "god particle" was thought to be responsible for it all....not the eventual creation of all particles one at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems like trillions possibly many many more of these collisions happened until the "right" combination was formed. I do not think it had to happen over and over again to create everything.
You might want to read more about the subject, it is interesting.

If that is the religious folks reply then they did not do their homework on how this could be responsible for life. IF God made it happen to create mass and in turn life then the Bible has got it all wrong.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If that is the religious folks reply then they did not do their homework on how this could be responsible for life. IF God made it happen to create mass and in turn life then the *Bible has got it all wrong.*



How so? I missed the part where the bible explained how the earth was formed, other than, "God said...."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How so? I missed the part where the bible explained how the earth was formed, other than, "God said...."



String, research it.

Short answer, your skipping the whole creation of man thing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How so? I missed the part where the bible explained how the earth was formed, other than, "God said...."



Who was around to hear "god" say anything?????


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String, research it.
> 
> Short answer, your skipping the whole creation of man thing.



We're not talking about the creation of man are we? I thought were talking about the creation of the universe and earth.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Who was around to hear "god" say anything?????


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If that is the religious folks reply then they did not do their homework on how this could be responsible for life.



I thought this was all relevant to matter.  Didn't read anything relevant to life.  The best "creation of life" explanation I have seen is the abiogenesis video Atlashunter posted on here several months ago.  It was dependent on acids already in existence, which would be a long way past this initial process we were discussing here.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> We're not talking about the creation of man are we? I thought were talking about the creation of the universe and earth.



Yes, in fact we are talking about it all. It is all connected.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I thought this was all relevant to matter.  Didn't read anything relevant to life.  The best "creation of life" explanation I have seen is the abiogenesis video Atlashunter posted on here several months ago.  It was dependent on acids already in existence, which would be a long way past this initial process we were discussing here.



Right. But it all came from the initial event and the train kept a 'rollin.

I"m telling you guys, don't read the first post and think that is all there is to know about the Higgs Boson or Bosons. Do yourself a favor and read or look for videos about the subject(s) and it is fascinating.

I'm off to the mountains for the weekend. Take care, fight nice, be safe, Happy 4th weekend, God Bless, rub your rabbits foot and enjoy.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Right. But it all came from the initial event and the train kept a 'rollin..



At which point the Higgs Bosom becomes your "God of the gaps."



bullethead said:


> I"m telling you guys, don't read the first post and think that is all there is to know about the Higgs Boson or Bosons. Do yourself a favor and read or look for videos about the subject(s) and it is fascinating.



I will be sure to read more.



bullethead said:


> I'm off to the mountains for the weekend. Take care, fight nice, be safe, Happy 4th weekend, God Bless, rub your rabbits foot and enjoy.


----------



## DCHunter (Jul 6, 2012)

You guys need to do some in depth reading on this stuff. I don't claim to understand it all, but some of ya'll don't even know enough to ask the right questions. Just sayin


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 6, 2012)

DCHunter said:


> You guys need to do some in depth reading on this stuff. I don't claim to understand it all, but some of ya'll don't even know enough to ask the right questions. Just sayin



Which side is "y'all?"


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am not a scientist and I think it means a lot.



You can think what you want, stringmusic already said it only matters to the scientific community.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> IF God made it happen to create mass and in turn life then the Bible has got it all wrong.



Is this the theory you have "faith" in?


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 7, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> You can think what you want, stringmusic already said it only matters to the scientific community.



100% incorrect


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Jul 8, 2012)

Who told Man the story of creation and at what time did God edit  the story. or approved it.


----------



## fish hawk (Jul 8, 2012)

laskerknight said:


> Who told Man the story of creation and at what time did God edit  the story. or approved it.



Wrong forum.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 9, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> You can think what you want, stringmusic already said it only matters to the scientific community.



Name ONE way this information will change your everyday life.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2012)

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-science-higgs-idUSBRE86008K20120704

The Higgs theory explains how particles clumped together to form stars, planets and life itself. Without the Higgs boson, the universe would have remained a formless soup of particles shooting around at the speed of light, the theory goes.

It is the last undiscovered piece of the Standard Model that describes the fundamental make-up of the universe. The model is for physicists what the theory of evolution is for biologists.

What scientists do not yet know from the latest findings is whether the particle they have discovered is the Higgs boson as exactly described by the Standard Model. It could be a variant of the Higgs idea or an entirely new subatomic particle that could force a rethink on the fundamental structure of matter.

The last two possibilities are, in scientific terms, even more exciting.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> Is this the theory you have "faith" in?



Nope. It is just one more thing I learned about that makes  sense to me.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Nope. It is just one more thing I learned about that makes  sense to me.



What exactly does it make sense of for you?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 9, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> Is this the theory you have "faith" in?



Good to see ya' back Thanatos!


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What exactly does it make sense of for you?



The universe without the need for a made up mystical being.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 9, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> The universe without the need for a made up mystical being.



How exactly does the information do that?


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 9, 2012)

By giving us a more sound logical theory that makes sense.  A theory that can be tested and verified by others.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What exactly does it make sense of for you?



We are ever inching closer to discover the true secrets of the universe and creation instead of taking the word of ancient humans and what they THOUGHT it might be because they had no other explanation.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> We are ever inching closer to discover the true secrets of the universe and creation instead of taking the word of ancient humans and what they THOUGHT it might be because they had no other explanation.



"We are inching closer to discover the true secrets of the universe and creation" and the actual truth could still be light years away, which in my opinion, it is.

Metaphorically speaking, we could have just taken one step from the east coast in a quest to walking across the country.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> "We are inching closer to discover the true secrets of the universe and creation" and the actual truth could still be light years away, which in my opinion, it is.
> 
> Metaphorically speaking, we could have just taken one step from the east coast in a quest to walking across the country.



Progress requires patience. 

I am sure the scientists will take your opinion and metaphor into serious consideration


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Progress requires patience.
> 
> I am sure the scientists will take your opinion and metaphor into serious consideration



I'm sure they won't, as I didn't offer anything for scientists to take into consideration.

I have something complete to hold firm to, you don't, if you like it that way, then so be it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm sure they won't, as I didn't offer anything for scientists to take into consideration.
> 
> I have something complete to hold firm to, you don't, if you like it that way, then so be it.



String, please stop the nonsense. You'll stare scientific advances right in the face and disregard the fact that they were once thought as impossible theories, then turned into proven fact yet then in the next breath try to pass off that you have something complete to hold firm to.

WHAT do you have exactly? Something that has never shown itself since the beginning of time? Do you have the promises of some 2000 year old guy that claims(get in line) to be the son of a non existent no-show god? Seriously, claim after claim after claim with Z E R O evidence of anything to back up what you say except the hopes that if you say it long enough and loud enough that everyone will buy it. Well not on here. Time to put up or.... zip up NOT continue to make unproven and unprovable claims of mythical made up beings.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String, please stop the nonsense. You'll stare scientific advances right in the face and disregard the fact that they were once thought as impossible theories, then turned into proven fact yet then in the next breath try to pass off that you have something complete to hold firm to.
> 
> WHAT do you have exactly? Something that has never shown itself since the beginning of time? Do you have the promises of some 2000 year old guy that claims(get in line) to be the son of a non existent no-show god? Seriously, claim after claim after claim with Z E R O evidence of anything to back up what you say except the hopes that if you say it long enough and loud enough that everyone will buy it. Well not on here. Time to put up or.... zip up NOT continue to make unproven and unprovable claims of mythical made up beings.



Let us go deeper down the rabbit hole...We know through the SM that we HAD to have this particle in order for the Big Bang Theory to be true. What this particle does NOT prove is that it COULD create the Big Bang, NOR prove it WOULD have created the Big Bang. This discovery (which I am elated to see) is one piece of a puzzle set that has a hundred million puzzle pieces to put together.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Good to see ya' back Thanatos!



Good to be back among the all knowing...


----------



## Asath (Jul 9, 2012)

I’m not a physicist, but my rudimentary understanding of how the Higgs was first theorized was directly connected to the sheer speed of nearly weightless particles of pure energy flung out with unimaginable force under unimaginable temperatures.  SOMETHING had to slow them down, or matter could never have formed at all.

As a rather ham-handed analogy, imagine firing a pebble out of a cannon over a ski slope.  When it arrives wherever it lands it will still be a pebble.  If you want to make it into a snowball, you have to ROLL it down the slope, so that something has a chance to stick to it.  Given the well tested and repeatedly duplicated observations that led to this idea, it was proposed that the SOMETHING that slowed things down sufficiently for something else to stick to them, and thus begin accreting into something approaching genuine mass could well have been a field of even smaller and faster particles, in the range of 120 to 125 GeV, that would have been slightly lighter than the rest, flew out ahead of them as a result, and acted as a precursor to gravity on a subatomic scale – creating just enough ‘drag’ to cause the heavier energy particles, in many but by no means all cases, to become ‘snowballs.’  Building blocks.  

Lacking any hard, verified evidence of this particular bit of the grand jigsaw puzzle, all the rest of the Standard Model, no matter how many times it was tested, verified to be true in practice and observation, and plugged into zillions of practical applications as the foundations of every technology that exists still made no sense.  

But, unlike religions, scientists don’t rest, and don’t answer hard questions with answers like, “Because Pappy and the Reverend Smith said so, and that’s good enough for me and mine, darn it!”  So rather than abandon a few hundred years of progress, shrug their shoulders, and say, “Y’know, them durned Baptists were right all along,” they went ahead and kept on working on the real problem at hand.  

Looks like they just got a very large step closer to solving it.  The implications are gigantic, and not just for theoretical and thus ‘useless’ arguments.  If this is verified, repeatedly, it is akin to all of mankind moving from the age of steam power into the age of nuclear power.  This discovery is not a step but a leap.  

But it would do, despite a persistent lack and stubborn resistance to education to keep one thing in mind – We didn’t bother apologizing to the various religions when we proved the earth wasn’t the center of the universe, despite your howls and violence – we didn’t apologize when we invented vaccines and began curing and treating diseases scientifically, despite your howls and violence – we didn’t apologize when we wrote theocracy out of the Constitution, despite your howls and violence – so if anyone wishes to sit with a religious book gripped firmly to themselves, furiously leafing though it looking for arguments against actual, genuine, verified and tested TRUTH, then please don’t be annoyed when we ignore you yet again.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> Let us go deeper down the rabbit hole...We know through the SM that we HAD to have this particle in order for the Big Bang Theory to be true. What this particle does NOT prove is that it COULD create the Big Bang, NOR prove it WOULD have created the Big Bang. This discovery (which I am elated to see) is one piece of a puzzle set that has a hundred million puzzle pieces to put together.



The pieces are there and I don't think gods are into jigsaw puzzles.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The pieces are there and I don't think gods are into jigsaw puzzles.



Your living in His.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> I’m not a physicist, but my rudimentary understanding of how the Higgs was first theorized was directly connected to the sheer speed of nearly weightless particles of pure energy flung out with unimaginable force under unimaginable temperatures.  SOMETHING had to slow them down, or matter could never have formed at all.
> 
> As a rather ham-handed analogy, imagine firing a pebble out of a cannon over a ski slope.  When it arrives wherever it lands it will still be a pebble.  If you want to make it into a snowball, you have to ROLL it down the slope, so that something has a chance to stick to it.  Given the well tested and repeatedly duplicated observations that led to this idea, it was proposed that the SOMETHING that slowed things down sufficiently for something else to stick to them, and thus begin accreting into something approaching genuine mass could well have been a field of even smaller and faster particles, in the range of 120 to 125 GeV, that would have been slightly lighter than the rest, flew out ahead of them as a result, and acted as a precursor to gravity on a subatomic scale – creating just enough ‘drag’ to cause the heavier energy particles, in many but by no means all cases, to become ‘snowballs.’  Building blocks.
> 
> ...



One leap and a million more to go would you not agree?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String, please stop the nonsense. You'll stare scientific advances right in the face and disregard the fact that they were once thought as impossible theories, then turned into proven fact


Please quote me where I disregarded any facts presented in this thread.


> yet then in the next breath try to pass off that you have something complete to hold firm to.


I do have something complete to hold on too, the gospel.



> WHAT do you have exactly? Something that has never shown itself since the beginning of time? Do you have the promises of some 2000 year old guy that claims(get in line) to be the son of a non existent no-show god? Seriously, claim after claim after claim with Z E R O evidence of anything to back up what you say


Just because you don't accept the evidence or don't like the evidence doesn't mean there is zero evidence.



> except the hopes that if you say it long enough and loud enough that everyone will buy it. Well not on here. Time to put up or.... zip up NOT continue to make unproven and unprovable claims of mythical made up beings.


I know for a 100% fact that everyone will not buy it. And again, there is plenty of evidence for a Creator and plenty of evidence for that Creator to be the God of the Bible, you just don't accept that evidence.

On the other hand, you will accept any possible scenario that any scientist will possibly throw at you with 100% certainty that it is true.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> Your living in His.



Which His?
There are thousands to choose from that all make the same claims. Each one is just as unprovable as the next. 

Your living in Mithra's.
I can play the "say whatever I want because no one can disprove things that don't exist" game too.

You guys have every opportunity to use every available resource to back up what you say over and over is the truth. Not in once instance ever has any of you been able to step up with anything solid. 

"Your living in His"
okay.....the floor is yours, wow us with your solid evidence that backs up your statement.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Please quote me where I disregarded any facts presented in this thread.
> 
> I do have something complete to hold on too, the gospel.
> 
> ...



I look at each with the same amount of curiosity and the want to learn as much as I can.
There is just mounds of evidence that is stacked up on the side of science and more gained every day. Your religion is in a 2000+ year old rut that instead of having breakthrough discoveries to reinforce it's claims, it has been slowly crumbling apart as far as the validity is concerned.

When looked at objectively with an open mind, I have found the "evidence" for religion to be nothing concrete. real people and places mixed up with hocus-pocus stories written by man.
The library and Hollywood is full of that and while entertaining, I can keep myself from falling for it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2012)

String, all your evidence narrows down to one consistent, repeatable fact. The fact is that in every instance of religion the buck stops with the writings or stories of man. It ENDS there. Period. There is no going further into it. They all have the same holy books of evidence, but if that was really any evidence at all there wouldn't be so many religions. All it is is large groups of people duped by the writings of other people. There is no actual evidence of anything inside or outside of those writings.
There is nothing outside of those writings and teachings that back up those writings. That is why it is easy for me to dismiss them. That is why it is easy for you to dismiss every other  religions"evidence" except your own. 
I am not faulting you for believing as you do, just don't try to pass anything inside of your religion as evidence. Being able to back up the things your religion claims OUTSIDE of the religion is somewhere to start. That is what has lead me to my current stance.

If you want to read Avatar, Star Wars, Comic Books, Dungeons and Dragons and all those other similar works and only use the words within them as proof that what is said really happened, you are not really proving anything and it is not really evidence.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Which His?
> There are thousands to choose from that all make the same claims. Each one is just as unprovable as the next.
> 
> Your living in Mithra's.
> ...



Your living in it. The evidence is everywhere. 

If you will...take the time and read The Gospel. Before you start with the book of Matthew ask yourself to remove all preconceived notions and prejudices you might have toward religion and Christianity. Tell yourself to be as open minded as possible. Then say to yourself, "If there is a God and He is the God of this Bible speak to me through what I am about to read" 
Ask him to show you if he is real or not. If you do this I would love to hear your honest reaction to the experience when your done reading those books that make up the Gospel.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> Your living in it. The evidence is everywhere.
> 
> If you will...take the time and read The Gospel. Before you start with the book of Matthew ask yourself to remove all preconceived notions and prejudices you might have toward religion and Christianity. Tell yourself to be as open minded as possible. Then say to yourself, "If there is a God and He is the God of this Bible speak to me through what I am about to read"
> Ask him to show you if he is real or not. If you do this I would love to hear your honest reaction to the experience when your done reading those books that make up the Gospel.



The evidence of Mithra is everywhere....
see how easy it works when you have no proof?

Specifically show me evidence.

I have researched the gospels enough to know that they are hand picked writings by anonymous writers to tell the tales Christianity wanted told. Everything else written during those times that spoke and went directly against the Gospels were destroyed. Any Idea Why?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> Your living in it. The evidence is everywhere.
> 
> If you will...take the time and read The Gospel. Before you start with the book of Matthew ask yourself to remove all preconceived notions and prejudices you might have toward religion and Christianity. Tell yourself to be as open minded as possible. Then say to yourself, "If there is a God and He is the God of this Bible speak to me through what I am about to read"
> Ask him to show you if he is real or not. If you do this I would love to hear your honest reaction to the experience when your done reading those books that make up the Gospel.



For 20+ years I only had preconceived notions that everything in the Bible was true and religion, specifically Christianity, was the one true religion. As I researched the religion itself, initially to enhance my understanding of it's beginnings, I found much more than I bargained for.

More about your Gospels......


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> For 20+ years I only had preconceived notions that everything in the Bible was true and religion, specifically Christianity, was the one true religion. As I researched the religion itself, initially to enhance my understanding of it's beginnings, I found much more than I bargained for.
> 
> More about your Gospels......



I will listen to this tomorrow morning. Should be interesting.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The evidence of Mithra is everywhere....
> see how easy it works when you have no proof?
> 
> Specifically show me evidence.
> ...



One point tonight and I would like to share some more info with you in the coming days. 

Mr/Mrs Mithra was a deity around the 6th century BC. At that time it was a large religion. It died out about a century later after an Islamic invading force took over the Iranian territory where the religion Mithra was associated with was practiced. It died out. Why? 

2000 years ago Christ was despised and hated by Jews and Romans alike and after his death there was a GRASS ROOTS explosion of people with faith...Jews, Romans, Easterners...everybody, and this was not a royal or political explosion in the faith in the beginning either. With the help from politics and power hungry dictators( i.e. more of God's puzzle pieces fitting together right?) the past 2000 years Christianity is one of the biggest religions in the world.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> One point tonight and I would like to share some more info with you in the coming days.
> 
> Mr/Mrs Mithra was a deity around the 6th century BC. At that time it was a large religion. It died out about a century later after an Islamic invading force took over the Iranian territory where the religion Mithra was associated with was practiced. It died out. Why?
> 
> 2000 years ago Christ was despised and hated by Jews and Romans alike and after his death there was a GRASS ROOTS explosion of people with faith...Jews, Romans, Easterners...everybody, and this was not a royal or political explosion in the faith in the beginning either. With the help from politics and power hungry dictators( i.e. more of God's puzzle pieces fitting together right?) the past 2000 years Christianity is one of the biggest religions in the world.



Thanatos, I am well read on the different religions. I know the different history and stories about many of them.
By using Mithra, all I was doing was substituting one made up deity that no one has ever proved existed for another. I could swap in there any one of hundreds of gods that were once (and still) worshiped who's believers will say " look around" here is my evidence....yet in reality have no evidence to prove "their" god has done anything.

But if you want to know why the practice of worshiping Mithra died out it is because of the same reason Christianity excelled. The Islamic forces took over the regions and basically wiped out or converted the followers of Mithra absorbing the ones left into their own religion. Basically the same thing the Christian followers did to the people it encountered on it's rise to dominance.

Christianity, like many other religions that were small and persecuted at the time, hung on long enough until the right people got interested and then when it was adopted by the world's ruling power it became THE religion to be worshiped by law. Everything that spoke out against Christianity was banned. Those writings that told a different story(although written at the same times the "Gospels" were written) were destroyed by the leaders, which also WERE the Church. Christianity happened to be accepted at a time when the world was going through a major population explosion and expansion and at a time where it was easier for the word to be spread. Fact is, where no one ever heard about it, they STILL don't believe it and when you  had the "word" spread to you if you didn't convert you were tortured until you did believe or killed.
Somehow you think because it has been around for 2000 years( although highly unpopular for the early parts of those years) and it is now the major religion in the world that those numbers somehow give it credibility as to being "the truth". Simply put, there are more people on the earth now than 2000 years ago. If not Christianity, SOME religion would still be the major religion practiced worldwide due to the population explosion, advances in communication and advances in forms of travel. What credibility do you give the runners up in the 2nd and 3rd spots? I mean they have got lots of people believing the hype for lots of years....pieces of their God's puzzle coming together right???
If you have done your history work, you will see that throughout the history of mankind, religion, like governments and world powers make good runs at being the top dog. There are religions that are still in practice that are older than Christianity and have been practiced longer.......SO! It did not hang around any longer than many other religions it just got popular by the right people at the right time. Within itself there are so many variations of worship, beliefs, and changes that the ORIGINAL grass roots ways and followers would not add up to a jar of jelly beans worldwide.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2012)

STOP the PRESSES and BREAK OUT THE PINSTRIPES!!!!!
I just found out that the New York Yankees are the "Most Popular" baseball team worldwide. They lead in championships, hall of famers, ticket sales, merchandise, amount of fans in the USA and amount of fans worldwide!!! (Word has it they even follow them all the way over in Japan!!!!...WoW!!) The list could go on and on and on.
OBVIOUSLY there is something to this and EVIDENCE that everyone should immediately burn any other teams mementos and quickly convert to Pinstripes. Yankee hitters use bats and bats are made of wood and I doubt there are any of us on here that has not seen a tree........So....I mean look at the evidence! It it there to clearly see...


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 11, 2012)

But, but, bullet, those in power that forced, I mean helped, christianity spread had the best interests of the people in mind.  Just like all the people that hold power, they are about the people, and not about keeping, maintianing and growing their power and wealth.  They wanted to spread the word not fill their pockets and vaults.  Repressing art and education was about saving their souls, not keeping power.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> STOP the PRESSES and BREAK OUT THE PINSTRIPES!!!!!
> I just found out that the New York Yankees are the "Most Popular" baseball team worldwide. They lead in championships, hall of famers, ticket sales, merchandise, amount of fans in the USA and amount of fans worldwide!!! (Word has it they even follow them all the way over in Japan!!!!...WoW!!) The list could go on and on and on.
> OBVIOUSLY there is something to this and EVIDENCE that everyone should immediately burn any other teams mementos and quickly convert to Pinstripes. Yankee hitters use bats and bats are made of wood and I doubt there are any of us on here that has not seen a tree........So....I mean look at the evidence! It it there to clearly see...



I'm sorry Bullet, that is not a very good analogy.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> But, but, bullet, those in power that forced, I mean helped, christianity spread had the best interests of the people in mind.  Just like all the people that hold power, they are about the people, and not about keeping, maintianing and growing their power and wealth.  They wanted to spread the word not fill their pockets and vaults.  Repressing art and education was about saving their souls, not keeping power.



Can we get off the soapbox of Christianity being forced on people in certian areas of the world, please? A simple study of the new testament can prove the fact that what those people did was wrong and not in line with Christs' life or teaching.

How about this question, why do you and Bullet see the veracity of the faith to be in question because it was forced, in certian areas, at one point in time in history? Does that really have anything to do with whether it is true or not?


----------



## vowell462 (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Can we get off the soapbox of Christianity being forced on people in certian areas of the world, please? A simple study of the new testament can prove the fact that what those people did was wrong and not in line with Christs' life or teaching.
> 
> How about this question, why do you and Bullet see the veracity of the faith to be in question because it was forced, in certian areas, at one point in time in history? Does that really have anything to do with whether it is true or not?



Because if it werent for those points in time of being forced the religion wouldnt have spread as much as it has. Those " times" in history lasted a couple centuries in some cases.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

vowell462 said:


> Because if it werent for those points in time of being forced *the religion wouldnt have spread as much as it has*. Those " times" in history lasted a couple centuries in some cases.



Do you know that for sure though? What if they walked the walk of the new testament and followed Jesus' teachings like they were supposed to be followed, it might have spread even more. The fact that it was forced could be the reason Christianity is not larger than it is today.

Just look at the almost hatred at times feeling people have for Christians because of the Great Commission. Take Bishop for example, he has said many times that sharing the gospel is sickening to him, and I'm sure he is not the only one. Just imagine how many people around those times and after had that hatred in them because it was forced on them.


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you know that for sure though? What if they walked the walk of the new testament and followed Jesus' teachings like they were supposed to be followed, it might have spread even more. The fact that it was forced could be the reason Christianity is not larger than it is today.
> 
> Thats a big what if.  If it wasn't for the roman catholic church and its roll of forcebly spreading the word christianity would be a fraction of its size.
> 
> Just look at the almost hatred at times feeling people have for Christians because of the Great Commission. Take Bishop for example, he has said many times that sharing the gospel is sickening to him, and I'm sure he is not the only one. Just imagine how many people around those times and after had that hatred in them because it was forced on them.



Never said that even once but thanks for completely making up things I said.


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 11, 2012)

Also a simple study of the new testament reveal that it not inerrant or infallible.  Great video Bullet watched the entire thing.  But I doubt any of those who truly need to watch it will.  It highlights how mans grubby little hands are all over the inerrant word of god.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> ... mans grubby little hands are all over the inerrant word of god.



Obviously.  I don't need Bart Ehrman to tell me that.


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 11, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Obviously.  I don't need Bart Ehrman to tell me that.



You might not, but there alot of folks, and some on these boards that do.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Never said that even once but thanks for completely making up things I said.


In a previous thread.....


TheBishop said:


> One can only hope, for the sake of mankind, that this kind of mentality is at some point in our future, looked back and laughed upon.
> 
> The actions of the so called believers on this board fuel my conviction to help the defeat of religion, and make sure the like mentality is something to be viewed with contempt.


I could find more, but you know that you have a hatred for all things Christ, and so does everybody else who reads this board on a regular basis.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Thats a big what if. If it wasn't for the roman catholic church and its roll of forcebly spreading the word christianity would be a fraction of its size.



This too, is a big what if.


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> In a previous thread.....
> 
> I could find more, but you know that you have a hatred for all things Christ, and so does everybody else who reads this board on a regular basis.



Thank you for verifying what you said is inaccurate.  No where in that statement did I say sharing the gospel is sickening.   Nor do I have any hatred for anything christ.  So agian thanks for your fabrications.  I have a deep resentment for some of the folks that use the term christian to denote themselves on this board.  Based on their own actions and words.


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> This too, is a big what if.



Not as big as you would like to believe.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Thank you for verifying what you said is inaccurate.  No where in that statement did I say sharing the gospel is sickening.   Nor do I have any hatred for anything christ.  So agian thanks for your fabrications.  I have a deep resentment for some of the folks that use the term christian to denote themselves on this board.  Based on their own actions and words.



Ok Bishop, I'll end this here, I could go back through your posts and find plenty more times where you have said things like what I posted above, but you would dance around them like you're doing now. I didn't use the exact words you did but the sentiment is there.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Not as big as you would like to believe.


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok Bishop, I'll end this here, I could go back through your posts and find plenty more times where you have said things like what I posted above, but you would dance around them like you're doing now. I didn't use the exact words you did but the sentiment is there.



And I could go around making up completely untrue statements that you said but I don't.  So you should end it here.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm sorry Bullet, that is not a very good analogy.



I would say the same thing if I were in your shoes.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would say the same thing if I were in your shoes.



It's a bad analogy because the implication of not liking a baseball team and not believing in God are not the same.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It's a bad analogy because the implication of not liking a baseball team and not believing in God are not the same.



It's not a matter of liking a baseball team. It is about we should all follow the SAME baseball team, the One True Baseball team, because the numbers add up. Don't you see the evidence? It is right there, just because you choose not to see it............


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It's not a matter of liking a baseball team. It is about we should all follow the SAME baseball team, the One True Baseball team, because the numbers add up. Don't you see the evidence? It is right there, just because you choose not to see it............


Ok, I'll edit it for you then.....


stringmusic said:


> It's a bad analogy because the implication of not *following* a baseball team and not believing in God are not the same.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, I'll edit it for you then.....



Follow a team or follow a god, the numbers say we should because the majority of fans/believers do.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Follow a team or follow a god, the numbers say we should because the majority of fans/believers do.



I'm not making that argument. You kinda took what Thanatos posted and ran with it, and I don't believe he was making the argument that the veracity of Christianity hinges on the fact that it is followed by the most people.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not making that argument. You kinda took what Thanatos posted and ran with it, and I don't believe he was making the argument that the veracity of Christianity hinges on the fact that it is followed by the most people.



Right it does not hinge on that but that is the argument of many.

I was once where you guys are and I wanted to know more about the religion I dedicated myself to. If you trust your faith research how it all came to be.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> But, but, bullet, those in power that forced, I mean helped, christianity spread had the best interests of the people in mind.  Just like all the people that hold power, they are about the people, and not about keeping, maintianing and growing their power and wealth.  They wanted to spread the word not fill their pockets and vaults.  Repressing art and education was about saving their souls, not keeping power.



Fact: After it's initial grass roots explosion Christianity spread so fast because people of power (some were cruel, harsh, manipulative dictators) throughout the first 13 centuries CE made it their countries' religion. God used people who were not even his elect to spread The Gospel. I don't see why that is hard to comprehend. I guess it falls under the same problem of people not believing in the Judeo-Christian God because he let's his people suffer.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Right it does not hinge on that but that is the argument of many.
> 
> I was once where you guys are and I wanted to know more about the religion I dedicated myself to. If you trust your faith research how it all came to be.



It's cyclical. I was were you are now 7 years ago...


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> For 20+ years I only had preconceived notions that everything in the Bible was true and religion, specifically Christianity, was the one true religion. As I researched the religion itself, initially to enhance my understanding of it's beginnings, I found much more than I bargained for.
> 
> More about your Gospels......



I watched all of it. The Q and A was almost better than the lecture. I admire him for his professionalism and dedication to his work. I did like the exchanges with the audience at 1:03 and 1:06.

There was no faith shattering smoking gun here. 99% of this has been addressed in the past and he admits it as well...

What I am looking up right now is the difference in the days quoted that Jesus died in Mark and John. Very interesting....


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> Fact: After it's initial grass roots explosion Christianity spread so fast because people of power (some were cruel, harsh, manipulative dictators) throughout the first 13 centuries CE made it their countries' religion. God used people who were not even his elect to spread The Gospel. I don't see why that is hard to comprehend. I guess it falls under the same problem of people not believing in the Judeo-Christian God because he let's his people suffer.



There just simply is no proof of a god, let alone a god using non-elect people to spread anything. It is hard to comprehend because the very first and most important base of the argument has not ever been proven to exist anywhere but in a person's mind. Your God is no more real or unreal than any God before or after. Realistically in the world of make believe anything can be comprehended if you throw out facts and over look the lack of evidence that is not nor has ever been provided to back up the claims.
I could comprehend that Mighty Mouse is faster than Ricochet Rabbit IF I want to, but if we really want to have a serious discussion as if each were real we would first have to establish that each were actually real.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> It's cyclical. I was were you are now 7 years ago...



So as soon as 7 years ago you researched everything you could have about Christianity outside of the Bible, even before it became Christianity, and have come to the conclusion that not only is it true but there is evidence that a god is responsible for it all???

I would love for you to jot down your findings of both pro and con and why you ended up choosing pro.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So as soon as 7 years ago you researched everything you could have about Christianity outside of the Bible, even before it became Christianity, and have come to the conclusion that not only is it true but there is evidence that a god is responsible for it all???
> 
> I would love for you to jot down your findings of both pro and con and why you ended up choosing pro.



That's easy. 

Job 38:1 -Job 40:5

The Lord Speaks

38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
    with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone —
7 while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
    when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
    and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
    and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
    here is where your proud waves halt’?

12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
    or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
    and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
    its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
    and their upraised arm is broken.

16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
    or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
    Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
    Tell me, if you know all this.

19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
    And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
    Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
    You have lived so many years!

22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
    or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
    for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
    or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
    and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
    an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
    and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
    Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
    Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
    when the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 “Can you bind the chains* of the Pleiades?
    Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
    or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
    Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?

34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
    and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
    Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
    or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
    Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
    and the clods of earth stick together?

39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
    and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
    or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
    when its young cry out to God
    and wander about for lack of food? 

39 “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
    Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
2 Do you count the months till they bear?
    Do you know the time they give birth?
3 They crouch down and bring forth their young;
    their labor pains are ended.
4 Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
    they leave and do not return.

5 “Who let the wild donkey go free?
    Who untied its ropes?
6 I gave it the wasteland as its home,
    the salt flats as its habitat.
7 It laughs at the commotion in the town;
    it does not hear a driver’s shout.
8 It ranges the hills for its pasture
    and searches for any green thing.

9 “Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
    Will it stay by your manger at night?
10 Can you hold it to the furrow with a harness?
    Will it till the valleys behind you?
11 Will you rely on it for its great strength?
    Will you leave your heavy work to it?
12 Can you trust it to haul in your grain
    and bring it to your threshing floor?

13 “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
    though they cannot compare
    with the wings and feathers of the stork.
14 She lays her eggs on the ground
    and lets them warm in the sand,
15 unmindful that a foot may crush them,
    that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
    she cares not that her labor was in vain,
17 for God did not endow her with wisdom
    or give her a share of good sense.
18 Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
    she laughs at horse and rider.

19 “Do you give the horse its strength
    or clothe its neck with a flowing mane?
20 Do you make it leap like a locust,
    striking terror with its proud snorting?
21 It paws fiercely, rejoicing in its strength,
    and charges into the fray.
22 It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
    it does not shy away from the sword.
23 The quiver rattles against its side,
    along with the flashing spear and lance.
24 In frenzied excitement it eats up the ground;
    it cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
25 At the blast of the trumpet it snorts, ‘Aha!’
    It catches the scent of battle from afar,
    the shout of commanders and the battle cry.

26 “Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom
    and spread its wings toward the south?
27 Does the eagle soar at your command
    and build its nest on high?
28 It dwells on a cliff and stays there at night;
    a rocky crag is its stronghold.
29 From there it looks for food;
    its eyes detect it from afar.
30 Its young ones feast on blood,
    and where the slain are, there it is.” 

40 The Lord said to Job:

2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
    Let him who accuses God answer him!”

3 Then Job answered the Lord:

4 “I am unworthy —how can I reply to you?
    I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer —
    twice, but I will say no more.”*


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 12, 2012)

The reason to believe in the Trinity instead of the rest of the world's religions are many. I've put them down on this forum before. 

How about you (bullethead) and I get together for lunch or dinner sometime and we talk about it. I would love to meet you and get rid of these forum names and internet egos and meet face to face. Do you have time for that? What part of GA do you live?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> The reason to believe in the Trinity instead of the rest of the world's religions are many. I've put them down on this forum before.
> 
> How about you (bullethead) and I get together for lunch or dinner sometime and we talk about it. I would love to meet you and get rid of these forum names and internet egos and meet face to face. Do you have time for that? What part of GA do you live?



A quick check of my Bio tells you that I live in Pennsylvania.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> That's easy.
> 
> Job 38:1 -Job 40:5
> 
> ...


*

Impressive that before the age of 21 you researched the beginnings of Christianity and then read a few passages in Job and that swayed your opinion.
I think your leaving something out.*


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Impressive that before the age of 21 you researched the beginnings of Christianity and then read a few passages in Job and that swayed your opinion..



Not to jump in the middle of something here, but the beginnings of Christianity does not have to be relevant to one's own faith in Jesus.

I will agree that many horrible people did many horrible things in the name of Jesus.  That is irrelevant to me, because I do not see the mandate for such action when I read the teachings of Jesus, as Stringmusic indicated a few posts back.

Relevant to researching one's own faith, I determined that faith is the point of it all.  When one is determining whether they believe in God or no God, it is a philosophical question, and not one of evidence that leads a person in one direction or the other.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Not to jump in the middle of something here, but the beginnings of Christianity does not have to be relevant to one's own faith in Jesus.
> 
> I will agree that many horrible people did many horrible things in the name of Jesus.  That is irrelevant to me, because I do not see the mandate for such action when I read the teachings of Jesus, as Stringmusic indicated a few posts back.
> 
> Relevant to researching one's own faith, I determined that faith is the point of it all.  When one is determining whether they believe in God or no God, it is a philosophical question, and not one of evidence that leads a person in one direction or the other.



JB, I am not taking about any horrible things done in the name of Jesus. They speak for themselves. I am talking about the early Christian writings, who wrote them, who altered them, why writings that were written at the same time were banned and destroyed, how the leap from suppressed cult to reigning world super power religion took place etc etc. Why would someone have faith in Jesus if they are convinced that Jesus was merely a regular person that has been built up and embellished to be something he was not? When only one side of a story can be told and even that side is FILLED with lies and contradictions it is not hard to see why the writings that told a different tale than the one being portrayed were destroyed in order to preserve the stories that "fit" the myth. Where things did not add up they were changed. It took thousands of years of adding, deleting, tweaking, and refining of anonymous stories to get the final product.
I have only brushed the surface myself and do not like what I have found.
People can determine how they believe in God however they want. If someone researches the religion of the God of the Bible and based off that research determines that there are just too many shady tricks pulled off by man to make it seem as though "their" God did this and that and said this and that,  then it is ok to form a philosophical opinion about that too.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Not to jump in the middle of something here, but the beginnings of Christianity does not have to be relevant to one's own faith in Jesus.
> 
> I will agree that many horrible people did many horrible things in the name of Jesus.  That is irrelevant to me, because I do not see the mandate for such action when I read the teachings of Jesus, as Stringmusic indicated a few posts back.
> 
> Relevant to researching one's own faith, I determined that faith is the point of it all.  When one is determining whether they believe in God or no God, it is a philosophical question, and not one of evidence that leads a person in one direction or the other.



Maybe you missed post #82 where Thanatos told me he was where I am now 7 years ago. "It's cyclical" Being he is 28yrs old now, I was having a hard time believing he did as much research into Christianity before the age of 21 as I have done in the last 23 years. What sealed the deal was his request to meet and asking what part of GA I am from. I know he is 28 and from Macon by taking literally one second to research it. If he couldn't click on my bio to see that I am from PA, I really have my doubts about his early Christian research.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If someone researches the religion of the God of the Bible and based off that research determines that there are just too many shady tricks pulled off by man to make it seem as though "their" God did this and that and said this and that,  then it is ok to form a philosophical opinion about that too.



Agreed.  

Just some of us understand that people are stupid, particularly when driven by religious zeal.  That does not have to influence whether or not the God of the Bible exists.

If we could take this in a whole different direction for a minute..........

If there is a God, would it matter whether or not the Bible existed?  This is where a foundation of faith can begin, by accepting the "evidence" of a creator within creation.  Then we can view the texts for what they are, but the "fingerprints" of man left all over the texts should not bring into question the existence of a God.  The two are seperate functions of faith, IMO.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

If there is a God I am waiting for the evidence.
I cannot believe in make-believe.
The texts were not written by a God so to me, they hold nothing that any other religion holds.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If there is a God I am waiting for the evidence.



And the God I believe in says the evidence is all around you.  Like I said, it is a philosophical question.  RElevent to the OP, we can know that the Higgs bosom is responsible for creating mass (if that is the case).  We also know how rain happens.  Understanding the scientific explanation for these phenomena does not mean there is not a catalyst answering the question "why?"

And you missed my point about the texts.  They are irrelevant to the fact of existence.  God, if he exists (and I say he does), would have to pre-date any religious text out there.  Why would one say "God does not exist" because of the text?


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Maybe you missed post #82 where Thanatos told me he was where I am now 7 years ago. "It's cyclical" Being he is 28yrs old now, I was having a hard time believing he did as much research into Christianity before the age of 21 as I have done in the last 23 years. What sealed the deal was his request to meet and asking what part of GA I am from. I know he is 28 and from Macon by taking literally one second to research it. If he couldn't click on my bio to see that I am from PA, I really have my doubts about his early Christian research.



The first time I've ever clicked on someone's bio was after reading this post. I did not see you were from PA until now. Your on a GEORGIA hunting website so I made the false assumption you were from here. If that error led you to deduce my knowledge of a religion was lacking that tells me a lot about you. 

Also, define "research". Reading Dan Brown's Davinci Code and watching/reading atheist biased YouTube clips and websites does not really count as "research".


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And the God I believe in says the evidence is all around you.  Like I said, it is a philosophical question.  RElevent to the OP, we can know that the Higgs bosom is responsible for creating mass (if that is the case).  We also know how rain happens.  Understanding the scientific explanation for these phenomena does not mean there is not a catalyst answering the question "why?"
> 
> And you missed my point about the texts.  They are irrelevant to the fact of existence.  God, if he exists (and I say he does), would have to pre-date any religious text out there.  Why would one say "God does not exist" because of the text?



Christianity exists because of the texts. The texts are shown to not be the work of a God, not to be accurate, not to be infallible, not to be inerrant, and the sole work of men. Without those texts you would have no clue to who your God is or why you worship and follow as you do. Is it possible that there is a God and you have been led to one that is just some ancient version of an ancient culture?

I am open to there being a God. I am certain it is not as described by any religion's guidebook. They are written to enhance the religion, not the God. I do not think our God is anything like us, that we are in it's image, or that it has given two darns and a dangit about any one of us.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> The first time I've ever clicked on someone's bio was after reading this post. I did not see you were from PA until now. Your on a GEORGIA hunting website so I made the false assumption you were from here. If that error led you to deduce my knowledge of a religion was lacking that tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Also, define "research". Reading Dan Brown's Davinci Code and watching/reading atheist biased YouTube clips and websites does not really count as "research".



It pays to check things out. When I joined I either missed (unlikely) or the rules did not contain the part about having to reside in GEORGIA to be a member here.

I can agree with you about research not being a fictional book or one-sided vids. I'm talking about close, careful study by scientific or scholarly methods. Using a systematic investigation to establish facts or principles or to collect information on a subject. Check pro/con and make an informed decision based upon those findings. Read books and articles (internet included) by people who are considered experts in their fields. Gain knowledge about a subject by a direct source of information or research a document not emended by a third party.

But videos are a quick and easy way to get the point across instead of me constantly referencing my library. Most times the well educated, well spoken professors that have actually studied ancient texts know a lot more than I do about the subject. Posting their findings helps both of us to understand exactly what they mean.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> God, if he exists (and I say he does), would have to pre-date any religious text out there.  Why would one say "God does not exist" because of the text?



Without the texts what would you know about your God right now?

Without the texts I would welcome a visit from your,my, our, anyone's God.

Without the man made texts and organized spiritual guidance(as if anyone on this planet has a clue better than the next person) no one would have an inkling of who, how, when to worship and what to believe. 
With the texts man has influenced everyone who reads and believes the writings regardless of the God they speak for.

I think it would be a whole heck of a lot easier without texts and have a hands on God. No games, no guesses, no arguing.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It pays to check things out. When I joined I either missed (unlikely) or the rules did not contain the part about having to reside in GEORGIA to be a member here.



The only reason I stated this was to show where my false assumption came from. No other reason. Anyway, if you ever WANT to come hunt in GA I would still like to get together and drink a beer and talk about these subjects one on one. It would be a good time...for me anyway. I won't speak for you.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> The only reason I stated this was to show where my false assumption came from. No other reason. Anyway, if you ever WANT to come hunt in GA I would still like to get together and drink a beer and talk about these subjects one on one. It would be a good time...for me anyway. I won't speak for you.



Thanatos, Not a single doubt in my mind that it would be a fantastic time and I sincerely appreciate the invite. The same offer stands if you ever get up to PA.


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Thanatos, Not a single doubt in my mind that it would be a fantastic time and I sincerely appreciate the invite. The same offer stands if you ever get up to PA.



Why and the heck would anyone WANT to go to PA?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why and the heck would anyone WANT to go to PA?



Lose a bet
Court Ordered
Lost
Plane ran out of fuel
Ran out of gas $$ to drive to NY


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Lose a bet
> Court Ordered
> Lost
> Plane ran out of fuel
> Ran out of gas $$ to drive to NY


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Lose a bet
> Court Ordered
> Lost
> Plane ran out of fuel
> Ran out of gas $$ to drive to NY



lololol


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 12, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why and the heck would anyone WANT to go to PA?[/QUOT
> Hershey Park
> Labanese Bologna
> Scrapple
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Christianity exists because of the texts. The texts are shown to not be the work of a God, not to be accurate, not to be infallible, not to be inerrant, and the sole work of men. Without those texts you would have no clue to who your God is or why you worship and follow as you do. Is it possible that there is a God and you have been led to one that is just some ancient version of an ancient culture?



Christianity was around well before the text (NT) was.  Who knows what might have happened without it, but I am certain that the faith existed without the Bible as we know it.

And I get clobbered for admitting this, but yes, I may have been led astray, it is possible.  I do not believe it.  I have faith, and again, I believe that is the point of it all.



bullethead said:


> I am open to there being a God. I am certain it is not as described by any religion's guidebook. They are written to enhance the religion, not the God. I do not think our God is anything like us, that we are in it's image, or that it has given two darns and a dangit about any one of us.



Did you reach this conclusion after a negative event?  I used to think God loved to torment me, which is what led to my few years attempting to abandon my faith.  What I concluded is that it was religion I was mad at, not God.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 12, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why and the heck would anyone WANT to go to PA?



I'm originally from PA.  The small game hunting up there is WAY better than what we got down here.  And the family I have that still lives up there says the deer hunting has gotten a LOT better since they started changing their management strategy.  

Also, there are a lot more "rednecks" per capita in PA than Ga has....just saying.......


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think it would be a whole heck of a lot easier without texts and have a hands on God. No games, no guesses, no arguing.



It would, for sure.  But the conclusions I have come to lead me to believe that faith is the point of it all......



> Hebrews 11:1 1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.



(and forgive me for posting scripture down here, it just kind-of fits the point I am making)


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It would, for sure.  But the conclusions I have come to lead me to believe that faith is the point of it all......
> 
> Hebrews 11:1 1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
> 
> (and forgive me for posting scripture down here, it just kind-of fits the point I am making)



You can put my name on every single post JB has posted in this thread. I second every thing he has posted.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Christianity was around well before the text (NT) was.  Who knows what might have happened without it, but I am certain that the faith existed without the Bible as we know it.


Mankind has always had faith in something. No one ever needed a guidebook. My point again.......why should anyone's faith in whoever/whatever be more right than the next persons?



JB0704 said:


> And I get clobbered for admitting this, but yes, I may have been led astray, it is possible.  I do not believe it.  I have faith, and again, I believe that is the point of it all.


I appreciate the honesty.
Faith in a God is not a bad thing. History has shown that organized religion is what ruins it. Once sides are chosen and lines are drawn people die and get(or not) to meet their creator(s).





JB0704 said:


> Did you reach this conclusion after a negative event?  I used to think God loved to torment me, which is what led to my few years attempting to abandon my faith.  What I concluded is that it was religion I was mad at, not God.



No negative event to sway me. No positive event either.
I would not be so naive to think that some powerful almighty being is going to grant me a request when so many others are suffering and their pleas go unheard nor do I think the same being is out to spite/smite anyone.
The free will excuse covers all that.
Organized Religion is mankind's way of making excuses for the inexcusable. Making believers believe the unbelievable. All without a single shred of proof that what they say is actually real.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It would, for sure.  But the conclusions I have come to lead me to believe that faith is the point of it all......


With faith, true faith, no one needs a man made guidebook.
Faith doesn't need a middle man.





JB0704 said:


> (and forgive me for posting scripture down here, it just kind-of fits the point I am making)


I bet you could find a line from Return Of The Jedi to make a point that fits too.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> You can put my name on every single post JB has posted in this thread. I second every thing he has posted.



My replies are meant for both of you then.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I bet you could find a line from Return Of The Jedi to make a point that fits too.



Bullet, that was the first, and most likely last, time I have ever put a scripture in this particular sub-forum.  I only used it to demonstrate why I believe faith is the goal of my system.  It defines faith very well.  Using Star Wars would not have "fit" in what I was trying to communicate.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would not be so naive to think that some powerful almighty being is going to grant me a request when so many others are suffering and their pleas go unheard nor do I think the same being is out to spite/smite anyone.



Again, the Christian system believes in a personal God.  It may be arrogance, but I see it as compassionate.  The suffering of one individual can often be blamed on the failure of another individual to "do the right thing."

Consider this, if every human being in the world "loved their neighbor like themselves," how much suffering would be alleviated?  How many evil actions would be elliminated?  That one principle of Christian (and I believe several other) faith(s) would change the world if practiced with the same zeal men practice their religion.



bullethead said:


> Organized Religion is mankind's way of making excuses for the inexcusable. Making believers believe the unbelievable. All without a single shred of proof that what they say is actually real.



I am not a fan of organized religion either.  I have recently started going to church again (within the last six months) after a three year hiatus.  I have difficulty with systems because men have a tendency to make things about themselves.

But, the "proof" is always right in front of me......we have gone down that road before.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I appreciate the honesty.
> Faith in a God is not a bad thing. History has shown that organized religion is what ruins it. Once sides are chosen and lines are drawn people die and get(or not) to meet their creator(s).


 
I've said this many times that there is a huge difference in what an organized "power" does with the scriptures, compared to humble hearts that recieve it by faith and are led of the Spirit.  In other words, a difference in historical 'evil' religion and real spiritual faith.  Guess which side the news/media portrays?  
A _forgiving_ Saviour touching hearts to do _likewise_ ain't big news.  
But which would most care to concern themselves with? ... Case closed.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, that was the first, and most likely last, time I have ever put a scripture in this particular sub-forum.  I only used it to demonstrate why I believe faith is the goal of my system.  It defines faith very well.  Using Star Wars would not have "fit" in what I was trying to communicate.



JB, I understand why you did it, but those types of religious quotes that "fit" are plastered all over the guidebooks of all the religions of the world.  Write things that people(followers) can relate to and then they somehow link that to their God and that in turn somehow think it is unique to their religion and their personal connection. That's how it works. 
They only actually "fit" to the person that believes it. 
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. "
OR
"Use the Force, Trust the Force"
No different to some 35yr old nitwit running around a convention dressed in "garb" and wielding a plastic light saber.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Using Star Wars would not have "fit" in what I was trying to communicate.



A couple quotes popped into my head though.

Luke - "I'll not leave you here. I've got to save you."
Anakin - "You already have."

Luke - "I can't do it R2, I can't go on alone."


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> TheBishop said:
> 
> 
> > Why and the heck would anyone WANT to go to PA?[/QUOT
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> A couple quotes popped into my head though.
> 
> Luke - "I'll not leave you here. I've got to save you."
> Anakin - "You already have."
> ...



 Ok.  Lesson learned.  I will from now on search for Star Wars clips on youtube when looking for a relevant quote.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why and the heck would anyone WANT to go to PA?





Wild turkeys and brook trout.  That right there might drag me up to yankee country. Might kick, holler, and protest a little, but I would go. For that.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

Nicodemus said:


> Wild turkeys and brook trout.  That right there might drag me up to yankee country. Might kick, holler, and protest a little, but I would go. For that.



...and the rivers are full of small mouth bass.  The fishing up there, at least the part I come from, persents a lot more opportunities than the area of Ga I live in now.  

I miss PA, honestly.  Like I said in a previous post, the folks I know up there are a lot more "country" than the folks I know down there.  Good 'ol farm people who love to hunt and fish.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Consider this, if every human being in the world "loved their neighbor like themselves," how much suffering would be alleviated?  How many evil actions would be elliminated?  That one principle of Christian (and I believe several other) faith(s) would change the world if practiced with the same zeal men practice their religion.


So here we are.
We have that one Christian principle and how is it really working out? 
Did no one ever think of that before it was written down by...........who again?
Since  it has been written down has it made a single shred of difference within the very people who follow that religion?

No difference with or without it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Primanti Bros.
> Di Nics
> Pat's
> Geno's



Not sure if they still do it today, but the #1 reason to live in PA is pepperoni rolls at every gas station.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> A couple quotes popped into my head though.
> 
> Luke - "I'll not leave you here. I've got to save you."
> Anakin - "You already have."
> ...



George Lucas.....wise and credible.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So here we are.
> We have that one Christian principle and how is it really working out?
> Did no one ever think of that before it was written down by...........who again?
> Since  it has been written down has it made a single shred of difference within the very people who follow that religion?
> ...



Isn't that what I said?  Men are so focused on the reliion they fail to practice the principle.  That is why that one principle has nto made a "shred" of difference.

To my point, can you imagine how different everything would be if that one principle was actually practiced?  How much "evil" would there be to blame on God?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't that what I said?  Men are so focused on the reliion they fail to practice the principle.  That is why that one principle has nto made a "shred" of difference.
> 
> To my point, can you imagine how different everything would be if that one principle was actually practiced?  How much "evil" would there be to blame on God?



Cart before the horse.
Until someone can prove a God, none of it matters.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Not sure if they still do it today, but the #1 reason to live in PA is pepperoni rolls at every gas station.



If you get a chance, go to youtube and look up the videos posted by "leatherwoodoutdoors."   Those NW PA fellas hunt, trap, and fish a lot mroe than anybody I know down here.  Heck, they even take advantage of the PA rattlesnake season and show how to clean and cook 'em. They make great videos.  I would venture to say they are just as "country" as any Ga fella is.

NOTE:  I don't know those guys.  Just love watching their videos.  They remind me of the folks I knew when I lived up there.

But, to your point, the pizza is WAY better up there, but the home cooking is WAY better down here as far as I can tell.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Cart before the horse.
> Until someone can prove a God, none of it matters.



What kind of evidence exactly do you want?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Cart before the horse.
> Until someone can prove a God, none of it matters.



Which one do you want to debate today?  We have been swinging back and forth between God and religion with each post.  My thoughts are that the two are very seperate discussions.

But, even if God was not real, that principle would still matter if those of us "naive" folks who believed it actually practiced it....heck, it would be a great practice for everybody, skeptics, believers, whoever.  It would be the ellimination of "evil."  Wouldn't it?  And that is why I do not see any validity in blaming God for the suffering we see all around us.....because I believe the "free-will excuse."


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 13, 2012)

Any state that produces the likes of Allen Specter, out weighs all the above positives mentioned!

I rest my case........


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Any state that produces the likes of Allen Specter, out weighs all the above positives mentioned!
> 
> I rest my case........



I don't know man, we are responsible for Jimmy Carter.  I think our great, great grandchildren will still be suffering the curse on our homes for that.......


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know man, we are responsible for Jimmy Carter.  I think our great, great grandchildren will still be suffering the curse on our homes for that.......



You had to go there didn't you.....


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You had to go there didn't you.....





My parents voted for him, it is a source of great shame


----------



## DCHunter (Jul 13, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Why and the heck would anyone WANT to go to PA?



To visit Gettysburg?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 13, 2012)

DCHunter said:


> To visit Gettysburg?



I'm skeerd a haints.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'm skeerd a haints.



I had to look that one up. 
Never heard it before.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Which one do you want to debate today?  We have been swinging back and forth between God and religion with each post.  My thoughts are that the two are very seperate discussions.



Unless you want to totally dismiss Christianity, the two are linked. Without God no Christianity. Without Christianity the texts(Gospels) are useless. If the Gospels are not true there is no sense believing in the God of Christianity.
I am convinced that a God had nothing to do with writing or inspiring anyone to write those texts. Therefore I am convinced the contents within those writings are 100% man made and while some are decent words to live by they do not represent an actual real divine being.

Lets say for a moment Christianity is proven to have been a total hoax. Could there still be a God? Sure. But now what?



JB0704 said:


> But, even if God was not real, that principle would still matter if those of us "naive" folks who believed it actually practiced it....heck, it would be a great practice for everybody, skeptics, believers, whoever.  It would be the ellimination of "evil."  Wouldn't it?  And that is why I do not see any validity in blaming God for the suffering we see all around us.....because I believe the "free-will excuse."



Advice like that is always helpful but it is human nature to not follow sound advice. Dear Abby gives the same advice. The same advice is given in many religions. Difference is 2000+ years ago the advice was written for mostly illiterate people that went to church so someone could read them the rules. Back then the people actually thought the book that the Priest was reading from was God's words. Very few people actually had their own copy. When the Priest said "God Said" they believed it. For the most part they obeyed until the leaders told them it was OK not to obey. But outside of church they didn't listen anymore back then than they do now. 
So in a sense your right that they are good words to live by God or not. But with God you get the punishment if you disobey, and that helped the leaders of the time control the people.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Unless you want to totally dismiss Christianity, the two are linked. Without God no Christianity.



Sure.  But, we are talking about the difference in a belief in God and the Christian faith which is based on the texts.  With or without the texts, I would still believe in a God.



bullethead said:


> Without Christianity the texts(Gospels) are useless. If the Gospels are not true there is no sense believing in the God of Christianity.



The God of Christianity is also the God of all creation.  With or without the texts, the root belief would be the same.  Kind-of like an Indian looking at creation and logically concluding it all came from something.



bullethead said:


> I am convinced that a God had nothing to do with writing or inspiring anyone to write those texts. Therefore I am convinced the contents within those writings are 100% man made and while some are decent words to live by they do not represent an actual real divine being.



I understand.



bullethead said:


> Lets say for a moment Christianity is proven to have been a total hoax. Could there still be a God? Sure. But now what?



Live a life understanding you are part of something larger than you, a universal scheme....not a galactic accident where everything you know and love is a coincidence of particles colliding.  Not putting such a belief down, but that is the direction I would head if I were to find out that everything I believed about Jesus was false.  I would still believe in God.



bullethead said:


> When the Priest said "God Said" they believed it. For the most part they obeyed until the leaders told them it was OK not to obey. But outside of church they didn't listen anymore back then than they do now.



It is the same today.



bullethead said:


> So in a sense your right that they are good words to live by God or not. But with God you get the punishment if you disobey, and that helped the leaders of the time control the people.



I agree.  People are stupid, and religion has been used to control people as long as it has existed.  That's why I seperate religion and faith.  People will always let you down.  So I do not put any faith in people.


----------

