# TB Joshua raises the dead in Nigeria



## atlashunter

The woo woo is strong with this one.


----------



## bullethead

He has a good shot at gaining some followers down the road if anonymous people write stories about him 80 to hundreds of years after his death.


----------



## 660griz

Ebola doesn't stand a chance.
Oh wait, he refused to cure liver cancer.


----------



## centerpin fan

He's a poseur.  Darth Hinn will strike him down!


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> he's a poseur.  Darth hinn will strike him down!



h y s t e r i c a l


----------



## TripleXBullies

oh man I needed that today.


----------



## 660griz

That's awesome. Weapon of mass deception.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> He's a poseur.  Darth Hinn will strike him down!



That is possibly the funniest thing I have ever saw......ever.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ebola is manufactured by Satan - T.B Joshua 

http://www.nigerianeye.com/2014/08/ebola-is-manufactured-by-satan-tb-joshua.html


----------



## mtnwoman

Y'all are too hilarious today. Loved the darth hinn.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Ebola is manufactured by Satan - T.B Joshua
> 
> http://www.nigerianeye.com/2014/08/ebola-is-manufactured-by-satan-tb-joshua.html



No offense but some of the things you guys discuss upstairs is more entertaining than comics.


----------



## drippin' rock

Had to stop after 4 minutes or so.  My only thought is I hope there is more than one neurosurgeon in South Africa.


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> He's a poseur.  Darth Hinn will strike him down!




Haven't laughed that hard in a while!


----------



## ambush80

centerpin fan said:


> He's a poseur.  Darth Hinn will strike him down!



No one could POSSIBLY fall for that stuff.....


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> No one could POSSIBLY fall for that stuff.....



I'd bet Benny Hinn's wallet tells a different story.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I'd bet Benny Hinn's wallet tells a different story.



If you can believe in talking donkeys........


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> No one could POSSIBLY fall for that stuff.....


I don't know, that's a pretty large audience.
I always question why Christians have such a problem with Atheists and yet pack the house (and the collection plate) for these carnival side shows that make their beliefs look far more ridiculous than any Atheist ever have. Or could. Or would.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know, that's a pretty large audience.
> I always question why Christians have such a problem with Atheists and yet pack the house (and the collection plate) for these carnival side shows that make their beliefs look far more ridiculous than any Atheist ever have. Or could. Or would.



I'm not so sure it is such a stretch to go from the stories in the Bible to the "power" of these preachers...
I mean if you believe in the first one you are more apt to believe anything is possible through Jesus, which is just where these preacher types are telling them their powers come from.

Have any Christians in here ever been  to one of these services where you have witnessed this sort of stuff first hand?

Thoughts?

Honest thoughts?? lolol...


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know, that's a pretty large audience.
> I always question why Christians have such a problem with Atheists and yet pack the house (and the collection plate) for these carnival side shows that make their beliefs look far more ridiculous than any Atheist ever have. Or could. Or would.




"Benny Hinn's not a REAL Christian." 

Or is he?............






bullethead said:


> I'm not so sure it is such a stretch to go from the stories in the Bible to the "power" of these preachers...
> I mean if you believe in the first one you are more apt to believe anything is possible through Jesus, which is just where these preacher types are telling them their powers come from.
> 
> Have any Christians in here ever been  to one of these services where you have witnessed this sort of stuff first hand?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Honest thoughts?? lolol...



I gots ta know.


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> No one could POSSIBLY fall for that stuff.....


----------



## bigreddwon

ambush80 said:


> If you can believe in talking donkeys........





WaltL1 said:


> I don't know, that's a pretty large audience.
> I always question why Christians have such a problem with Atheists and yet pack the house (and the collection plate) for these carnival side shows that make their beliefs look far more ridiculous than any Atheist ever have. Or could. Or would.





bullethead said:


> I'm not so sure it is such a stretch to go from the stories in the Bible to the "power" of these preachers...
> I mean if you believe in the first one you are more apt to believe anything is possible through Jesus, which is just where these preacher types are telling them their powers come from.
> 
> Have any Christians in here ever been  to one of these services where you have witnessed this sort of stuff first hand?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Honest thoughts?? lolol...




Once I really put about 3 minutes thought into why the GOP has such a loyal base I come up with... Christians. 

If you can find folks that are predisposed to believe complete n utter crap and not only buy into with their minds, but their wallets,you've hit political pay dirt. Straight up. 

Every over the top insanely religious person I know, is Republican. 

They make excuses for their 'savior politician' in the same manner we hear then do so in here for their profits (I spelled it right) and their god and his acts of loooove that rational people call abuse, murder and hate, go figure. 


 These videos make me laugh and cringe at the same time. On one side it's hilarious, but the flip side is the horror they have and unfortunately WILL commit again in the name of their god. It's not if,it's when..


----------



## centerpin fan

bigreddwon said:


> Once I really put about 3 minutes thought into why the GOP has such a loyal base I come up with... Christians.
> 
> If you can find folks that are predisposed to believe complete n utter crap and not only buy into with their minds, but their wallets,you've hit political pay dirt. Straight up.
> 
> Every over the top insanely religious person I know, is Republican.
> 
> They make excuses for their 'savior politician' in the same manner we hear then do so in here for their profits (I spelled it right) and their god and his acts of loooove that rational people call abuse, murder and hate, go figure.
> 
> 
> These videos make me laugh and cringe at the same time. On one side it's hilarious, but the flip side is the horror they have and unfortunately WILL commit again in the name of their god. It's not if,it's when..



Tired of trolling the Political Forum?


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> I'm not so sure it is such a stretch to go from the stories in the Bible to the "power" of these preachers...
> I mean if you believe in the first one you are more apt to believe anything is possible through Jesus, which is just where these preacher types are telling them their powers come from.
> 
> Have any Christians in here ever been  to one of these services where you have witnessed this sort of stuff first hand?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Honest thoughts?? lolol...




It's not just Hinn. Those people falling over and flopping around on the ground like a fish out of water are taking part in the charade too.


----------



## drippin' rock

When I was in college we had a magician/hypnotist come to do a show. He picked folks out of the audience to take part in the act and I was picked. He got us on stage and went through his routine to hypnotize us. Of course I never was under any spell, but chose to go along. He had us do all kinds of silly things. Later one of my buds exclaimed at how 'hypnotized' I was. I laughed and let him know I was faking it the whole time. He shook his head and swore, even after my admission, that I was under his spell.  Some folks will believe anything.


----------



## centerpin fan

atlashunter said:


> It's not just Hinn. Those people falling over and flopping around on the ground like a fish out of water are taking part in the charade too.



Darth Hinn and the OP guy are strictly single A ball.  If you wanna jump straight to the major leagues, go to Youtube and search for "Toronto blessing".


----------



## bigreddwon

centerpin fan said:


> Tired of trolling the Political Forum?



Its not trolling in the least. 

Politicians use the 'faithful', they vomit out the words n phrases that they NEED to hear and once heard, they are in like Flynn. Then they can use the system to commit crimes ranging from cheating on their wives to breaking all their campaign promises and rely on the built in safety net of 'forgiveness' the 'faith game' allows. 

Given a secular population, it wouldn't fly at all. It works because if the faithful don't do it for him, it is done for themselves so when they cheat on their 3rd wife THEY can get the same 'coverage' they cast on the snake oil salesmen.  They play along with the 'act', because they have to keep the game going. They defend the indefensible and the absurd with vigor and a careful dance of sidestepping, ignorance and deflection. . 

Why don't these faith healers go to hospitals?  Why is it they only seem to 'heal' at places in close proximity to a collection plate?? 

On side note,  I'd love to see a camera crew hit up some of the healed a week later..


----------



## 660griz

bigreddwon said:


> Once I really put about 3 minutes thought into why the GOP has such a loyal base I come up with... Christians.


 Could be true. However, I am an atheist and I have voted Republican in every election. The lesser of 2 evils. 




> If you can find folks that are predisposed to believe complete n utter crap and not only buy into with their minds, but their wallets,you've hit political pay dirt. Straight up.


 That can be said for both parties.
Especially if the candidate plays Santa Claus for the 'entitlement' group.



> Every over the top insanely religious person I know, is Republican.


 You don't have very many friends of different races do you? 



> They make excuses for their 'savior politician' in the same manner we hear then do so in here for their profits (I spelled it right) and their god and his acts of loooove that rational people call abuse, murder and hate, go figure.


 I think I follow you but, not exactly apples to apples.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bullethead said:


> I'm not so sure it is such a stretch to go from the stories in the Bible to the "power" of these preachers...
> I mean if you believe in the first one you are more apt to believe anything is possible through Jesus, which is just where these preacher types are telling them their powers come from.
> 
> Have any Christians in here ever been  to one of these services where you have witnessed this sort of stuff first hand?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Honest thoughts?? lolol...


I went to one a long time ago. A few years before I made any conscious decisions regarding my faith. It was really uncomfortable. He "healed" the whole family... I didn't fall when he pushed my head... My ex wife's aunt died a a few months later.


----------



## bigreddwon

660griz said:


> Could be true. However, I am an atheist and I have voted Republican in every election. The lesser of 2 evils.
> 
> 
> That can be said for both parties.
> Especially if the candidate plays Santa Claus for the 'entitlement' group.
> 
> You don't have very many friends of different races do you?
> 
> I think I follow you but, not exactly apples to apples.



Uuuumm.. Yea, I do have a pretty mixed bag of friends.. 

Got black friend whose more anti religion than me, owns 3 abortion clinics AND votes R.. But hes a millionaire and votes with his wallet in mind. Gotta Looooong time friend who's half Korean and white n HATES Mexicans n blacks and votes R NO MATTER what.. Hes not rich either.. He sqauks about poor folks voting for 'entitlements' as well until ya bring up corporate entitlements,  then he hasn't got much to say.. 

There are mavericks in both partys. I get that.. my point was that to buy the crap those faith healers are selling takes a certain kinda 'mentality' if your pickin up what I'm puttin down, and I see the R's politicians spouting 'god' FAR more  from the podium than I do other partys.. the people I see buying into it tend to be the same people who buy into faith healers.

What I see in my immediate area is poor white folks on welfare screaming loudly about 'Democrats' voting for handouts while getting it them themselves. Then they 'feel' good voting R against their own self IntErests. . Takes a 'special' kinda person to do that IMO.. 

 Not that others DON'T do it, just not near the same level. It tends to be part of the R's platform.


----------



## 660griz

bigreddwon said:


> There are mavericks in both partys. I get that.. my point was that to buy the crap those faith healers are selling takes a certain kinda 'mentality' if your pickin up what I'm puttin down,


 I gotcha.


> and I see the R's politicians spouting 'god' FAR more  from the podium than I do other partys..


 this is probably true. Religion, I think, is on the decline in popularity. So, it could be the media plays the God parts of R party much more. They do have a bias. 


> the people I see buying into it tend to be the same people who buy into faith healers.


I think the folks buying into either party whole heartedly and will vote for them and defend them no matter what, is the same folks that buy into faith healers. 
When Bush was the Prez, I pointed out his flaws, and lies, etc. I do the same with obviously a worse Prez. with Obama and he is defended and protected like no other. Strange. Some folks just go all in. Faith healer or politician. 



> What I see in my immediate area is poor white folks on welfare screaming loudly about 'Democrats' voting for handouts while getting it them themselves. Then they 'feel' good voting R against their own self IntErests. . Takes a 'special' kinda person to do that IMO..


 It happens. I don't think it is the norm but... 



> Not that others DON'T do it, just not near the same level. It tends to be part of the R's platform.


Can't comment. I have no idea the level or if it is part of the R's platform.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> Politicians use the 'faithful', they vomit out the words n phrases that they NEED to hear and once heard, they are in like Flynn. Then they can use the system to commit crimes ranging from cheating on their wives to breaking all their campaign promises and rely on the built in safety net of 'forgiveness' the 'faith game' allows.


Yes, there is allowance for forgiveness in Christianity, there is also a place for consequences. 

There are two possible options for the reason you didn't mention that, you are not very learned on the Christian worldview, or not mentioning consequences makes your argument seem legitimate. I'm guessing a little of both.  



> Given a secular population, it wouldn't fly at all. It works because if the faithful don't do it for him, it is done for themselves so when they cheat on their 3rd wife THEY can get the same 'coverage' they cast on the snake oil salesmen.  They play along with the 'act', because they have to keep the game going. They defend the indefensible and the absurd with vigor and a careful dance of sidestepping, ignorance and deflection. .


Why wouldn't it fly in a completely secular population? In a secular worldview, there isn't a rational explanation for consequences.


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> In a secular worldview, there isn't a rational explanation for consequences.



Really? What is the rational explanation for consequences in a non-secular worldview?


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> Really? What is the rational explanation for consequences in a non-secular worldview?


There are consequences for violating the purpose and/or inherent rights of another person, neither of which exist in a secular worldview.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> There are consequences for violating the purpose and/or inherent rights of another person, neither of which exist in a secular worldview.




Is there any point in posting a naturalistic explanation of where morals come from or will you just dismiss it without discussion again....and again....and again?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Is there any point in posting a naturalistic explanation of where morals come from or will you just dismiss it without discussion again....and again....and again?



You can post an argument if you'd like, but there is no possible way to come to a moral law apart from a transcendent God.(and no, I'm not saying every non-Christian is a-moral). There will be assumptions smuggled in in every explanation of naturalistic morals. Post a link if you'd like, and I'll be glad to point them out to you.


And just for the record, I was talking about consequences, not morals.


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> There are consequences for violating the purpose and/or inherent rights of another person, neither of which exist in a secular worldview.



You said 'rational' explanation.
So, your rational explanation is GOD? Yet, evolution and 1000s of years of adaptation are not rational?


----------



## 660griz

stringmusic said:


> There are consequences for violating the purpose and/or inherent rights of another person, neither of which exist in a secular worldview.



There are most certainly consequences in a secular worldview.


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> There are consequences for violating the purpose and/or inherent rights of another person, neither of which exist in a secular worldview.


String I hope you know that I respect your beliefs but I have to say, I'll never understand this argument/claim.
I can only guess that your beliefs are so strong that it doesn't allow you to look around and see or think about what is right in front of your face 
And more importantly, are you bow/cross bow hunting or waiting for gun season?


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> Yet, evolution and 1000s of years of adaptation are not rational?


Not rational for consequences to actions.

If man is nothing more than matter, giving him consequences does nothing but obtain order for society, but nobody has any ultimate justification for obtaining order in society, it's just something they like. The only basis anyone has in a naturalistic worldview for consequences is that they simply don't like some particular action of another individual.

Consequences in a secular society are 100% based off emotion.


----------



## stringmusic

660griz said:


> There are most certainly consequences in a secular worldview.





WaltL1 said:


> String I hope you know that I respect your beliefs but I have to say, I'll never understand this argument/claim.
> I can only guess that your beliefs are so strong that it doesn't allow you to look around and see or think about what is right in front of your face


Bad wording by me. I shouldn't say that there are no consequences in a secular society, only that there is no ultimate justification, other than emotion(as explained above), for a particular consequence.



> And more importantly, are you bow/cross bow hunting or waiting for gun season?


Yea man, I LOVE bow season. Been pretty slow so far for me though, only seen a couple of deer so far and both were to small to shoot.

How bout you?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Not rational for consequences to actions.
> 
> If man is nothing more than matter, giving him consequences does nothing but obtain order for society, but nobody has any ultimate justification for obtaining order in society, it's just something they like. The only basis anyone has in a naturalistic worldview for consequences is that they simply don't like some particular action of another individual.
> 
> Consequences in a secular society are 100% based off emotion.



Not emotion, reason.

And before you go and try to say how reason can't exist without god, go review poor ol' Bassquatchs' thread.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Not emotion, reason



Definition of reason 
Bing Dictionary
rea·son[ réez'n ]
justification: an explanation or justification for something
motive: a motive or cause for acting or thinking in a particular way
cause that explains something: a cause that explains a particular phenomenon

Doesn't change my point.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Definition of reason
> Bing Dictionary
> rea·son[ réez'n ]
> justification: an explanation or justification for something
> motive: a motive or cause for acting or thinking in a particular way
> cause that explains something: a cause that explains a particular phenomenon
> 
> Reason.  With a big R
> 
> 
> Doesn't change my point.


_
Full Definition of REASON
1
a :  a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
b :  a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
c :  a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially :  something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action>
d :  the thing that makes some fact intelligible :  cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay â€” Graham Greene>
2
a (1) :  the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways :  intelligence (2) :  proper exercise of the mind (3) :  sanity
b :  the sum of the intellectual powers_


----------



## bigreddwon

stringmusic said:


> Yes, there is allowance for forgiveness in Christianity, there is also a place for consequences.
> 
> There are two possible options for the reason you didn't mention that, you are not very learned on the Christian worldview, or not mentioning consequences makes your argument seem legitimate. I'm guessing a little of both.
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't it fly in a completely secular population? In a secular worldview, there isn't a rational explanation for consequences.



'Not very learned on the Christian worldview'..  

I left out the Christian 'consequence' because it's absolutly not relevant. The fear of hades has ZERO impact on if a Christian cheats on his wife, or his taxes or bamboozles his constituents or his 'flock of suckers'... 

Now, a secular punishment is much more severe.. First of all, it's _REAL_..  As opposed to yours,which is fictional. 



You can get your butt kicked, or killed. Hows that for rational?  If you're a politician, you can lose secular votes you'd need to keep your cushy job.. 

If a religious politician pleaded to a secular crowd how sooooory he was n he praaaaayed n Goooood told him to REEEEEPENnnnnt... Umm, yea.. Fired. Next! 

Sell that to a highly religious crowd n they almost HAVE to forgive you, chances are your re elected, the current GOP is the living breathing proof of that.. They KNOW that even if they don't believe them, if THEY want a 'pass' down the road they have to give to receive. The more they are prone to buy into faith healing the easier you con them. It IS a con. Fact. 

It's all about knowing the people you're selling your product to, the more you know them the easier it is to sell them whatchu got. Christian's know Christians inside n out. They know the 'hot buttons'.. Faith healers have nothing to sell, but the believers are still buying. 

Nonbelievers tend to be more critical, more rational and they aren't going to buy the same crap as a believer. They will expect more and therefore they will receive more.


----------



## gemcgrew

bigreddwon said:


> Nonbelievers tend to be more critical, more rational and they aren't going to buy the same crap as a believer. They will expect more and therefore they will receive more.


Only through their defective thinking or that of another non believer.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> _
> Full Definition of REASON
> 1
> a :  a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
> b :  a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
> c :  a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially :  something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action>
> d :  the thing that makes some fact intelligible :  cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
> 2
> a (1) :  the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways :  intelligence (2) :  proper exercise of the mind (3) :  sanity
> b :  the sum of the intellectual powers_



My point still stands. There is no way to get to consequences for humans through reason in a naturalistic worldview. At some point the argument will have to assume that we should treat each other in a certain manner just because.


----------



## stringmusic

Just for the record, I'm not arguing that reason plays zero role in the process of consequences. I'm arguing where the basis of those consequences come from.

In the Christian worldview, I can say that a person violated the inherent rights or purpose of another person, and therefor should have consequences for those actions.

In the naturalistic worldview, the argument can only be made that one person shouldn't have violated the rights of another because (insert whatever reason you want here). 

At the end of the day, all another naturalist has to do is say "I don't like that reason" or "I have another reason" and his and your arguments both hold the same weight because all your really talking about is random matter that means nothing and has no purpose.


----------



## stringmusic

bigreddwon said:


> 'Not very learned on the Christian worldview'..
> 
> I left out the Christian 'consequence' because it's absolutly not relevant. The fear of hades has ZERO impact on if a Christian cheats on his wife, or his taxes or bamboozles his constituents or his 'flock of suckers'...
> 
> Now, a secular punishment is much more severe.. First of all, it's _REAL_..  As opposed to yours,which is fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> You can get your butt kicked, or killed. Hows that for rational?  If you're a politician, you can lose secular votes you'd need to keep your cushy job..
> 
> If a religious politician pleaded to a secular crowd how sooooory he was n he praaaaayed n Goooood told him to REEEEEPENnnnnt... Umm, yea.. Fired. Next!
> 
> Sell that to a highly religious crowd n they almost HAVE to forgive you, chances are your re elected, the current GOP is the living breathing proof of that.. They KNOW that even if they don't believe them, if THEY want a 'pass' down the road they have to give to receive. The more they are prone to buy into faith healing the easier you con them. It IS a con. Fact.
> 
> It's all about knowing the people you're selling your product to, the more you know them the easier it is to sell them whatchu got. Christian's know Christians inside n out. They know the 'hot buttons'.. Faith healers have nothing to sell, but the believers are still buying.
> 
> Nonbelievers tend to be more critical, more rational and they aren't going to buy the same crap as a believer. They will expect more and therefore they will receive more.


I.don't.know.what.to.say....


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> My point still stands. There is no way to get to consequences for humans through reason in a naturalistic worldview. At some point the argument will have to assume that we should treat each other in a certain manner just because.



You're really getting on my nerves.  All those studies that you don't seem to read describe how our inclinations to treat each other have developed and how they can be seen in other animals.

If you want to say that god "designed" evolution to make you feel better (and that's exactly why you do it) that's fine, but stop denying the process by which morals have developed.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Just for the record, I'm not arguing that reason plays zero role in the process of consequences. I'm arguing where the basis of those consequences come from.
> 
> In the Christian worldview, I can say that a person violated the inherent rights or purpose of another person, and therefor should have consequences for those actions.
> 
> In the naturalistic worldview, the argument can only be made that one person shouldn't have violated the rights of another because (insert whatever reason you want here).
> 
> At the end of the day, all another naturalist has to do is say "I don't like that reason" or "I have another reason" and his and your arguments both hold the same weight because all your really talking about is random matter that means nothing and has no purpose.



Your purpose, if you're wired right, is to reproduce and perpetuate the species, even if it means getting your father drunk in a cave and raping him with your sister.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> I.don't.know.what.to.say....




You SHOULD say "Thanks for illustrating how gullible religion can make people."  Or is it the other way around?


----------



## WaltL1

stringmusic said:


> Just for the record, I'm not arguing that reason plays zero role in the process of consequences. I'm arguing where the basis of those consequences come from.
> 
> In the Christian worldview, I can say that a person violated the inherent rights or purpose of another person, and therefor should have consequences for those actions.
> 
> In the naturalistic worldview, the argument can only be made that one person shouldn't have violated the rights of another because (insert whatever reason you want here).
> 
> At the end of the day, all another naturalist has to do is say "I don't like that reason" or "I have another reason" and his and your arguments both hold the same weight because all your really talking about is random matter that means nothing and has no purpose.


Here's what I don't think you see and I hope I can say this so it makes sense.


> the argument can only be made that one person shouldn't have violated the rights of another because (insert whatever reason you want here).


You insert the Christian worldview as the "whatever reason you want here". And then contend that is the only legitimate reason. 


> all another naturalist has to do is say "I don't like that reason" or "I have another reason"


Explain the difference between-
the naturalist that doesn't like that reason or has another reason and the Christian who has their reason if they all end up in the same place but for different reasons?
In other words, if you are "good" to another person because you are a Christian and an A/A is "good" to another person even though they are not a Christian is the Christian "good" somehow "gooder" than the A/A "good"???

Oh and I have only bow hunted once so far and saw 2 does but not in range. Now that its cooling down a bit Im going to start going some more. I have a hard time sleeping in the stand while its hot


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Here's what I don't think you see and I hope I can say this so it makes sense.
> 
> You insert the Christian worldview as the "whatever reason you want here". And then contend that is the only legitimate reason.
> 
> Explain the difference between-
> the naturalist that doesn't like that reason or has another reason and the Christian who has their reason if they all end up in the same place but for different reasons?
> In other words, if you are "good" to another person because you are a Christian and an A/A is "good" to another person even though they are not a Christian is the Christian "good" somehow "gooder" than the A/A "good"???
> 
> Oh and I have only bow hunted once so far and saw 2 does but not in range. Now that its cooling down a bit Im going to start going some more. I have a hard time sleeping in the stand while its hot



What is that all about anyway?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> What is that all about anyway?


Not sure if you are asking me to explain what I meant?
If so what I meant was say for example -
the family down the street had their house burn down so String does the Christian thing and takes them in and feeds them.
Or you as a non Christian takes them in and feeds them for other than Christian reasons. You felt bad for them and wanted to help.
So you and String ended up in the same place ie helping the family but for different reasons.
Is Strings good deed somehow better than your good deed because he did it for Christian reasons?
After all his Christians world view justifies the good deed.
And of course you world view doesn't.rolleyes


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure if you are asking me to explain what I meant?
> If so what I meant was say for example -
> the family down the street had their house burn down so String does the Christian thing and takes them in and feeds them.
> Or you as a non Christian takes them in and feeds them for other than Christian reasons. You felt bad for them and wanted to help.
> So you and String ended up in the same place ie helping the family but for different reasons.
> Is Strings good deed somehow better than your good deed because he did it for Christian reasons?
> After all his Christians world view justifies the good deed.
> And of course you world view doesn't.rolleyes


Although the action may appear good in both cases, the intent could show otherwise.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure if you are asking me to explain what I meant?
> If so what I meant was say for example -
> the family down the street had their house burn down so String does the Christian thing and takes them in and feeds them.
> Or you as a non Christian takes them in and feeds them for other than Christian reasons. You felt bad for them and wanted to help.
> So you and String ended up in the same place ie helping the family but for different reasons.
> Is Strings good deed somehow better than your good deed because he did it for Christian reasons?
> After all his Christians world view justifies the good deed.
> And of course you world view doesn't.rolleyes



Yeah. I got that part.  I just wanted to know if you know why they thing their actions are some how more betterer.  I guess we'll find out here:



gemcgrew said:


> Although the action may appear good in both cases, the intent could show otherwise.



How so?


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Although the action may appear good in both cases, the intent could show otherwise.


I imagine you would agree that works both ways.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> You're really getting on my nerves.  All those studies that you don't seem to read describe how our inclinations to treat each other have developed and how they can be seen in other animals.
> 
> If you want to say that god "designed" evolution to make you feel better (and that's exactly why you do it) that's fine, but stop denying the process by which morals have developed.



That is precisely it.

This conversation is just a continuation of the same stuff we talked about months ago. It has been shown umpteen times how morals have developed. It is backed by research.
 String, your assertions do not hold up to history, studies, research or current events.


----------



## mtnwoman

We are not saved by 'works'....anyway.

I don't have any problem believing/knowing that any nonbeliever can have good morals.

I have no doubt that anyone who posts in any of these threads, would protect my life or feed me if needed.


----------



## Israel

We may be forgetting a thing Jesus said regarding all our doings.
It may have been another thread, I haven't read too far back, where the sheep and goats are mentioned. As noted, sheep seem to do sheep stuff blithely unaware they have even done it.

In this other place, Jesus speaks of those who serve, and their "proper" attitude. 
It speaks of one, who, after doing all as is instructed says "I am only an unworthy/unprofitable servant doing only what I have been told to do" 
How to get from the self congratulatory place of either "I have done this FOR GOD!!!!" 
or just as real, perhaps, 
"I have done this because I am a MORAL PERSON!!!"
Both seem to very much have an appeal to a thing that appears to be enamored of perceiving itself a certain way.
I don't know that the pitfall can be resolved in any way completely foreign to man, a thing besides, so to speak, that must do a work in the heart that can still the incessant trying to "prove" oneself anything at all, to oneself.
Some may be completely unperturbed by this consideration, that's not my business.
What I find, stinking like a CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored (sic) in a punchbowl, is this thing with which, even if no one else does, I contend. But, it is the kind of troubling that has , when seen, led to a heartfelt appreciation of grace (of which I find myself in continual need) which begets a another thing so foreign when the CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored (sic) is first discovered....laughter.
It becomes so plainly obvious at my little "Hats Off to ME" party that I am completely unable to deal with this thing, this self love motive that seems to contaminate all my doings. For this, I am reminded, such a thing is something that must be saved from itself...for truly, it doesn't take too much ruminating to see what that "thing" if left unbridled would easily lead to, like destruction of a universe.
Now, I know, some may say Bovine Scat, pure hyperbole. But ruminate for a moment...think about the lengths it has been shown, time and again, over and over, the truth of TS Eliot's observation..."half the harm done in this world is by people who need to feel important".
I gotta admit, the "idea" of being a servant of God, battling evil at every turn, parading its great sacrifices in its endeavor, self convinced of lily white motives...has an appeal...but the thing to which it appeals is vain and puerile. Perhap so, just as vain is what is repulsed by this, but mistakenly undertakes to prove its own worth in resisting it at every turn...but just as full of as much self congratulation as the former?
Brothers, it does my heart a great wealth of good to see the perfection of dealing with such a "thing"...death.
Seeking to know the Lord in his weakness, in his death, and discovering it has graciuosly included you, and to find along the way, the great need of it, is a blessing indeed.
But, if no one else cares, I only got my own bag to drag, but...in hope.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

I know the scripture/writings/letters of men "thousands" of years old are a little dusty and irrelevant to some (or so I have seemingly heard)...but to me, they speak life, to a thing that is brought again and again to see how vain it is for a dead man to try and do _anything at all._
I have heard it said a dangerous place to be is between a politician and a camera.
It's no less so to be between a man self convinced of his good motives, and the good deeds he is trying to parade.
(But it is quite funny to watch me trip on my way to the limelight)


----------



## bigreddwon

gemcgrew said:


> Although the action may appear good in both cases, the intent could show otherwise.



I would agree. The person who did it out of fear of hades or for the reward of heaven is less 'genuinely good' than the person who just did it because it was a good thing to do. 

Ones JUST good the others fake good or forced good. Take your pick.


----------



## bigreddwon

mtnwoman said:


> We are not saved by 'works'....anyway.
> 
> I don't have any problem believing/knowing that any nonbeliever can have good morals.
> 
> I have no doubt that anyone who posts in any of these threads, would protect my life or feed me if needed.



You are correct. 

Some of your faith however feel VERY threatened by the thought of someone being Good just because they want to.


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> I would agree. The person who did it out of fear of hades or for the reward of heaven is less 'genuinely good' than the person who just did it because it was a good thing to do.
> 
> Ones JUST good the others fake good or forced good. Take your pick.




To be honest, they do that stuff because they want to do what Christ would do but they forget about the drowning the Earth part.


----------



## Israel

Some scourge and balm with the same tongue. 
Some might argue it could be fitting, depending upon what is being scourged, and what balmed.
Me, I may be pretty good at scourging and bombing, but since I need so much repair, I have discovered a course on balming.
We all end up eating what we serve.


----------



## Israel

bigreddwon said:


> You are correct.
> 
> Some of your faith however feel VERY threatened by the thought of someone being Good just because they want to.


That's interesting, the notion of "good".
How does it appear amongst the biologically imperative driven?
How do electrons and protons and all that goo inside cells, each, appearing to me, at least, as relatively benign, if not innocent, get one man to run into a burning building, and another to be an arsonist?
And perhaps, more to the point, that they might even "seem" to be the same man just separated by what appears as time?
What is a man, _really_?


----------



## bigreddwon

Israel...it's as if you write so that people will purposely stop reading 3 sentences in..


----------



## mtnwoman

bigreddwon said:


> Some of your faith however feel VERY threatened by the thought of someone being Good just because they want to.



Well that goes for both sides, doesn't it?


----------



## mtnwoman

bigreddwon said:


> Israel...it's as if you write so that people will purposely stop reading 3 sentences in..



Israel posts are deep. I have to read them 3 or 10 times before I get his point and have always had to do that with his writings.  I happen to be interested enough because I know there is something there from doing it over and over. 

But I get where you're coming from, too. I personally enjoy his writings now.


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> To be honest, they do that stuff because they want to do what Christ would do but they forget about the drowning the Earth part.



I beg to differ. I was that way before I became a practicing Christian. I let many a folk live with me for 'any' reason they had a need at the time. I fed them and gave them a warm place to stay, and usually ended up on the bleep end of the stick. "when my check comes, I'll pay you back", blah blah blah. And I'm not talking a few I'm talking a lot.  I did that then and I do it now, even though I can predict the consequences. Had then nor it has now to do with 'brownie' points, nor talking donkeys....LOL.


----------



## bigreddwon

mtnwoman said:


> Well that goes for both sides, doesn't it?



No.


----------



## Israel

bigreddwon said:


> Israel...it's as if you write so that people will purposely stop reading 3 sentences in..


I appreciate all the room left for grace in your "as if".
I appreciate your kindness.
Yours, too, Annie.
Very much.


----------



## bigreddwon

Israel said:


> I appreciate all the room left for grace in your "as if".
> I appreciate your kindness.
> Yours, too, Annie.
> Very much.



I wasn't being kind or unkind. 

I'm sure you have the ability to speak clearly, why don't you?


----------



## Israel

bigreddwon said:


> I wasn't being kind or unkind.
> 
> I'm sure you have the ability to speak clearly, why don't you?


What have I said that you find difficult?


----------



## mtnwoman

bigreddwon said:


> No.




Well according to walt and ambush it does, obviously.

So you don't believe that an unbeliever or believer could do something good for someone with evil intent?  I certainly believe both sides can do that.


----------



## mtnwoman

bigreddwon said:


> You are correct.
> 
> Some of your faith however feel VERY threatened by the thought of someone being Good just because they want to.



And some of your 'faith' believe we only do good because of Jesus.....like I said we are not saved by works/good deeds....because if it depended on good works, I'd need to invest in an asbestos suit.


----------



## mtnwoman

Israel said:


> I appreciate all the room left for grace in your "as if".
> I appreciate your kindness.
> Yours, too, Annie.
> Very much.



I'm sorry if you thought I was being unkind, maybe what I should've added was that my comprehensive skills are not so great,(as many here know) I have to read a lot of posts over and over to get all the meaning from a lot of people. Many times, some of us (including me) jump to conclusion about what someone is trying to say.
Your writings are quite poetic and I love to read them, they are deep and sometimes over my head, but I always glean a lot from them, especially now as I've gotten to know you better and how you post.


----------



## Israel

You were not unkind at all.
In truth you are more than kind.


----------



## mtnwoman

Israel said:


> You were not unkind at all.
> In truth you are more than kind.



Awwww, thank you, I'm glad you understand me and my posts.


----------



## ambush80

bigreddwon said:


> Israel...it's as if you write so that people will purposely stop reading 3 sentences in..





mtnwoman said:


> Israel posts are deep. I have to read them 3 or 10 times before I get his point and have always had to do that with his writings.  I happen to be interested enough because I know there is something there from doing it over and over.
> 
> But I get where you're coming from, too. I personally enjoy his writings now.





Israel said:


> What have I said that you find difficult?



Remember this:
_
"Walt, yes!
This could get real confusing in a hurry...Bullet be like on de other forum and saying folks that ain't acting like Jesus be sayin' like dey believe in him but are better'n evvyone else. Like what could be farther than what Jesus be about? Den you be over here and all like "with God on Our Side" like showin the stink of that attitude when it's used to justify cruelty and all. Sumtimes I wunda, who be da believers, and who be da fakers?
And maybe Jesus ain't jokin at all about dat sheeps and goats stuff. maybe it ain't da guy dat says "love your neighbor cause Jesus say so"...but dat guy what brought his neighbor a sammich cause he was hungry, and da guy says "why you brung me dis sammich?"...and de udder guy says "well, cause you said you wus hungry".
mebee Jesus ain't as crazy bout hearin hiz name mentioned evvytime as he interested in da hungry gettin' fed?
that could be weird for da people what's make dere livin' outta sayin' dat name a lot. _"

This is the most clear and concise you have ever been. 

Why should someone have to read what you wrote 3 or 10 times to understand it?  Are you being purposely cryptic?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Remember this:
> _
> "Walt, yes!
> This could get real confusing in a hurry...Bullet be like on de other forum and saying folks that ain't acting like Jesus be sayin' like dey believe in him but are better'n evvyone else. Like what could be farther than what Jesus be about? Den you be over here and all like "with God on Our Side" like showin the stink of that attitude when it's used to justify cruelty and all. Sumtimes I wunda, who be da believers, and who be da fakers?
> And maybe Jesus ain't jokin at all about dat sheeps and goats stuff. maybe it ain't da guy dat says "love your neighbor cause Jesus say so"...but dat guy what brought his neighbor a sammich cause he was hungry, and da guy says "why you brung me dis sammich?"...and de udder guy says "well, cause you said you wus hungry".
> mebee Jesus ain't as crazy bout hearin hiz name mentioned evvytime as he interested in da hungry gettin' fed?
> that could be weird for da people what's make dere livin' outta sayin' dat name a lot. _"
> 
> This is the most clear and concise you have ever been.
> 
> Why should someone have to read what you wrote 3 or 10 times to understand it?  Are you being purposely cryptic?


To some perhaps.
Rarely does being Pogo in the boat seem fitting.
But for truth's sake it may present itself.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us..."


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> Why should someone have to read what you wrote 3 or 10 times to understand it?



Because I'm so stupid? guess so...at least according to you....beat that donkey


----------



## Terminal Idiot

mtnwoman said:


> Because I'm so stupid? guess so...at least according to you....beat that donkey


It ain't you, sister.


----------



## Israel

Terminal Idiot said:


> It ain't you, sister.


That terminal, was kind...
And correct


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> To some perhaps.
> Rarely does being Pogo in the boat seem fitting.
> But for truth's sake it may present itself.
> "We have met the enemy, and he is us..."



I mean, just talk like a regular person.

This is not^^^^

I really want to know what you think is gained by being poetic and allegoric in these conversations?  Do you not realize that that's what you're doing?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> You can post an argument if you'd like, but there is no possible way to come to a moral law apart from a transcendent God.(and no, I'm not saying every non-Christian is a-moral). There will be assumptions smuggled in in every explanation of naturalistic morals. Post a link if you'd like, and I'll be glad to point them out to you.
> 
> 
> And just for the record, I was talking about consequences, not morals.



I found this little gen while perusing upstairs:

_"There is power in the seeking and things we can't understand. Every Bible study I go to the guys end up on the things that are a mystery. The things we can't get our head around. It's hard to do both. That maybe my main problem. Thinking has never aligned with faith for me. Less I think the better! "_

Not one admonition.  I swear...... how can anyone go though life like this?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I found this little gen while perusing upstairs:
> 
> _"There is power in the seeking and things we can't understand. Every Bible study I go to the guys end up on the things that are a mystery. The things we can't get our head around. It's hard to do both. That maybe my main problem. Thinking has never aligned with faith for me. Less I think the better! "_
> 
> Not one admonition.  I swear...... how can anyone go though life like this?


Maybe the hat's on you?


----------



## centerpin fan




----------



## Israel

Who could be more plain spoken than Pogo?


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> Are you being purposely cryptic?



And you are never being purposely mean spirited towards some people?   (patting on head) "good atheist, good atheist". Being that way doesn't look good for a lot of the posts here on both sides.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Maybe the hat's on you?



With all that talk about angels and devils, I realize it's futile to have a rational conversation upstairs.   And they laugh at faith healers.....well not some of them.


----------



## Israel

Ambush, have you ever considered that all our communications are "allegorical"? (The poetic part I'll refrain from considering.)

Which is correct, "pass me the C12H22O11," or the sugar? Or really, is that "white" stuff, neither?
Are there really "carbon" atoms, hydrogen, et al?...or is all our naming of "stuff" no more than our trying to conform reality into that which makes "common" sense to us. (And by common, I mean, that may be used as a means of exchange in communication.)
The discovery, and identification of a thing, in whatever sense, as distinct from "other stuff" previously known, provokes us to naming it. Oops, that is not my dog, that is jackal, or dingo, coyote or wolf. 
Language is often peculiar though, isn't it? Cause sometimes words come with a whole host of emotional provocations. Rilthe means nothing to most, but rearrange and Hitler becomes far more than just the same letters rearranged. Just the simple engagement in discussion provokes "what are the motives...here...what is this guy or woman "getting at?" What's really the motive...the "real" thing the words are either being used to mask...or elucidate? What, in a real sense, is the essence (to me) of that person, and then...upon evaluation...do I put them in the friend or foe bin?
Your question to me is more than fair, at least as I hear it, "don't you know the effect you are having by your communicating the way you do?" (At least to you, and whoever agrees with your question) Could it be further reduced to, "are you being intentionally obscure...to at least...someone like me?"
That could imply a touching of motive, right? Being Machiavellian in word commerce is not generally a thing friends do. So, foe bin it may have to be?

You know, if there's one thing I carry from the few conversations here, in this sub-forum and the comments I see and interpret, it is that a great many have less issue with God in the abstract, than with the meat and bones typists. 

If "God" in the abstract is simply defined as "prime cause" how many that are found looking after developments at Cern could easily deny, in their trumpeting of men's "science"...that the very thing they trumpet in hope, is not also a looking into the fundamentals, the search for the why, the how, the fabric, the substance, the basis...the "prime"?
Will you say "well, _science_ (and please accept the truncation of a whole set of methods, and method users into that one word) accepts it doesn't "know it all"...and is constantly searching, never having the hubris to declare all is resolved" (of which it could be proud of its humility) 
So, of course to such would the man bursting into the room and declaring  "I got it, I got the answer, finally, fully..."It's God in Jesus Christ!" You would at least feel the need to do some experiments, if not preemptively toss him from the room, saying..."no no no, all our endeavors are established upon this principle "no one can ever find the full answer...our endeavors in our calculus can never bring us perfectly to describing the change from "zero" to something. We can, at best, only approach it...but never apprehend it".
The "nothing" is ever there, but we can only describe the "some" things. We cannot delve into what's not able to found, for by its definition, it is unknowable.
OK.
It's no wonder then, is it? The them that hear something from the zero place, where the them that have accepted it cannot be known, are seen only bound by that premise, that "prime" of their acceptance...what is their difference?
None...unless that zero place has truly made itself known according to its own will, and none on "this side" can ever do one thing to make it happen...or prevent it.
You...do your experiments, do your probing, it's fair, it's consistent with your scientific method, it's not a problem at all, not confounding, not even "new".
Like a bug Jesus was pinioned...it's not news to anyone here, though some prefer to question its veracity because the fear of their complicity in that experiment leaves a door open in a closet from which a garment of "innocence" they hope hangs. "It didn't even happen" is the out.
But...some have done their own experiments, for the news of the "final answer" was as foreign to them coming from the zero as it would be to someone like Stephen Hawking. 

They have learned in their experiments with and (occasionally) against this answer from the unknowable place that a man who is free from even having to make sense to himself, let alone others, is free indeed.
So, again, in consideration of the few things I see as we discuss, and have discussed the God that is but is said to not be, is that for most of you, if not all of you "them", the God described by many is always just too durn small in concept, in communication, in history (if it be found only in one book), to suit you. You may be right.
The God who is God would have to be big enough to reconcile all your doubts, questions, and seeming contradictions you have discovered in all your experiments in mud.
Again, you'd be right.

Now, if I may ask you, what it seems the question was regarding my poverty of care and consideration of how my communications may appear for others, to others..."do you believe the God that would have to be big enough to satisfy your questions would have a care in the world as to how he sounded to those who say he isn't there?"
Or, really...do you like the "careful" god, the one you can play with, entice to "try" and prove himself to you, the one who it seems can be beckoned when you call yourself atheist, like a challenge to him...where you think you can do experiments on his "minions"?
If you don't like the way "I am", it's fine.
I have no gain to be had in trying to be "like you".
I already am.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Ambush, have you ever considered that all our communications are "allegorical"? (The poetic part I'll refrain from considering.)
> 
> Which is correct, "pass me the C12H22O11," or the sugar? Or really, is that "white" stuff, neither?



That depends on the context of the conversation, they're all correct but what are you trying to accomplish, which was my point to begin with



Israel said:


> Are there really "carbon" atoms, hydrogen, et al?...or is all our naming of "stuff" no more than our trying to conform reality into that which makes "common" sense to us. (And by common, I mean, that may be used as a means of exchange in communication.)



I think it's important.  Don't you?




Israel said:


> Now, if I may ask you, what it seems the question was regarding my poverty of care and consideration of how my communications may appear for others, to others..."do you believe the God that would have to be big enough to satisfy your questions would have a care in the world as to how he sounded to those who say he isn't there?"
> Or, really...do you like the "careful" god, the one you can play with, entice to "try" and prove himself to you, the one who it seems can be beckoned when you call yourself atheist, like a challenge to him...where you think you can do experiments on his "minions"?
> If you don't like the way "I am", it's fine.
> I have no gain to be had in trying to be "like you".
> I already am.



I worship the same god that you do: the one that I prefer.


----------



## stringmusic

The entire point I'm trying to make is this....

In the Christian worldview, there is objective reason for consequences for human beings. Whether you believe in the Christian God or not makes no difference, the fact is, that an objective reason exist in the worldview.

In the naturalistic worldview, there is no objective reason for consequences, only what one arrives at through their ability to reason. Evolution makes no moral claims whatsoever, the logic follows that humans cannot makes authoritative claims on consequences. Can there be consequences in life that humans make up for certain actions, sure, but logic dictates that all options are on the table for if those consequences should be enforced or what they should even be.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> The entire point I'm trying to make is this....
> 
> In the Christian worldview, there is objective reason for consequences for human beings. Whether you believe in the Christian God or not makes no difference, the fact is, that an objective reason exist in the worldview.
> 
> In the naturalistic worldview, there is no objective reason for consequences, only what one arrives at through their ability to reason. Evolution makes no moral claims whatsoever, the logic follows that humans cannot makes authoritative claims on consequences. Can there be consequences in life that humans make up for certain actions, sure, but logic dictates that all options are on the table for if those consequences should be enforced or what they should even be.



This what YOU don't get:

A Christian worldview is not objective.   Sheesh!!!


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Your purpose, if you're wired right, is to reproduce and perpetuate the species, even if it means getting your father drunk in a cave and raping him with your sister.



Again, according to your own worldview, this is simply your opinion. This is not objective or authoritative. 

I would like to expound on the "wired right" comment.

If evolution wires you one way, and Tom another, you say that humans purpose is to "reproduce and perpetuate the species", yet Tom says that humans purpose is pure hedonism, who is correct and how would you go about finding out?

Why would your reason for reproducing and perpetuating the species be authoritative over Toms reason?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> This what YOU don't get:
> 
> A Christian worldview is not objective.   Sheesh!!!



It's objective IN THE WORLDVIEW. It's part of the worldview. Objective reason is included in the worldview. 


I can't think of any other ways to explain it.


----------



## stringmusic

stringmusic said:


> It's objective IN THE WORLDVIEW. It's part of the worldview. Objective reason is included in the worldview.
> 
> 
> I can't think of any other ways to explain it.



I even said as much in the post you quoted....



stringmusic said:


> The entire point I'm trying to make is this....
> 
> In the Christian worldview, there is objective reason for consequences for human beings. Whether you believe in the Christian God or not makes no difference, the fact is, that an objective reason exist in the worldview.
> 
> In the naturalistic worldview, there is no objective reason for consequences, only what one arrives at through their ability to reason. Evolution makes no moral claims whatsoever, the logic follows that humans cannot makes authoritative claims on consequences. Can there be consequences in life that humans make up for certain actions, sure, but logic dictates that all options are on the table for if those consequences should be enforced or what they should even be.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Again, according to your own worldview, this is simply your opinion. This is not objective or authoritative.
> 
> I would like to expound on the "wired right" comment.
> 
> If evolution wires you one way, and Tom another, you say that humans purpose is to "reproduce and perpetuate the species", yet Tom says that humans purpose is pure hedonism, who is correct and how would you go about finding out?
> 
> Why would your reason for reproducing and perpetuating the species be authoritative over Toms reason?



Really?  REALLY?  You can't see why Tom's hedonism might cause trouble?  Really?


I don't care what Tom does or you for that matter, if your each on your own islands.   

You realize (maybe you don't) that the argument you are trying to make about "within my worldview" can be used by angry Muslims?  You know what happens then, right?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> That depends on the context of the conversation, they're all correct but what are you trying to accomplish, which was my point to begin with
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important.  Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worship the same god that you do: the one that I prefer.



Ain't that the truth?
We all bow down before something.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Really?  REALLY?  You can't see why Tom's hedonism might cause trouble?  Really?


You've gotta start reading what my posts actually say instead of what you want them to say.

Sure, I can see the problem with Tom's hedonism, but that's not what the question was.

What gives your "perpetuate and reproduce" theory of purpose any more weight than Tom's hedonism when the only thing separating the two of you is the way evolution "wired" you.



> You realize (maybe you don't) that the argument you are trying to make about "within my worldview" can be used by angry Muslims?  You know what happens then, right?


Yes, I do realize that. That's a totally different topic for an entire different discussion though. Add to that, this discussion would only be relevant to theists.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Ain't that the truth?
> We all bow down before something.



Nah.  



stringmusic said:


> You've gotta start reading what my posts actually say instead of what you want them to say.
> 
> Sure, I can see the problem with Tom's hedonism, but that's not what the question was.
> 
> What gives your "perpetuate and reproduce" theory of purpose any more weight than Tom's hedonism when the only thing separating the two of you is the way evolution "wired" you.
> 
> 
> Yes, I do realize that. That's a totally different topic for an entire different discussion though. Add to that, this discussion would only be relevant to theists.



And I said they carry the same weight....on an island by yourself.  Throw just one other person on the island and you're better off using an OBJECTIVE source for your morality (of which consequences might be involved),  that being rationality/reason.

The topic of religion is relevant to non-theists because theists use their non-objective sources to effect ALL of us.


----------



## bullethead

I would like someone to explain just how an all powerful God gave every human a set of morals engrained in their soul, yet these morals vary so widely and have been shown to be dependent upon upbringing, society, where you live, situations, education, religion, and on and on and on.......


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I would like someone to explain just how an all powerful God gave every human a set of morals engrained in their soul, yet these morals vary so widely and have been shown to be dependent upon upbringing, society, where you live, situations, education, religion, and on and on and on.......




They're listening to the wrong god? ....or the wrong denomination?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Nah.
> 
> 
> 
> And I said they carry the same weight....on an island by yourself.


Your theory and Tom's carry the same weight on an island, and in reality. When you take your worldview to it's logical conclusion, this is what you get.



> Throw just one other person on the island and you're better off using an OBJECTIVE source for your morality (of which consequences might be involved),  that being rationality/reason.


Reason and rationality aren't objective, the naturalists' worldview says so. And again, you can tell Tom all day how bad his theory of purpose sucks, but it holds just as much authority as your theory does. After all, you guys are just "wired" differently. 



> The topic of religion is relevant to non-theists because theists use their non-objective sources to effect ALL of us.


Different topic. Might be a good thread for the PF though.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I would like someone to explain just how an all powerful God gave every human a set of morals engrained in their soul, yet these morals vary so widely and have been shown to be dependent upon upbringing, society, where you live, situations, education, religion, and on and on and on.......


I've had this argument 1,000 times on this forum. The discussion in this thread is about consequences and reason.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I've had this argument 1,000 times on this forum. The discussion in this thread is about consequences and reason.



Consequences and reason vary as much as morals. No universal standards.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Consequences and reason vary as much as morals. No universal standards.



Ambush seems to think differently, he says reason is objective(even though the logic of his worldview says differently)


Maybe evolution just wired you two differently?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Ambush seems to think differently, he says reason is objective(even though the logic of his worldview says differently)
> 
> 
> Maybe evolution just wired you two differently?



Another great example of why there is no supreme source handing out universal traits.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> I would like someone to explain just how an all powerful God gave every human a set of morals engrained in their soul, yet these morals vary so widely and have been shown to be dependent upon upbringing, society, where you live, situations, education, religion, and on and on and on.......


He obviously made each human to differ one from another. The on and on and on.... determined by God.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> He obviously made each human to differ one from another. The on and on and on.... determined by God.


I agree.
Scientific proof....ie fingerprints, dna, etc. We are 'specifically' different from each other. Who discovered it for our time....scientists...who created it? God.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> He obviously made each human to differ one from another. The on and on and on.... determined by God.



There is nothing obvious about it.


----------



## Israel

Everyone I have ever met seems to very well understand pain.
If nothing more than it, at the very least, is. 
To a person, again, almost everyone seeks pleasure.
If nothing more than a consistency to what some may be calling their interpretations of the "soup" in which they've been raised.
Some may choose another bowl to float in, but even then, it may only be nothing more than a reaction to their original tureen's seasonings.


----------



## drippin' rock

Israel said:


> Everyone I have ever met seems to very well understand pain.
> If nothing more than it, at the very least, is.
> To a person, again, almost everyone seeks pleasure.
> If nothing more than a consistency to what some may be calling their interpretations of the "soup" in which they've been raised.
> Some may choose another bowl to float in, but even then, it may only be nothing more than a reaction to their original tureen's seasonings.



I agree completely.  We are a combination of our nature and nurture.  Wear we part ways the insistence that your specific god did it.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> There is nothing obvious about it.


What part of "all powerful God" do you not understand? It was your request for explanation.


----------



## mtnwoman

drippin' rock said:


> I agree completely.  We are a combination of our nature and nurture.  Wear we part ways the insistence that your specific god did it.



What god do 'you' think did it? Just curious.

Take allah for example, does he nurture? If so how does he nurture his flock? 

Or take buddha,  is he all about the money aspect? Throw pennies at the buddha in the nail salons...where the asians ie chinese, come to the USA to make money or take our jobs.  I used to have a job at bellsouth, now you get a person in the philippines that doesn't understand you and you don't understand them that work for half the money yet the rates have gone up? And I am jobless?

I'm not saying all these gods are bad....but they are a part of the whole....ie no God ABOVE Me. That's all it is.


----------



## Israel

drippin' rock said:


> I agree completely.  We are a combination of our nature and nurture.  Wear we part ways the insistence that your specific god did it.


I know well, also, and understand the beef with Jesus Christ.
I'd be a liar to say I haven't experienced those myself. Maybe even more recently than I let on, it could seem.
Like a clam I am being forced open, I don't like it, like a clam, all the soft mush is getting exposed to what seems hostile, at the expense of sinews and ligaments that would keep the jaws closed. The stretching, the undoing of nature, the undoing of what wants to remain single, whole, and intact...an integer, proud of its integrity.
I am not the only one, I know.
I have the hardest shell, the best protections, who, or what, would want to undo such a great fortress, such a perfect "one"?
Give up to the sea? 
Surrender to the "out there"?...where so often nothing seems perfect but its chaos? 
Submit to darters...to biters?
I could never "choose" this, want this, believe this...
And neither I trust, can any.

"My  God?" I don't think so.
The God.

Unless he show me he is my God, I can never take my stand on the making of myself as his.

The resurrection.

Ahhh, the sea! The beautiful, all life giving sea! To be in it and of it!
May I?


----------



## bigreddwon

mtnwoman said:


> What god do 'you' think did it? Just curious.
> 
> Take allah for example, does he nurture? If so how does he nurture his flock?
> 
> Or take buddha,  is he all about the money aspect? Throw pennies at the buddha in the nail salons...where the asians ie chinese, come to the USA to make money or take our jobs.  I used to have a job at bellsouth, now you get a person in the philippines that doesn't understand you and you don't understand them that work for half the money yet the rates have gone up? And I am jobless?
> 
> I'm not saying all these gods are bad....but they are a part of the whole....ie no God ABOVE Me. That's all it is.



Allah, Jehova, same god.. The god of Abraham. . Your god is their god. Just like the south prayed to the same god as the north during the civil war. .


----------



## drippin' rock

mtnwoman said:


> What god do 'you' think did it? Just curious.
> 
> Take allah for example, does he nurture? If so how does he nurture his flock?
> 
> Or take buddha,  is he all about the money aspect? Throw pennies at the buddha in the nail salons...where the asians ie chinese, come to the USA to make money or take our jobs.  I used to have a job at bellsouth, now you get a person in the philippines that doesn't understand you and you don't understand them that work for half the money yet the rates have gone up? And I am jobless?
> 
> I'm not saying all these gods are bad....but they are a part of the whole....ie no God ABOVE Me. That's all it is.


 

If I have to choose, I lean more toward NO god.  

Other countries "taking" our jobs is the fault of the one you are in.  You could call it the evolution of economy.  Just like death and taxes, not a bloomin' thing we can do about it.  Maybe that inevitable helplessness  is why we started looking up.


----------



## drippin' rock

Israel said:


> I know well, also, and understand the beef with Jesus Christ.
> I'd be a liar to say I haven't experienced those myself. Maybe even more recently than I let on, it could seem.
> Like a clam I am being forced open, I don't like it, like a clam, all the soft mush is getting exposed to what seems hostile, at the expense of sinews and ligaments that would keep the jaws closed. The stretching, the undoing of nature, the undoing of what wants to remain single, whole, and intact...an integer, proud of its integrity.
> I am not the only one, I know.
> I have the hardest shell, the best protections, who, or what, would want to undo such a great fortress, such a perfect "one"?
> Give up to the sea?
> Surrender to the "out there"?...where so often nothing seems perfect but its chaos?
> Submit to darters...to biters?
> I could never "choose" this, want this, believe this...
> And neither I trust, can any.
> 
> "My  God?" I don't think so.
> The God.
> 
> Unless he show me he is my God, I can never take my stand on the making of myself as his.
> 
> The resurrection.
> 
> Ahhh, the sea! The beautiful, all life giving sea! To be in it and of it!
> May I?



Or,  All your internal struggles are just that... Internal.  How many people on this Big Blue Marble struggle like you and never consider or need to attribute it to a creator?  If you pray to find peace, if you meditate, run, do yoga...  It all comes from the same place.  Within.


----------



## ambush80

drippin' rock said:


> Or,  All your internal struggles are just that... Internal.  How many people on this Big Blue Marble struggle like you and never consider or need to attribute it to a creator?  If you pray to find peace, if you meditate, run, do yoga...  It all comes from the same place.  Within.



Excellent point.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> What part of "all powerful God" do you not understand? It was your request for explanation.



The "god" part.


----------



## gemcgrew

drippin' rock said:


> How many people on this Big Blue Marble struggle like you and never consider or need to attribute it to a creator?


Zero, and that is partially based upon 50 plus years of sampling.


----------



## drippin' rock

gemcgrew said:


> Zero, and that is partially based upon 50 plus years of sampling.



Ok.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Zero, and that is partially based upon 50 plus years of sampling.



I agree.  At some point, everyone will encounter the notion of vampires and gods and will have to decide whether or not to believe in them.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Excellent point.


What is manifest outwardly...always comes from within, does it not? Or, do we think we can somehow morph through cleverness what is in the heart...so it comes out as "something else"?
Does Christ dwell in a heart by faith?



Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
It's always, so, isn't it? 
When less than consistent in word and heart...a dissonance becomes apparent.
I can say I love you and find so much between that and the truth of it as to be rightly condemned a cunning liar.
I can say I hate you and find remorse at such words...
I can say "I have faith"...and show something else.
Perhaps no less may one say "God, who needs him...that...it...? And find something else...deeper in the heart to bring a change?
Something, unseen, unfound, unsensed...till the words are uttered...and the sibilance is revealed.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Another great example of why there is no supreme source handing out universal traits.


Or maybe there is a Supreme Source that does hand out _some_ universal traits and humans deny and reject them.

You seem to think because all people don't think exactly alike that there is no such thing as objective truth, where did you get that notion?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> I agree.  At some point, everyone will encounter the notion of vampires and gods and will have to decide whether or not to believe in them.


Maybe evolution decided for us? Fatalism? Determinism? Atheistic Calvinism?

Maybe Mr. Evolution took a Friday off from the wiring factory?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Ambush seems to think differently, he says reason is objective(even though the logic of his worldview says differently)
> 
> 
> Maybe evolution just wired you two differently?





stringmusic said:


> Maybe evolution decided for us? Fatalism? Determinism? Atheistic Calvinism?
> 
> Maybe Mr. Evolution took a Friday off from the wiring factory?



I was ignoring the first post but since you seem to think you've come up with a winner I'll help you.

Math is a form of reason.  Is math objective?  

And what do you presume is my "worldview" (in parenthesis because it's a lame term hijacked by misguided apologists.  Bassquatch anyone?)?

We're not Vulcans.  We have emotions which left unchecked sometimes lead to superstition/deism.  If you understand where your fears of dying and of purposelessness come from then you can deal with them in a rational way.

Tell me why reason is subjective.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Zero, and that is partially based upon 50 plus years of sampling.


"Why hast thou made me thus?"


----------



## drippin' rock

Does christ EXIST by faith?  The devil?  Tooth Fairy?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> I was ignoring the first post but since you seem to think you've come up with a winner I'll help you.


Yea, I noticed.



> Math is a form of reason.  Is math objective?


Umm, maybe? I'm not sure where you're going with this.  



> And what do you presume is my "worldview" (in parenthesis because it's a lame term hijacked by misguided apologists.  Bassquatch anyone?)?


From what I've gathered talking to you for years on this forum, I would say you're a naturalist. I'm not really sure why you think the term 'worldview' is "lame" or how you think "misguided apologists hijacked the term"? Everyone has a worldview, I'm sure I don't need to post the definition for you. 



> We're not Vulcans.  We have emotions which left unchecked sometimes lead to superstition/deism.  If you understand where your fears of dying and of purposelessness come from then you can deal with them in a rational way.


I never said you couldn't. I said that everyone's reasons for the way they think are all on equal footing when there is not an objective source they can turn to.



> Tell me why reason is subjective.


Maybe you should ask Bullet, he seems to know. 


I have reasonable arguments as to why God exists, is that objective reason?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Or maybe there is a Supreme Source that does hand out _some_ universal traits and humans deny and reject them.


Can you give us any evidence throughout the history of mankind that backs up that line of thinking?



stringmusic said:


> You seem to think because all people don't think exactly alike that there is no such thing as objective truth, where did you get that notion?


I just make decisions about that sort of stuff based off of the examples at hand.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Maybe you should ask Bullet, he seems to know.



Just answer the man


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Yea, I noticed.
> 
> 
> Umm, maybe? I'm not sure where you're going with this.
> 
> 
> From what I've gathered talking to you for years on this forum, I would say you're a naturalist. I'm not really sure why you think the term 'worldview' is "lame" or how you think "misguided apologists hijacked the term"? Everyone has a worldview, I'm sure I don't need to post the definition for you.
> 
> 
> I never said you couldn't. I said that everyone's reasons for the way they think are all on equal footing when there is not an objective source they can turn to.
> 
> 
> Maybe you should ask Bullet, he seems to know.
> 
> 
> I have reasonable arguments as to why God exists, is that objective reason?



Shot to heck time and time again.  It's just your opinion.  Your ignorance about the existence of god as well as mine is objective.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Just answer the man



He's trying to set us against one another.  It doesn't work as well down here as it does upstairs.  It's not even fun anymore up there.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Can you give us any evidence throughout the history of mankind that backs up that line of thinking?


Love, everybody loves someone, or something at some point in their lives. That would be the main one, at least that I can think of at the time, and it makes sense, because we are created in the image of God, who is love.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Just answer the man


LOL. I did, in the form of a question.


ambush80 said:


> Shot to heck time and time again.  It's just your opinion.  Your ignorance about the existence of god as well as mine is objective.


But, but, but..... I used reason, and it's objective.


ambush80 said:


> He's trying to set us against one another.  It doesn't work as well down here as it does upstairs.  It's not even fun anymore up there.


Laugh....out.....loud.

I'm not trying to "set you two against each other", y'all did that yourselves.

Why don't you ask Bullet if reason is objective? You can reference post #101


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Love, everybody loves someone, or something at some point in their lives. That would be the main one, at least that I can think of at the time, and it makes sense, because we are created in the image of God, who is love.




OMG.  did you pull that out of your backside?  May as well have.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> But, but, but..... I used reason, and it's objective.




Reason like Willard?  Shall we shred that big poop into little poops again?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Love, everybody loves someone, or something at some point in their lives. That would be the main one, at least that I can think of at the time, and it makes sense, because we are created in the image of God, who is love.



Love is an emotion. It is not universal as Love varies greatly between individuals. And while probably a small percentage,throughout the history of humans I am sure there are humans that have not experienced a love of any sort.
Hardly a universal trait that was given to everyone equally...and certainly not even a decent example of any sort of God.
You start some very good conversations and then always throw in an assertion that makes the rest of what you talked about lose it's validity.

In your mind what version of humans best represents your Gods image?

Homo sapiens?
Homo gautengensis?
Homo habilis?
Homo erectus?
Homo antecessor?
Homo ergaster?
Homo rhodesiensis?
Homo heidelbergensis?
Homo neanderthalensis?
Homo floresiensis?
Denisova hominin?
Red Deer Cave people?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> LOL. I did, in the form of a question.
> 
> But, but, but..... I used reason, and it's objective.
> 
> Laugh....out.....loud.
> 
> I'm not trying to "set you two against each other", y'all did that yourselves.
> 
> Why don't you ask Bullet if reason is objective? You can reference post #101



Reason is Objective and Subjective.
One is based of off undeniable fact. The other is based off of opinion, experiences, culture, personal views etc.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Reason is Objective and Subjective.
> One is based of off undeniable fact. The other is based off of opinion, experiences, culture, personal views etc.



In this case I'm not sure you're using reason anymore.  I think that would be preference, which is not reason.

You can't use reason to make conclusions about matters of taste, which is what belief in god, any god, is.

It would be like saying "use reason to explain why frog legs are better than calamari."


----------



## Israel

Experiences...yes.
Very personal...kinda like pearls. 
I used to marvel, wonder, ponder, etc...about those words pearls/swine.
I was very quick to identify swine...usually those who did not receive my "experiences..." ha ha, the joke was on me.
Jesus gives pearls to swine. Freely. Food to dogs...etc. The key, it seems, is identifying oneself consistently. And properly.
I know I know...such seeming self abasement is the sign of a weak mind. 
But I discovered something along the way..."alone" or "with". I like with, more, much more...than alone. I know what it means to be attracted to the bravado of Milton's verse, to: "rather rule in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, than serve in heaven."
I disagree, now.
The pearls keep coming. The alone keeps leaving.
Experiences. 
Yes. 
Tyson stands in awe that he is talking stardust. 
I stand in awe that dust is not only allowed to be, but entreated, to speak.
And so it does, till the secrets of the heart are revealed.
Created, some would say.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> In this case I'm not sure you're using reason anymore.  I think that would be preference, which is not reason.
> 
> You can't use reason to make conclusions about matters of taste, which is what belief in god, any god, is.
> 
> It would be like saying "use reason to explain why frog legs are better than calamari."



In my defense I did not base those replies off of my own opinion. I looked up the definitions and wrote down what I've read.

While I like the chewy calamari, I prefer the stringier texture of the frog legs.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Experiences...yes.
> Very personal...kinda like pearls.
> I used to marvel, wonder, ponder, etc...about those words pearls/swine.
> I was very quick to identify swine...usually those who did not receive my "experiences..." ha ha, the joke was on me.
> Jesus gives pearls to swine. Freely. Food to dogs...etc. The key, it seems, is identifying oneself consistently. And properly.
> I know I know...such seeming self abasement is the sign of a weak mind.
> But I discovered something along the way..."alone" or "with". I like with, more, much more...than alone. I know what it means to be attracted to the bravado of Milton's verse, to: "rather rule in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, than serve in heaven."
> I disagree, now.
> The pearls keep coming. The alone keeps leaving.
> Experiences.
> Yes.
> Tyson stands in awe that he is talking stardust.
> I stand in awe that dust is not only allowed to be, but entreated, to speak.
> And so it does, till the secrets of the heart are revealed.
> Created, some would say.



Imagined, some would say.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> In my defense I did not base those replies off of my own opinion. I looked up the definitions and wrote down what I've read.
> 
> While I like the chewy calamari, I prefer the stringier texture of the frog legs.




Right on. I may be whack with my understanding of 'reason' but not as whack as Willard.

As a way of thinking, reason is pretty solid.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Imagined, some would say.



Now you got it!
Ya ever read Catch 22?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Now you got it!
> Ya ever read Catch 22?




No I haven't. Just Wiki-ed it.  I think I get the gist.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Experiences...yes.
> Very personal...kinda like pearls.
> I used to marvel, wonder, ponder, etc...about those words pearls/swine.
> I was very quick to identify swine...usually those who did not receive my "experiences..." ha ha, the joke was on me.
> Jesus gives pearls to swine. Freely. Food to dogs...etc. The key, it seems, is identifying oneself consistently. And properly.
> I know I know...such seeming self abasement is the sign of a weak mind.
> But I discovered something along the way..."alone" or "with". I like with, more, much more...than alone. I know what it means to be attracted to the bravado of Milton's verse, to: "rather rule in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, than serve in heaven."
> I disagree, now.
> The pearls keep coming. The alone keeps leaving.
> Experiences.
> Yes.
> Tyson stands in awe that he is talking stardust.
> I stand in awe that dust is not only allowed to be, but entreated, to speak.
> And so it does, till the secrets of the heart are revealed.
> Created, some would say.



We're usually pretty casual around here but I've got to tell ya, your self loathing really makes me sad.

If that's how your faith affects you then that kind of sucks.

Don't ask such and such for forgiveness.  Forgive yourself.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> We're usually pretty casual around here but I've got to tell ya, your self loathing really makes me sad.
> 
> If that's how your faith affects you than that kind of sucks.
> 
> Don't ask such and such for forgiveness.  Forgive yourself.



That right there is an eye opener.
A lot of this need for God(s) is a way of dealing with self disappointment. It is another example of "If I could be better, this is who I would be (insert God example here)"...well BE that person and feel good about it and stop feeling bad about the person you are. 

There is good reason why "god" likes and dislikes the same things believers do. "God" is them just a better version of their own vision.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> A lot of this need for God(s) is a way of dealing with self disappointment.



I dunno.  I like to think I would be a believer even if I had the force, or any other such super power.   Primarily because I can't "reason" (I guess my definition at this point in the thread) my way around his existence.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> That right there is an eye opener.
> A lot of this need for God(s) is a way of dealing with self disappointment. It is another example of "If I could be better, this is who I would be (insert God example here)"...well BE that person and feel good about it and stop feeling bad about the person you are.
> 
> There is good reason why "god" likes and dislikes the same things believers do. "God" is them just a better version of their own vision.



What makes me the saddest is "I'm a wretched sinner.  Deserving of dangnation.  I'm a horrible filthy creature."


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I dunno.  I like to think I would be a believer even if I had the force, or any other such super power.   Primarily because I can't "reason" (I guess my definition at this point in the thread) my way around his existence.




I'm guessing you can.. You just don't want to.  It's a preference.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> That right there is an eye opener.
> A lot of this need for God(s) is a way of dealing with self disappointment. It is another example of "If I could be better, this is who I would be (insert God example here)"...well BE that person and feel good about it and stop feeling bad about the person you are.
> 
> There is good reason why "god" likes and dislikes the same things believers do. "God" is them just a better version of their own vision.



I am water and dirt.
It's what I am, the same water and dirt that pretty much  makes up a slug.
That's all.
I used to, and still occasionally think of myself as the bottled kind, you know, like Perrier.
Not so much, anymore.
You're right, I need help.
But nothing less than _all the help there is_.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I'm guessing you can.. You just don't want to.



That is actually very true.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> The "god" part.


It is a given and only confirms that what the Apostle Paul says about you is true. What is your understanding of the "all powerful" part?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> That is actually very true.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> It is a given and only confirms that what the Apostle Paul says about you is true. What is your understanding of the "all powerful" part?



That only confirms it to you because you believe it.
If it all were an absolute truth everyone would understand it equally.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> That only confirms it to you because you believe it.


That is what Paul said as well.


bullethead said:


> If it all were an absolute truth everyone would understand it equally.


It would remain an absolute truth, even if unrecognizable to the idiot.

What is your understanding of "all powerful"?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> OMG.  did you pull that out of your backside?  May as well have.


It's consistent with my worldview.


ambush80 said:


> Reason like Willard?  Shall we shred that big poop into little poops again?


Yea, you guys really shredded his argument up real good like......


Go back and read that thread over again.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Love is an emotion. It is not universal as Love varies greatly between individuals.


The degree in which love varies greatly, but love still exists. I didn't say everyone loves exactly the same.




> And while probably a small percentage,throughout the history of humans I am sure there are humans that have not experienced a love of any sort.


I can't think of a scenario in which someone doesn't love something.



> In your mind what version of humans best represents your Gods image?
> 
> Homo sapiens?
> Homo gautengensis?
> Homo habilis?
> Homo erectus?
> Homo antecessor?
> Homo ergaster?
> Homo rhodesiensis?
> Homo heidelbergensis?
> Homo neanderthalensis?
> Homo floresiensis?
> Denisova hominin?
> Red Deer Cave people?


All of 'em


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Reason is Objective and Subjective.
> One is based of off undeniable fact. The other is based off of opinion, experiences, culture, personal views etc.


Which one is Ambush using when he says that my purpose on this earth is to perpetuate the species and reproduce.

Do you think there is any opinion or personal views in his post?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Right on. I may be whack with my understanding of 'reason' but not as whack as Willard.


Willard also used logic.



> As a way of thinking, reason is pretty solid.


I don't disagree.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> What makes me the saddest is "I'm a wretched sinner.  Deserving of dangnation.  I'm a horrible filthy creature."



 Just not good is quite enough.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Willard also used logic.
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.



Except for........(I'll let you finish it)


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Just not good is quite enough.



I don't know you.  Maybe you are a wretched beast.  In which case I recommend that you continue to do good for god for the sake of the rest of us.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Which one is Ambush using when he says that my purpose on this earth is to perpetuate the species and reproduce.
> 
> Do you think there is any opinion or personal views in his post?



It's a best guess based on things that can be observed unlike your premise.

Making a best guess based on limited evidence, REAL evidence is logical and rational. 

Show me just one shred of real evidence that supports god.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> That is what Paul said as well.
> 
> It would remain an absolute truth, even if unrecognizable to the idiot.
> 
> What is your understanding of "all powerful"?


I have a great understanding of what all powerful is supposed to be. But no examples that I can give or have heard of that would back it up.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


>



It's a little more than that, I think.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Making a best guess based on limited evidence, REAL evidence is logical and rational.



All evidence indicates life doesn't infest dead things.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Except for........(I'll let you finish it)


I don't understand.


ambush80 said:


> It's a best guess based on things that can be observed unlike your premise.


I don't see "best guess" in the definition of objective reason. 

It's a best guess that you like, there are many other guesses based on observation as well. 

Your subjective reasoning is showing.



> Making a best guess based on limited evidence, REAL evidence is logical and rational.


What about Tom and his best guess? 



> Show me just one shred of real evidence that supports god.


The bible. The Willard argument. JB's post....


> All evidence indicates life doesn't infest dead things.



Tell me how you come to the conclusion that inanimate objects somehow turn into animate objects like humans, with objective reason.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I have a great understanding of what all powerful is supposed to be. But no examples that I can give or have heard of that would back it up.


I have one...my consciousness, as compared to what is...true consciousness.
Jesus spoke to a crowd, maybe some of them were feeling rather remote from a buncha guys on whom a tower fell, and killed them. Probably because of that presumption of separation, some were considering in their hearts why this end was maybe "more fitting" for people like that than themselves.
(It happens all the time...even on here)
Jesus reminded them, "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Sin takes peculiar courses in the consciousness. Some believe sin is present unless one makes every effort (whatever "every effort" may appear as) to be as scrupulously righteous as they. 
Some others, less inclined to admit it, believe others sin against rationality and reason by not bending in precise measure to the extent they honor it.
Of course they can't call this "sin" of itself, they must pooh pooh such a seemingly quaint notion to them.
Someone recently "nah-ed" the notion that everyone bows before some altar. 
But we do. 
We all do. 
Bow before something.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> All evidence indicates life doesn't infest dead things.



Evidence indicates that all life is made from the same building blocks and those building blocks separately are inanimate. Together they become animate. 
Current research shows clouds of amino acids in outer space that are floating around right now and are an indication of how those acids in our galaxy mixed with the right components that were already on our planet or came from outer space and when mixed together  under the environmental conditions that occurred over millions and billions of years were right for creating life.

You. Me. We. Are all perfect examples of inanimate "dead" matter being put together to make living matter.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I don't understand.
> 
> I don't see "best guess" in the definition of objective reason.
> 
> It's a best guess that you like, there are many other guesses based on observation as well.
> 
> Your subjective reasoning is showing.
> 
> 
> What about Tom and his best guess?
> 
> 
> The bible. The Willard argument. JB's post....
> 
> 
> Tell me how you come to the conclusion that inanimate objects somehow turn into animate objects like humans, with objective reason.



Break down every part of the human body and you will see that separately none of them are alive on their own. That goes for every single living thing.
Only together do those inanimate objects become animate.
You don't need to look any farther than yourself for the examples you are looking for.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Evidence indicates that all life is made from the same building blocks and those building blocks separately are inanimate. Together they become animate.
> Current research shows clouds of amino acids in outer space that are floating around right now and are an indication of how those acids in our galaxy mixed with the right components that were already on our planet or came from outer space and when mixed together  under the environmental conditions that occurred over millions and billions of years were right for creating life.
> 
> You. Me. We. Are all perfect examples of inanimate "dead" matter being put together to make living matter.



Your first paragraph is definitely one theory.  I don't see how it's accepted as plausible given the total lack of any evidence that it could work.  And, without a God, it's gotta be something......a one-in-a-billion occurence that happened here, then evolved to make ants, t-rex, and single celled amoebas.   I objectively reason that an external catalyst is much more likely the cause.   Remove the existence of an external catalyst and I am left speculating about space acids interacting with earth rocks in just the right way to create dinosaurs.

To the last paragraph, yes.  But, the inanimate dead matter had to be acted on by live matter.  It does not act upon itself.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Your first paragraph is definitely one theory.  I don't see how it's accepted as plausible given the total lack of any evidence that it could work.  And, without a God, it's gotta be something......a one-in-a-billion occurence that happened here, then evolved to make ants, t-rex, and single celled amoebas.   I objectively reason that an external catalyst is much more likely the cause.   Remove the existence of an external catalyst and I am left speculating about space acids interacting with earth rocks in just the right way to create dinosaurs.
> 
> To the last paragraph, yes.  But, the inanimate dead matter had to be acted on by live matter.  It does not act upon itself.



Jb it is shown that a ONE in a billion chance  is highly unlikely and ONE in a 10^64 chance is virtually impossible. But those are for ONE try.
With all of the matter in all of the Universe floating around and constantly bombarding and mixing with all of the other elements combined with heat, water, electricity, atmosphere, conditions on this planet and tens of hundreds of billions of different components mixing and mingling tens of hundreds of billions of times with the most productive examples advancing and building off of each of the tens of hundreds of trillions of more attempts happening over and over every minute for 4 billion years....the odds are in favor of life happening. Not by chance but by sheer attempts with survival of the productive outcomes advancing and the next bunch building off of that success. It is not a theory like a guess. In science a theory is THE best available explanation based off of the best available information that has been evaluated and tested and accepted by the majority of all of the scientific communities.
Unfortunately for now and after 150 years of modern scientific study no God is in that theory let alone a specific God.


----------



## bullethead

Space acids interacting with earth rocks will not create dinosaurs. It is much more in depth and involved than that. You just have an easier time inserting an explanation that is more simple and requires no evidence yet demands you to overlook the evidence that is available.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Space acids interacting with earth rocks will not create dinosaurs. It is much more in depth and involved than that. You just have an easier time inserting an explanation that is more simple and requires no evidence yet demands you to overlook the evidence that is available.



What evidence am I overlooking?  

There is no getting around the fact that the theory we are discussing involves a space acid and an earth rock gettin' together and making a t-rex.  We can add detail to make it more plausible, but that is it in it's most simple form.

I am assuming there is also whole universe of complicated science behind a God creating the universe as well.  But, at it's most simple for we have "God dun it."


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> In science a theory is THE best available explanation based off of the best available information that has been evaluated and tested and accepted by the majority of all of the scientific communities.



YEs, and when it comes to abiogenesis, it is a scientific way of trying to figure out how it could happen without external influence.  

I see evidence of God everywhere.  So do you.  We interpret this evidence very differently.  AA's tend to latch onto anything that can possibly explain the unexplainable in an effort to "prove" god an unlikely conclusion.  Believers so the same in the opposite direction.   I'm as guilty of anybody, even though I tend to have healthy skepticism when somebody "finds" the ark, or similar things.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Jb it is shown that a ONE in a billion chance  is highly unlikely and ONE in a 10^64 chance is virtually impossible. But those are for ONE try.
> With all of the matter in all of the Universe floating around and constantly bombarding and mixing with all of the other elements combined with heat, water, electricity, atmosphere, conditions on this planet and tens of hundreds of billions of different components mixing and mingling tens of hundreds of billions of times with the most productive examples advancing and building off of each of the tens of hundreds of trillions of more attempts happening over and over every minute for 4 billion years....the odds are in favor of life happening. Not by chance but by sheer attempts with survival of the productive outcomes advancing and the next bunch building off of that success. It is not a theory like a guess. In science a theory is THE best available explanation based off of the best available information that has been evaluated and tested and accepted by the majority of all of the scientific communities.
> Unfortunately for now and after 150 years of modern scientific study no God is in that theory let alone a specific God.


Then matter is your God?
And the willy nilly of time and happenstance your creator?
Then surely you should have no difficulty at all accepting that your consciousness and reason, born of such, reflects its creator? Perhaps if anything is possible in this sea of probability, the probability that you will trust your accidental consciousness to land on a pre-existent, self existent consciousness is not at all out of that same realm of probability.
Welcome, brother! 
Even if this welcome be only slightly premature.


----------



## drippin' rock

JB0704 said:


> What evidence am I overlooking?
> 
> There is no getting around the fact that the theory *we are discussing involves a space acid and an earth rock gettin' together and making a t-rex.*  We can add detail to make it more plausible, but that is it in it's most simple form.
> 
> I am assuming there is also whole universe of complicated science behind a God creating the universe as well.  But, at it's most simple for we have "God dun it."




I got the song "Let's get it on" stuck in my head now.  Thanks.


----------



## drippin' rock

JB0704 said:


> YEs, and when it comes to abiogenesis, it is a scientific way of trying to figure out how it could happen without external influence.
> 
> I see evidence of God everywhere.  So do you.  We interpret this evidence very differently.  AA's tend to latch onto anything that can possibly explain the unexplainable in an effort to "prove" god an unlikely conclusion.  Believers so the same in the opposite direction.   I'm as guilty of anybody, even though I tend to have healthy skepticism when somebody "finds" the ark, or similar things.



One thing I like about science, when applied properly, is the objectivity.  Following the evidence where ever it might lead is the objective.  Putting the pieces of the puzzle together, so to speak.  We can't explain the unexplainable now, but give it 100 years and we will be closer.  Look at what has been explained and discovered the last 100.  So many Christians I know embrace ignorance with the "I don't know how that works/happened, but ain't God wonderful?" Hogwash.  WE have the ability to figure it out.  And if we don't now, we will.  That is in what I have faith.


----------



## JB0704

drippin' rock said:


> I got the song "Let's get it on" stuck in my head now.  Thanks.


----------



## JB0704

drippin' rock said:


> One thing I like about science, when applied properly, is the objectivity.  Following the evidence where ever it might lead is the objective.  Putting the pieces of the puzzle together, so to speak.  We can't explain the unexplainable now, but give it 100 years and we will be closer.  Look at what has been explained and discovered the last 100.  So many Christians I know embrace ignorance with the "I don't know how that works/happened, but ain't God wonderful?" Hogwash.  WE have the ability to figure it out.  And if we don't now, we will.  That is in what I have faith.



Sure, science is fantastic.  It ahs made people's lives so much better than it was historically.  Understanding our universe is also a very good thing.  

My thoughts on this are simple, science explains creation.  When the question is settled (for the individual), there is nothing to fear from discovery.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Then matter is your God?
> And the willy nilly of time and happenstance your creator?
> Then surely you should have no difficulty at all accepting that your consciousness and reason, born of such, reflects its creator? Perhaps if anything is possible in this sea of probability, the probability that you will trust your accidental consciousness to land on a pre-existent, self existent consciousness is not at all out of that same realm of probability.
> Welcome, brother!
> Even if this welcome be only slightly premature.



Gods get worshiped.
Gods get the credit for planning creation.

I am the byproduct of chemistry. There is no need for anyone to consider it a god. No welcomes needed


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> What evidence am I overlooking?
> 
> There is no getting around the fact that the theory we are discussing involves a space acid and an earth rock gettin' together and making a t-rex.  We can add detail to make it more plausible, but that is it in it's most simple form.
> 
> I am assuming there is also whole universe of complicated science behind a God creating the universe as well.  But, at it's most simple for we have "God dun it."



If we are keeping it simple we can provide space acid and earth rocks and we can provide a t-rex.. yet in all of the hundreds of topics in here and the tens of thousands of posts just in the AAA forum no one not even once has provided any actual God.
That really is breaking it down to the most simple.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Gods get worshiped.
> Gods get the credit for planning creation.
> 
> I am the byproduct of chemistry. There is no need for anyone to consider it a god. No welcomes needed


yes, gods get worshipped.

But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> If we are keeping it simple we can provide space acid and earth rocks and we can provide a t-rex.. yet in all of the hundreds of topics in here and the tens of thousands of posts just in the AAA forum no one not even once has provided any actual God.
> That really is breaking it down to the most simple.



I'm not sure there is any evidence that space acids and earth rocks made life either.  It's just another way to rationalize existence.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> YEs, and when it comes to abiogenesis, it is a scientific way of trying to figure out how it could happen without external influence.
> 
> I see evidence of God everywhere.  So do you.  We interpret this evidence very differently.  AA's tend to latch onto anything that can possibly explain the unexplainable in an effort to "prove" god an unlikely conclusion.  Believers so the same in the opposite direction.   I'm as guilty of anybody, even though I tend to have healthy skepticism when somebody "finds" the ark, or similar things.





> AA's tend to latch onto anything that can possibly explain the unexplainable in an effort to "prove" god an unlikely conclusion.


I'm not sure that is real accurate.
What makes a god an unlikely conclusion is a complete lack of evidence or a reason that would make a god a likely conclusion.
While I know this is would be very difficult, step out of your Christian shoes for a moment, take everything we know and explain how a god is the most likely scenario based on that information and that information alone.
My point being, is the A/A trying to prove a god an unlikely conclusion or without faith/belief in a god is it just that there is no evidence to make an A/A go in the direction of a god being likely?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> yes, gods get worshipped.
> 
> But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.



Yeah...whatever...still no god in any form for me.
Carry on chewing up bandwith


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I'm not sure there is any evidence that space acids and earth rocks made life either.  It's just another way to rationalize existence.



Take Walt's advice for a minute or two.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I don't know you.  Maybe you are a wretched beast.  In which case I recommend that you continue to do good for god for the sake of the rest of us.


What would make you think anything "good" could come from a wretch?
What would make you think that I think that?
If there be anything of the slightest hint that I could "do" anything for God that he can't do himself perfectly well, well, I'd be a traitor to the faith I have received.
And though I cannot determine my position relative to ever having, or even presently abiding faithful, it's my pleasure to speak of the one who is the true abiding witness from the beginning, Jesus the Messiah.
It's enough that he decide where and how I appear.
But, among you all, yes, I am not at all reluctant to speak the truth of myself. 
Yes, I am _the_ wretch.
Just a wretch that has seen grace.
Marvelous grace.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> We're usually pretty casual around here but I've got to tell ya, your self loathing really makes me sad.
> 
> If that's how your faith affects you then that kind of sucks.
> 
> Don't ask such and such for forgiveness.  Forgive yourself.


That forgiveness mentioned, is it a "good" thing?
Maybe more to the point, do you believe I might benefit by it?
If so, how much do you think it would take to make someone like me whole?
Do you have any to spare?
Where do you get it?
When I tried to forgive myself, I always and only found enough for me, not for you.
And then I needed to be forgiven my selfishness. 
Makes me cry out...who will deliver me from this body of death?


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> What makes a god an unlikely conclusion is a complete lack of evidence or a reason that would make a god a likely conclusion.



It depends on how you look at it.  Do the things we think happened without a god in the equation actually happen?  

Of course we have the building blocks of life all throughout the universe.  What else would life be made of?  The problem with this is that there is zero evidence of life happening without life making it.  Single cell organisms do not spontaneously generate, they come from other single cell organisms.  We know of no situation otherwise.  We only speculate that this component and that component "may have" mixed with that component.  Life is incredibly complex, and requires an incredible amount of information to function.  

The angle I take is "what could possibly do that?"  Going back to my original thoughts on this.......I can't "reason" my way around a God in the equation.  Life is my evidence, 'cause everything we know that is dead stays dead.



WaltL1 said:


> My point being, is the A/A trying to prove a god an unlikely conclusion or without faith/belief in a god is it just that there is no evidence to make an A/A go in the direction of a god being likely?



The issue is that y'all say God is unlikely because we have no evidence of God existing.  I think you being alive is evidence of a God for the reasons I articulated above.  I have read, and investigated the abiogenesis theories, and they have the same "feel" as the "young earth" scientists trying to explain the different layers of strata in the Earth's crust.  

To me, I just don't see how life survived the big bang in order to perpetuate, and I have no reason to believe life spontaneously generates. 

It gets even more complicated when we consider that life also needs life to perpetuate.....and sustain itself.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> What makes a god an unlikely conclusion is a complete lack of evidence or a reason that would make a god a likely conclusion.


Precisely.
Though Christ repeatedly makes his reason known, it is not  reason that makes him known.
Jesus the Lord is not likely, just true.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Precisely.
> Though Christ repeatedly makes his reason known, it is not  reason that makes him known.
> Jesus the Lord is not likely, just true.


I don't question that Christians/you believe that's true.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> It depends on how you look at it.  Do the things we think happened without a god in the equation actually happen?
> 
> Of course we have the building blocks of life all throughout the universe.  What else would life be made of?  The problem with this is that there is zero evidence of life happening without life making it.  Single cell organisms do not spontaneously generate, they come from other single cell organisms.  We know of no situation otherwise.  We only speculate that this component and that component "may have" mixed with that component.  Life is incredibly complex, and requires an incredible amount of information to function.
> 
> The angle I take is "what could possibly do that?"  Going back to my original thoughts on this.......I can't "reason" my way around a God in the equation.  Life is my evidence, 'cause everything we know that is dead stays dead.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that y'all say God is unlikely because we have no evidence of God existing.  I think you being alive is evidence of a God for the reasons I articulated above.  I have read, and investigated the abiogenesis theories, and they have the same "feel" as the "young earth" scientists trying to explain the different layers of strata in the Earth's crust.
> 
> To me, I just don't see how life survived the big bang in order to perpetuate, and I have no reason to believe life spontaneously generates.
> 
> It gets even more complicated when we consider that life also needs life to perpetuate.....and sustain itself.





> The angle I take is "what could possibly do that?"  Going back to my original thoughts on this.......I can't "reason" my way around a God in the equation.


Understood.
However, to come to the answer that you are satisfied with, you rejected all other possibilities including all the other creation claims.
Unless you can show with facts how all those other creation claims are false then all you actually did was accept the answer that you desire/want/need/believe to be true.
The reality is you rejected all other possibilities either known or unknown without knowing whether they were true or false or possible.
On what basis did you reject all those other possibilities?
Did you latch onto anything that can possibly explain the unexplainable in an effort to "prove" all those other possibilities an unlikely conclusion?
See -


> AA's tend to latch onto anything that can possibly explain the unexplainable in an effort to "prove" god an unlikely conclusion


Or does what you believe or not believe have NOTHING to do with "proving" anybody else wrong?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Understood.
> However, to come to the answer that you are satisfied with, you rejected all other possibilities including all the other creation claims.
> Unless you can show with facts how all those other creation claims are false then all you actually did was accept the answer that you desire/want/need/believe to be true.
> The reality is you rejected all other possibilities either known or unknown without knowing whether they were true or false or possible.
> On what basis did you reject all those other possibilities?
> Did you latch onto anything that can possibly explain the unexplainable in an effort to "prove" all those other possibilities an unlikely conclusion?
> See -
> 
> Or does what you believe or not believe have NOTHING to do with "proving" anybody else wrong?



Some of you are familiar with Paul the apostle.
Some of you may be "more than familiar" to the point of having read his words, and I suspect with some degree of reason, if not faith.
God knows how faith works, but it appears to me the above writer entertains a compelling conundrum of man in his consciousness; that of the quandary of seeking to be right seems to contain, if not the total preoccupation with proving "another" wrong, something of a common disposition toward it.
I don't think I can agree more.
I don't think anyone "wants" to be wrong, and if the above writer is consistent, I think the first highlighted section above refers to it. It says to me that men, led by some inclination in this longing to be "right" steer closer to those things that are most attuned to their inner desire and what seems consistent with some sort of internal harmony.
I would also gather the writer has spent some time considering what I see as this most salient point in his time among men, and would presume the entrance of his consciousness into it has come with careful observation that could not also include his own dispositions.
To such a man I write.
It is a perplexing place, that. To roam in the heart, desiring to not "be wrong", yet finding in that "to be right" a very present, if not consuming inclination accompanies it; to show others "wrong", or at the very least, less right, than they themselves. 
If we say it is common to man, we may be said to be speaking presumptuously, yet to see it, even at the first, begins a revealing of it, doesn't it, so that what first was an apprehension of something peculiar...becomes now very common in our sight.
Men like to triumph over other men, whether on the field of bloody slaughter, or in the mind of ideas. 
To begin to see it so plainly in others, after a time, must eventually break way in ourselves, to ourselves..."Either I am of all men, most peculiar...or (Uh oh!)...this thing resides no less in me than any I see".
Can it be that I have simply, am simply, "wielding" a weapon of "rightness" in my mind, convenient to me, handy to me, a "good fit" for me...by which I can slay all the dragons? How then can I find my brother less honorable, when I suspect he does the same as I? 
Or better put, I do no more than he?
To condemn him, I condemn myself.

Have I simply "chosen" a truth of my own disposition, too? Do I simply adhere to, and reinforce at every turn a "truth", that is now so plainly in my sight not _such_ a noble occupation, but something that allows me to stay a step ahead, a move ahead, a thrust ahead, in this battle?
I am thrust into a sea of men. Of their ideas, of their histories, of their doings...to me they, you, are all "other".
I am "the one" in here...everyone and everything else...is the "not me". But, I also come to conclude, if not readily admit, the sea I was thrust into has had an ebb and flow through me, and much before I can first remember I came to see me, as me, before I even saw myself, my being, my consciousness, as separate. 

How to know then to what effect their doings have had? How much of what I consider the me of me is simply, at basest level, just the inputs of others...sown in long before I had built the integrity of defenses and judgments (again, of what were they _even fashioned?_) to allow "in" what I allow...in? Is there a "me" at all, that really _is_ me, or must I surrender the seeming signal sense of me...and admit, "I am just a product...no more nor less, and the futility of trying to "know truth for myself" and triumph over others is no less something vain and "put into me".
If this be true, that there really is no me...and I am as I am, just to you a simple device that wakes up according to its bios, and spews many things...to many false, spurious and corrupted, to others perhaps less so, but that, no matter how hard or fast the drive may spin, and no matter how much data may be displayed, it is all seen as nothing less than slave to that bios over which it has, and had, no control in its awakening.
If, again, in this sea we must rule out anything more than this, it is peculiar we continue to speak. Unless, perhaps, we can just admit to being babies, gurgling and cooing to one another before the terrible occupation of "I must be myself" is grasped.
But, even in that "I must be myself" is seen a commonness recognized through all.
And so, even in trying to "be myself", I show completely, I am no different than any other.
Someone told me that long before I knew what he meant, and displayed to me that the letting go of myself would show me who he is, and through that, show whose I am. And who is "I am".
In the sea, we are all alike, but needn't be lost, to him, nor one another.
Yes, he showed me this in his own flesh.
As durable a lesson as the pain of it.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Understood.
> However, to come to the answer that you are satisfied with, you rejected all other possibilities including all the other creation claims.
> Unless you can show with facts how all those other creation claims are false then all you actually did was accept the answer that you desire/want/need/believe to be true.
> The reality is you rejected all other possibilities either known or unknown without knowing whether they were true or false or possible.
> On what basis did you reject all those other possibilities?
> Did you latch onto anything that can possibly explain the unexplainable in an effort to "prove" all those other possibilities an unlikely conclusion?
> See -



The way I look at it is this.....there are two possibilities when viewed at the most basic level.  Life either spontaneously generated, or it did not.  When discussing origins and God, that is the perspective I take.

Yes, there are multiple "spins" on the story.  I am not too sure I take the traditional approach to origins.   For instance, I was raised to believe the earth was 6K years old.  However, I believe I can be wrong about things.  Currently, I do not believe the earth is only 6K years old.  So, I don't know which origins stories I have rejected or accepted.  All I know is that I do believe God created everything.  Christianity, as I always say, is not an exercise in logic.  It is faith.  But the origins topic is way before the religion topic.



WaltL1 said:


> Or does what you believe or not believe have NOTHING to do with "proving" anybody else wrong?



Perhaps at the individual level, my comment was intended to be general.  But, I also pointed out that Christians will latch onto anything as well.  People want their perspective confirmed.  You should see the excitement in the Christian community every time Noah's Ark gets "found." It's a human nature sort of thing.


----------



## bullethead

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/09/comets-life-on-earth-molecules_n_3407991.html


----------



## ambush80

Believers,


Where do you ultimately get your sense about god, from your head or your heart.  I imagine that most believers will say both but on matters of your faith would you trust your head over your heart?  

Where do you get your sense that he is talking to you, or that you are discerning the Biblical messages correctly, from your head or your heart?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Believers,
> 
> 
> Where do you ultimately get your sense about god, from your head or your heart.  I imagine that most believers will say both but on matters of your faith would you trust your head over your heart?
> 
> Where do you get your sense that he is talking to you, or that you are discerning the Biblical messages correctly, from your head or your heart?


Mathematician or poet?
Or is it:
Disciple or politician?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Where do you ultimately get your sense about god, from your head or your heart.  I imagine that most believers will say both but on matters of your faith would you trust your head over your heart?



I think humans have always had a sense of God in the universe.  Most cultures throughout history have believed in a higher power.  I guess that would mean the heart.  The better question is "why."



ambush80 said:


> Where do you get your sense that he is talking to you, or that you are discerning the Biblical messages correctly, from your head or your heart?



Head for sanity check.  Heart from there.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I think humans have always had a sense of God in the universe.  Most cultures throughout history have believed in a higher power.  I guess that would mean the heart.  The better question is "why."



I could offer natural explanations but you prefer "god gun it".



JB0704 said:


> Head for sanity check.  Heart from there.



Then we should all just agree that Belief is not rational.  It comes from a very personal place, a very subjective place.  It's after the belief is established that the rationalizations for it kick in.

You're (you, general sense) not a believer in god because of Willard.  You decided to believe in god/follow your upbringing and then discovered that Willard can somehow offer a rationalization (though terribly flawed) for those beliefs in public because amongst yourselves you can openly discuss talking donkeys and instead of admonitions you get cheers of "Ain't that grand!"  

Like upstairs where when someone asks about the ark and are told "You're thinking too hard.  Lay it at the foot of the cross.  You can't understand it with your natural mind."  Oh really?  Floods, rain, rainbows......ALL the animals on the planet?!?  This is very much in the realm of the natural mind.  Even Thou shalt not kill is a no brainer for the natural mind.

Prayer is kind of cool as a hobby.  Realize that when you pray for wisdom about things like talking donkeys or before punching a ballot , to nonbelievers it's as if you didn't even try.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> I could offer natural explanations but you prefer "god gun it".


Are you saying the panspermia theory is a better explanation?





> Then we should all just agree that Belief is not rational.  It comes from a very personal place, a very subjective place.  It's after the belief is established that the rationalizations for it kick in.
> 
> You're (you, general sense) not a believer in god because of Willard.  You decided to believe in god/follow your upbringing and then discovered that Willard can somehow offer a rationalization (though terribly flawed) for those beliefs in public because amongst yourselves you can openly discuss talking donkeys and instead of admonitions you get cheers of "Ain't that grand!"
> 
> Like upstairs where when someone asks about the ark and are told "You're thinking too hard.  Lay it at the foot of the cross.  You can't understand it with your natural mind."  Oh really?  Floods, rain, rainbows......ALL the animals on the planet?!?  This is very much in the realm of the natural mind.  Even Thou shalt not kill is a no brainer for the natural mind.
> 
> Prayer is kind of cool as a hobby.  Realize that when you pray for wisdom about things like talking donkeys or before punching a ballot , to nonbelievers it's as if you didn't even try.



Please stop it with the Willard had an irrational argument nonsense. You have a bad memory if you think anybody in that thread "shredded" his article or that it wasn't completely rational and logical.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I could offer natural explanations but you prefer "god gun it".



I have heard and understand the natural explanations.  There _must_ be natural explanations if no god exists.  Otherwise, skeptics would be sitting around saying "I believe in my heart there must be a greater reason than what I have."  That position means there must be an answer elsewhere.  

It's either one or the other.  God dun it, or nothing dun it.  The natural explanations can also explain how God dun it.



ambush80 said:


> Then we should all just agree that Belief is not rational.  It comes from a very personal place, a very subjective place.  It's after the belief is established that the rationalizations for it kick in.



I disagree.  I have been in this forum for several years using my own logic and reason to discuss my faith.  To the best of my memory, I have never relied on the arguments of others in an effort to defend my faith......I don't post links.  At the most basic level, belief in God is a rational and logical conclusion based on all the evidence at hand.  You may disagree with that statement, and that is why we will most likely never find ourselves in church together.  It's just a different view of the universe.  




ambush80 said:


> You're (you, general sense) not a believer in god because of Willard.  You decided to believe in god/follow your upbringing and then discovered that Willard can somehow offer a rationalization (though terribly flawed) for those beliefs in public because amongst yourselves you can openly discuss talking donkeys and instead of admonitions you get cheers of "Ain't that grand!"



I understand it is a general comment, but, there are plenty of "thinkers" amongst the believers of the world.  The discussions generally have belief in a higher power as the common basis.  



ambush80 said:


> Prayer is kind of cool as a hobby.  Realize that when you pray for wisdom about things like talking donkeys or before punching a ballot , to nonbelievers it's as if you didn't even try.



Didn't even try to accomplish what?  Why is one motivation to vote a certain way superior or inferior to any other motivation?  Isn't the value of motivation subjective?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Then we should all just agree that Belief is not rational.  It comes from a very personal place, a very subjective place.  It's after the belief is established that the rationalizations for it kick in.


That goes 100% for naturalists too.



> You're (you, general sense) not a believer in god because of Willard.  You decided to believe in god/follow your upbringing and then discovered that Willard can somehow offer a rationalization (though terribly flawed) for those beliefs in public because amongst yourselves you can openly discuss talking donkeys and instead of admonitions you get cheers of "Ain't that grand!"


You're not a nonbeliever because of Dawkins or Hawking either. You decided that rather than believe in God and have Him over your life, that you would rather handle things, and you've bought into everything you've seen and read that promotes that belief ever since.    



> Like upstairs where when someone asks about the ark and are told "You're thinking too hard.  Lay it at the foot of the cross.  You can't understand it with your natural mind."  Oh really?  Floods, rain, rainbows......ALL the animals on the planet?!?  This is very much in the realm of the natural mind.


People deal with things differently, like when some people say that aliens or hail-bop's uncle brought the building blocks of life to earth. 



> Even Thou shalt not kill is a no brainer for the natural mind.


We've been over this 1,000 times in this forum, and the discussions always die out when this kind of statement is brought to it's logical conclusions. Just like in this thread, with reason.



> Prayer is kind of cool as a hobby.  Realize that when you pray for wisdom about things like talking donkeys or before punching a ballot , to nonbelievers it's as if you didn't even try.


Proves my assertion above, you look at a person who looks for answers outside themselves because they realize they don't have all those answers and you think they're stupid. You however, seem to think you can figure out everything on your own.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I could offer natural explanations but you prefer "god gun it".
> 
> 
> 
> Then we should all just agree that Belief is not rational.  It comes from a very personal place, a very subjective place.  It's after the belief is established that the rationalizations for it kick in.
> 
> You're (you, general sense) not a believer in god because of Willard.  You decided to believe in god/follow your upbringing and then discovered that Willard can somehow offer a rationalization (though terribly flawed) for those beliefs in public because amongst yourselves you can openly discuss talking donkeys and instead of admonitions you get cheers of "Ain't that grand!"
> 
> Like upstairs where when someone asks about the ark and are told "You're thinking too hard.  Lay it at the foot of the cross.  You can't understand it with your natural mind."  Oh really?  Floods, rain, rainbows......ALL the animals on the planet?!?  This is very much in the realm of the natural mind.  Even Thou shalt not kill is a no brainer for the natural mind.
> 
> Prayer is kind of cool as a hobby.  Realize that when you pray for wisdom about things like talking donkeys or before punching a ballot , to nonbelievers it's as if you didn't even try.


You almost sound like one who believes a disciple never came across this:
And because, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God by wisdom, God was willing that by the insanity of preaching he would give life to those who believe.

That's from an Aramaic translation. I particularly like it. 

The more familiar version is this:

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Here's what I know, and know anything as deeply as a man may know after sojourning as a wise man among so many other wise men for years; a man will more easily forgive a man who kills him, than calls him a fool.
Too bad for that man.
If he only learned the liberty of being a true fool.

"Look like I'm not trying?"
You're joking, right?
That's all I am aiming for.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Are you saying the panspermia theory is a better explanation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop it with the Willard had an irrational argument nonsense. You have a bad memory if you think anybody in that thread "shredded" his article or that it wasn't completely rational and logical.



His argument was not irrational, it was assertive and it was shown to be just that.
If Willard's points in that article were so spot on it would be used outside of the circle of Willard fans as tangible "proof". He did not make a great case for a God to a non believer, he merely made a good pep talk to those that already believe and those same people have no problem with assertions being considered as facts.

The replies to Willard's article made good points against his article...and there are more on the internet that dive into it further.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> His argument was not irrational, it was assertive and it was shown to be just that.


I think I asked this in the actual thread, but, bump the thread with the most assertive thing you can find in the article and we'll discuss it. 

I think it needs to be bumped anyway, Ambush is having a hard time remembering what was posted.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> He did not make a great case for a God to a non believer


Well you sure thought so during the thread....



bullethead said:


> Well thought and reasonable but at that stage ANY god could be given the same credit.
> For all anyone knows there could be an eternal infinite amount of energy that got the ball rolling and we and everything in the Universe are the by product.





bullethead said:


> Willard"s stages 1&2 are good for getting the brain really thinking but in stage 3 he is already onto one specific god and Jesus and that to me is where everything he gained in 1&2 falls apart.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Well you sure thought so during the thread....



Well thought and reasonable and good for getting the brain thinking is not making a great case for God to a non believer.

He just put it in ways that were assertive assumptions and they required a little more picking through to show those things did not make a God any more believable to a non believer.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I think I asked this in the actual thread, but, bump the thread with the most assertive thing you can find in the article and we'll discuss it.
> 
> I think it needs to be bumped anyway, Ambush is having a hard time remembering what was posted.



Asath and ambush both did great jobs of pointing out what needed to be pointed out.
You asked, it was answered in the first time around.
You asked again and they obliged by answering the second time around.
You bumped it much later and it was answered again.
And now you want it bumped again...I don't think ambush needs refreshing as much as you do and you can just go find it and read it.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I have heard and understand the natural explanations.  There _must_ be natural explanations if no god exists.  Otherwise, skeptics would be sitting around saying "I believe in my heart there must be a greater reason than what I have."  That position means there must be an answer elsewhere.
> 
> It's either one or the other.  God dun it, or nothing dun it.  The natural explanations can also explain how God dun it.



I think the real honest answer is "I don't know".





JB0704 said:


> I disagree.  I have been in this forum for several years using my own logic and reason to discuss my faith.  To the best of my memory, I have never relied on the arguments of others in an effort to defend my faith......I don't post links.  At the most basic level, belief in God is a rational and logical conclusion based on all the evidence at hand.  You may disagree with that statement, and that is why we will most likely never find ourselves in church together.  It's just a different view of the universe.



The evidence less subject to interpretation would lead one to say "Inconclusive".  If the evidence were really that good we wouldn't be here every day.  the heart of your argument that god exists and that you know what he's all about is a book with a talking donkey.  That's suspect.  I wish you had a less ridiculous source. 




JB0704 said:


> I understand it is a general comment, but, there are plenty of "thinkers" amongst the believers of the world.  The discussions generally have belief in a higher power as the common basis.



Please address or refute my point that "thinking" is often discouraged upstairs.  You seem to want to minimize the importance of your personal relationship with god as a main means of "sensing" his existence where as upstairs they openly encourage each other to not trust their minds.  





JB0704 said:


> Didn't even try to accomplish what?  Why is one motivation to vote a certain way superior or inferior to any other motivation?  Isn't the value of motivation subjective?



Didn't even try to think it through.  Do you like the motivation of Liberals?  Would you prefer that they spin a bottle or flip a coin?  Intelligent, well informed, articulate people can describe how they came to their choices about how they vote.  How do you discuss the rationality behind someone's vote who says they "prayed on it"?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I think humans have always had a sense of God in the universe.  Most cultures throughout history have believed in a higher power.  I guess that would mean the heart.  The better question is "why."
> 
> 
> 
> Head for sanity check.  Heart from there.





> Most cultures throughout history have believed in a higher power.  I guess that would mean the heart.  The better question is "why."


That really is a good question. And Im not completely satisfied with any of the explanations Ive heard from either side. You cant just write it off with "Oh those crazy_ insert a culture here _they believe in a god(s)".


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> The evidence less subject to interpretation would lead one to say "Inconclusive".  If the evidence were really that good we wouldn't be here every day.  the heart of your argument that god exists and that you know what he's all about is a book with a talking donkey.  That's suspect.  I wish you had a less ridiculous source.



Correct, there is no conclusive evidence, but I don't think there is a trail to follow either.  There is a set of data.  Is it saying one thing or the other?

There have been billions of people throuhgout history who have believed in a God without the Bible.  I don't think that is the heart of the matter.




ambush80 said:


> Please address or refute my point that "thinking" is often discouraged upstairs.



It's all in how you look at it.  I used to get extrememly frustrated with religious folks and the "let go and let God" type stuff.  I also would get frustrated when answers led to dead ends, which led to my faith being called into question for having questions.  The big difference I found is that there is no prohibition on asking questions, and Christians are encouraged to have answers for their "hope."  So, to address your point, I don't really know the motivation behind the individual, but I disagree with anybody who thinks it is wrong to think.  My wife has a simple faith, and "just trusts God."  I admire her in many ways for that, because I turn things over and over in my head.  I think her life is a lot less stressful than mine.

FWIW, folks like Willard and Zacharias are well thought of in the Chrisitan community, and they are thinkers.




ambush80 said:


> You seem to want to minimize the importance of your personal relationship with god as a main means of "sensing" his existence where as upstairs they openly encourage each other to not trust their minds.



I don't understand this statement.  



ambush80 said:


> Didn't even try to think it through.  Do you like the motivation of Liberals?  Would you prefer that they spin a bottle or flip a coin?  Intelligent, well informed, articulate people can describe how they came to their choices about how they vote.  How do you discuss the rationality behind someone's vote who says they "prayed on it"?



Lot's of stuff in that paragraph:

1. I don't like the motivation of liberals, but that is because they like forcing their morality on everybody. 

2. Yes.  Because they might be likely to vote a different way.

3. Yes they can, but their choice has no more consequence than the bottle spinner.

4. I think it is a person who trusts that prayer directs the consciousness and leads to better choices.  Think about it.....what if prayer was "mediation" in another form, wouldn't "meditating" on one's choices reflect thoughtful consideration?

Ultimately, the motivation has zero impact on me.  The choice at the ballot box does.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Correct, there is no conclusive evidence, but I don't think there is a trail to follow either.  There is a set of data.  Is it saying one thing or the other?
> 
> There have been billions of people throuhgout history who have believed in a God without the Bible.  I don't think that is the heart of the matter.



If you study the origins of religion you will see the factors that paved the way to people believing in and worshiping higher powers than themselves.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Well thought and reasonable and good for getting the brain thinking is not making a great case for God to a non believer.
> 
> He just put it in ways that were assertive assumptions and they required a little more picking through to show those things did not make a God any more believable to a non believer.


...


stringmusic said:


> I think I asked this in the actual thread, but, bump the thread with the most assertive thing you can find in the article and we'll discuss it.
> 
> I think it needs to be bumped anyway, Ambush is having a hard time remembering what was posted.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Asath and ambush both did great jobs of pointing out what needed to be pointed out.
> You asked, it was answered in the first time around.
> You asked again and they obliged by answering the second time around.
> You bumped it much later and it was answered again.
> And now you want it bumped again...I don't think ambush needs refreshing as much as you do and you can just go find it and read it.


I just read most of that thread over again. I didn't find where anybody ever refuted the article in which the correction wasn't made, most of the time by the article itself.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I just read most of that thread over again. I didn't find where anybody ever refuted the article in which the correction wasn't made, most of the time by the article itself.



Believe me...I knew you wouldn't.
That is why you keep wanting to bump it after everyone else has given their answers and moved on.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Believe me...I knew you wouldn't.


Here's how I remember the thread going....


stringmusic said:


> Show me, copy and paste it.
> 
> And, I responded to all of Asath's post in this thread if I'm not mistaken, and he came nowhere near exposing any flaws.





stringmusic said:


> I'm still waiting on that copy and paste.





stringmusic said:


> You keep saying it, but you're not showing me. I'm going to ask one more time, and then I'm going to give up, copy and paste his assumption, with an explaination.





stringmusic said:


> Just as I expected, I'm giving up, you can't show me faulty logic in the article.






> That is why you keep wanting to bump it after everyone else has given their answers and moved on.


I don't want to bump it, if I did, I would have already.

And BTW, I wasn't the one who brought Willard in this thread.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> That goes 100% for naturalists too.



No. 

Theorize, observe, test, modify theory, test, test,test, new way to measure, re-measure, re-test, review findings, refute, defend, test, test, test.

You guys don't even want to theorize how a donkey could talk.  No testing, no questioning, no nuthin'.  Just belief.




stringmusic said:


> You're not a nonbeliever because of Dawkins or Hawking either. You decided that rather than believe in God and have Him over your life, that you would rather handle things, and you've bought into everything you've seen and read that promotes that belief ever since.



This is how I recall I came to think the way I do:

1. I was told about god, the Christian god from EARLY childhood.  
2. I got older and by accident was exposed to other gods.  
3. I (by accident again) was exposed to the possibility of no gods.  It made me uncomfortable, seeing as how the notion of god was ingrained in me and taken as fact.  
4. I looked into all the claims; the different gods, no gods.
5. I realized that the claims about gods had no merit.
6. I looked for god again because I wanted him to exist.
7. still no proof.

Here's where I've noticed the divergence: Often believers follow a similar path as mine, sometimes skipping 2-7.  Sometimes they get to 6 and have a "Moment".  Sometimes it's a tragedy, sometimes it's an addiction, ennui, empty feelings, etc.  That's where the rubber meets the road.  They "feel" "something" happen.  It's not an intellectual moment.  

"I let him in."  "I trusted". "I let go".

That's not how I came to unbelief.  I didn't have to "let go" of anything.  I Didn't have to "trust" like _that_.  What I believe in can be measured, replicated, photographed.  




stringmusic said:


> People deal with things differently, like when some people say that aliens or hail-bop's uncle brought the building blocks of life to earth.



MAYBE.  No one says they know for sure.  They don't even say they know that "god ain't dun it", they simply say "There don't seem to be a need for god to have done it at this point."




stringmusic said:


> We've been over this 1,000 times in this forum, and the discussions always die out when this kind of statement is brought to it's logical conclusions. Just like in this thread, with reason.



Because you refuse to admit the thing directly in your face and say" Yeah, I suppose maybe morals could have developed naturally".  COULD HAVE.  But no,  It had to have been god, no if ands or buts.




stringmusic said:


> Proves my assertion above, you look at a person who looks for answers outside themselves because they realize they don't have all those answers and you think they're stupid. You however, seem to think you can figure out everything on your own.



It's not just stupid, though I've met people for whom "Don't do it because god will punish you" or "do it because you love Jesus"  is better than having them figure it out themselves.  It's that you DO think you have the answers and look at where you think you're getting them.  I know you think that YOUR incantations are more powerful Ju Ju than the guy tossing chicken bones, but you're fooling yourself.

I can't figure out calculus on my own but I'm not gonna call it "Evil spirits".


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Here's how I remember the thread going....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> Show me, copy and paste it.
> 
> And, I responded to all of Asath's post in this thread if I'm not mistaken, and he came nowhere near exposing any flaws.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> I'm still waiting on that copy and paste.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> You keep saying it, but you're not showing me. I'm going to ask one more time, and then I'm going to give up, copy and paste his assumption, with an explaination.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> Just as I expected, I'm giving up, you can't show me faulty logic in the article.
> 
> Quote:
> That is why you keep wanting to bump it after everyone else has given their answers and moved on.
> I don't want to bump it, if I did, I would have already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to bump it, if I did, I would have already.
> 
> And BTW, I wasn't the one who brought Willard in this thread.



There was no need for those repeated questions of yours. Asath and Ambush's answers covered all of them and your answers to theirs was to still ask the same questions.

They right off the bat and repeatedly showed you how Willard based his arguments off of assumptions and assertions. They already gave you the examples before you kept asking for them.


----------



## bullethead

I have an appt with my tree stand at 330..
See you men later.


----------



## ambush80

Willard is wrong because he spends 5 pages talking about how a space ship can't go passed point B before it goes passed point A and so on and so on.  The infinite regression.  Then he fails and says "So then there MUST be something outside of time and outside of space".  And here's the epic fail:  "It must be a some kind of critter!".  

Then more and more hapless failure: "And this critter turns people to salt and floods the earth and he fights a winged demon and talks to people and sometimes tells them to murder their son."

You guys,  I get it with the god part.  Ok, you want to imagine a critter that blinks stuff into being.  Fine, that's _almost_ innocuous.  When you start telling me that the critter told you what to do in a truly bizarre book and talks to you personally, then I've got to plead with you to reconsider.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I have an appt with my tree stand at 330..
> See you men later.



Good luck, bullet!! Post pics of success.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Correct, there is no conclusive evidence, but I don't think there is a trail to follow either.  There is a set of data.  Is it saying one thing or the other?



Inconclusive



JB0704 said:


> There have been billions of people throuhgout history who have believed in a God without the Bible.  I don't think that is the heart of the matter.



Some of them believe that you shouldn't raise your voice in certain parts of the forest.  Those beliefs have been around before gods.




JB0704 said:


> It's all in how you look at it.  I used to get extrememly frustrated with religious folks and the "let go and let God" type stuff.  I also would get frustrated when answers led to dead ends, which led to my faith being called into question for having questions.  The big difference I found is that there is no prohibition on asking questions, and Christians are encouraged to have answers for their "hope."  So, to address your point, I don't really know the motivation behind the individual, but I disagree with anybody who thinks it is wrong to think.  My wife has a simple faith, and "just trusts God."  I admire her in many ways for that, because I turn things over and over in my head.  I think her life is a lot less stressful than mine.



There's quite a bit of anti-intellectualism in the Bible.  They get it from there.





JB0704 said:


> FWIW, folks like Willard and Zacharias are well thought of in the Chrisitan community, and they are thinkers.



They always start, Like good Ol Bassquatch with the assumption of god.






JB0704 said:


> I don't understand this statement.



_Originally 
Posted by ambush80 View Post
You seem to want to minimize the importance of your personal relationship with god as a main means of "sensing" his existence where as upstairs they openly encourage each other to not trust their minds._

I mean that you don't talk often about how god "pricked your soul" or "spoke to you in the night" or "provided a sign" or "answered a prayer" which I assume is a very important part of believing in god.  Mind yo, all of these exercises are the antithesis of intellectual processes.





JB0704 said:


> Lot's of stuff in that paragraph:
> 
> 1. I don't like the motivation of liberals, but that is because they like forcing their morality on everybody.
> 
> 2. Yes.  Because they might be likely to vote a different way.
> 
> 3. Yes they can, but their choice has no more consequence than the bottle spinner.
> 
> 4. I think it is a person who trusts that prayer directs the consciousness and leads to better choices.  Think about it.....what if prayer was "mediation" in another form, wouldn't "meditating" on one's choices reflect thoughtful consideration?
> 
> Ultimately, the motivation has zero impact on me.  The choice at the ballot box does.



1. Everybody wants to force their morality on everybody.  People who use reason to generate their morality will often be in agreement because they use an an objective principal.  They might interpret data differently, like disagreeing economists but at least their not casting tea leaves or chicken feet.

2-3. Their choice has equal consequence as someone who thinks about their choice.  More often I find the differences between people stem from disagreement as to what a theoretical course of action might lead to.  A Liberal may come to the conclusion that socialism will lead to a better life for everyone while a Christian might believe that socialism is what Jesus wants.  In the end they pull the same lever but I prefer the liberal because you can show them history and economics models and try to reason with them.  The Jesus freak, no argument will suffice.

4. Meditation is one thing.  Believing that you've dialed in a direct line to the big man......that's truly scary and not even in a joking, fun way.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> You almost sound like one who believes a disciple never came across this:
> And because, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God by wisdom, God was willing that by the insanity of preaching he would give life to those who believe.
> 
> That's from an Aramaic translation. I particularly like it.
> 
> The more familiar version is this:
> 
> For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
> 
> Here's what I know, and know anything as deeply as a man may know after sojourning as a wise man among so many other wise men for years; a man will more easily forgive a man who kills him, than calls him a fool.
> Too bad for that man.
> If he only learned the liberty of being a true fool.
> 
> "Look like I'm not trying?"
> You're joking, right?
> That's all I am aiming for.



There's  alot of talk about wisdom there.  You mean like "fear of the Lord" wisdom?

I don't mind being called a fool if I can be shown where I was foolish (putting diesel in a regular car).  When a book calls me a fool because I don't believe in a giant ark I'll dismiss it.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I mean that you don't talk often about how god "pricked your soul" or "spoke to you in the night" or "provided a sign" or "answered a prayer" which I assume is a very important part of believing in god.  Mind yo, all of these exercises are the antithesis of intellectual processes.



I shared my most......real.....prayer situation with you in a PM once.  Other than that, I don't have an inexplicable encounter to speak of.  And, it wasn't a direct answer, at all.  So, I don't talk about those things because they are irrelevant to my faith.



ambush80 said:


> 1. Everybody wants to force their morality on everybody.  People who use reason to generate their morality will often be in agreement because they use an an objective principal.  They might interpret data differently, like disagreeing economists but at least their not casting tea leaves or chicken feet.



Who's reason is the most reasonable?  The liberals, conservatives, or libertarians?  Each would argue for themselves against the next.  I think the libertarian (as a political philosophy, not party) for the most part, but I have some liberal and conservative friends I have yet to convince.



ambush80 said:


> A Liberal may come to the conclusion that socialism will lead to a better life for everyone while a Christian might believe that socialism is what Jesus wants.  In the end they pull the same lever but I prefer the liberal because you can show them history and economics models and try to reason with them.  The Jesus freak, no argument will suffice.



There are zealots relevant to any topic: religion, politics, and the great pumpkin.  




ambush80 said:


> 4. Meditation is one thing.  Believing that you've dialed in a direct line to the big man......that's truly scary and not even in a joking, fun way.



Why is it scary?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> They always start, Like good Ol Bassquatch with the assumption of god.



It's a basic starting point.  Either there is a creator or there isn't.  If there isn't, then we start with infinite everything.  If everything isn't infinite, then there is a creator.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> It's a basic starting point.  Either there is a creator or there isn't.  If there isn't, then we start with infinite everything.  If everything isn't infinite, then there is a creator.



I think the most important questions to ask (since we can't really know either way yet, and I do hold out for an answer) are "If a creator....." and "If no creator...." and not assume either one.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I shared my most......real.....prayer situation with you in a PM once.  Other than that, I don't have an inexplicable encounter to speak of.  And, it wasn't a direct answer, at all.  So, I don't talk about those things because they are irrelevant to my faith.




Maybe to you less so than others.  Still, when you pray you believe that you're talking to a critter and not just yourself, right?





JB0704 said:


> Who's reason is the most reasonable?  The liberals, conservatives, or libertarians?  Each would argue for themselves against the next.  I think the libertarian (as a political philosophy, not party) for the most part, but I have some liberal and conservative friends I have yet to convince.



You apply reason.  At some point someone will say "Keynesian" then it becomes an exercise in interpreting data, a far better place to be then "Allah says this..." vs. "Jesus says this....".





JB0704 said:


> There are zealots relevant to any topic: religion, politics, and the great pumpkin.
> 
> Why is it scary?



Few will kill for the Greatest Pumpkin of all time. Besides, and I think this is a reflection of how truly primitive we are in some respects, some one might kill because they heard god tell them too, or they might vote for a politician who will kill for them and their god.  

Middle of the road Christians aren't so bad because they believe in the Jesus with the soft wavy hair holding a baby sheep.  What about those ones who pop in here talking about "Jesus coming with a sword" and "Taking up the armor of Christ"? What should be done with them?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> There's  alot of talk about wisdom there.  You mean like "fear of the Lord" wisdom?
> 
> I don't mind being called a fool if I can be shown where I was foolish (putting diesel in a regular car).  When a book calls me a fool because I don't believe in a giant ark I'll dismiss it.



No.
The precise opposite.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> No.
> The precise opposite.



Please explain to me the importance you place in thinking yourself a fool or unworthy or wretched.

And after demeaning yourself, what makes you believe that you are qualified to talk about "The one thing I do know"?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Please explain to me the importance you place in thinking yourself a fool or unworthy or wretched.
> 
> And after demeaning yourself, what makes you believe that you are qualified to talk about "The one thing I do know"?


Precisely.
But where'd you get the notion anyone needs to be qualified to speak?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Maybe to you less so than others.  Still, when you pray you believe that you're talking to a critter and not just yourself, right?



Correct.  Call me crazy 



ambush80 said:


> You apply reason.  At some point someone will say "Keynesian" then it becomes an exercise in interpreting data, a far better place to be then "Allah says this..." vs. "Jesus says this....".



Concrete data is always a better basis for comparison when considering merits of any position, yes.  The quirk with origins discussions is we know an origin happened, we know the results of the original action, we just don't know what that was.  It's like algebra, we are discussing how to solve for "X" with logic and reason.




ambush80 said:


> Middle of the road Christians aren't so bad because they believe in the Jesus with the soft wavy hair holding a baby sheep.  What about those ones who pop in here talking about "Jesus coming with a sword" and "Taking up the armor of Christ"? What should be done with them?



I was raised in a zealous environment, maybe not in actions, but in words.  Folks looking forward to condemnation of sinners.  They are generally harmless.  

I think once a person takes it to action is when society should react.  If God is on the side of the acting person, one would think God would assist in his/her efforts.  If not, then the crazy person should be treated as any other person who inflicts harm on another human being.  Anybody going out and killin' folks in the name of Jesus has missed the point anyway.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Correct.  Call me crazy
> 
> 
> 
> Concrete data is always a better basis for comparison when considering merits of any position, yes.  The quirk with origins discussions is we know an origin happened, we know the results of the original action, we just don't know what that was.  It's like algebra, we are discussing how to solve for "X" with logic and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised in a zealous environment, maybe not in actions, but in words.  Folks looking forward to condemnation of sinners.  They are generally harmless.
> 
> I think once a person takes it to action is when society should react.  If God is on the side of the acting person, one would think God would assist in his/her efforts.  If not, then the crazy person should be treated as any other person who inflicts harm on another human being.  Anybody going out and killin' folks in the name of Jesus has missed the point anyway.



Then there's that part about "They'll call you crazy. It means you're doing it right!"  They might say that YOU missed the point. Then it's just might makes right.  The conquering god was the right one.

As far as the origins question goes I would say that we can see just so far back.  Beyond that doesn't necessarily mean the beginning of everything.  It barely even means the beginning of we actually know.  Our measuring tools are like flint knaps.

Solving for "X", but I'm gonna throw in a made up, hypothetical, imaginary factor.  It doesn't have an understandable value or a measurable quantity. In fact, it's inconceivable.  But it can walk on water.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> But it can walk on water.


I suppose there are many ways of stating the inconceivable, that might be just one.


----------



## mtnwoman

Israel said:


> I suppose there are many ways of stating the inconceivable, that might be just one.



I guess you'd have to believe first that 'all things are possible with God'.


----------



## Israel

mtnwoman said:


> I guess you'd have to believe first that 'all things are possible with God'.


yes, anything less wouldn't be God.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Solving for "X", but I'm gonna throw in a made up, hypothetical, imaginary factor.  It doesn't have an understandable value or a measurable quantity. In fact, it's inconceivable.  But it can walk on water.



X represents all the possibilities until you solve the equation.  As far as measurable value.....neither does life. Something is either alive or it ain't.  

How is any of this we have possible?  Everything we experience today was inconceivable at some point in the past.  The possibilities of what can be are always gonna exceed the possibilities of the known.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Good luck, bullet!! Post pics of success.



I have some cell phone pics of success but no kill pics.
I beat his nose, ears and eyes but let him walk.
It was a small 6pt. Had him 6-7yds at one point. He hung around for about 20 minutes and I kept bleating and grunting him back in.
It was fun to shoot him ten times in my mind but let him go for another day.

Sorry for the break in the action guys.......
Carry On!


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I have some cell phone pics of success but no kill pics.
> I beat his nose, ears and eyes but let him walk.
> It was a small 6pt. Had him 6-7yds at one point. He hung around for about 20 minutes and I kept bleating and grunting him back in.
> It was fun to shoot him ten times in my mind but let him go for another day.
> 
> Sorry for the break in the action guys.......
> Carry On!



To me, being out there is the payoff, a deer is a bonus.  Sounds like you had a great hunt


----------



## JB0704

I hope some of you guys are watching comedy central......the "Go God, Go" Southpark episodes are on.  Funny stuff if your into sarcasm.  Some of the points are relevant to this thread......particularly how each atheist alligiance mocks the other's answer to "the great question" in a world without religion.

"Their science is flawed!" Good stuff......


----------



## dawg2

centerpin fan said:


> He's a poseur.  Darth Hinn will strike him down!


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> That really is a good question. And Im not completely satisfied with any of the explanations Ive heard from either side. You cant just write it off with "Oh those crazy_ insert a culture here _they believe in a god(s)".



Not sure if I responded to this (came across it again as I re-read the thread, hate I missed the first several pages while out of town).   

I think it's a good thread topic we should start after a few of these others die down.  I'd like to hear all sides on that one.


----------



## Israel

The point of stumbling remains the Lord, Jesus Christ. The offence, the cross.
The stone the builders rejected, not because there is a great unfathomable God who can only be known by the making of himself known, but that he would come to man, dwelling in a man. And, in that man, and through that man, manifest himself as servant.
This is an offense to all of men's considerations of what it means to be "great", a preoccupation men have taken up through the first Adam, the one who "grasped" at being God.
Being under instruction of Adam, who being not deceived, as was the woman, chose the disobedience to commandment, and then was thrust into the deceitfulness of sin. All of Adam's experience is precisely as pronounced by his creator, sweating to eat, struggling to live, seeking to grow figs without thistles overwhelming. Toil and effort. Staving off death as best he knew how at every turn, with his own mind, his only, seemingly, resource. Is it any wonder it has grown "big" in his own sight?
But there was promise, also, to Adam, wasn't there?
A restoration by grace, of grace, for grace of a crushing of thing, and a bruising of a thing. In all of Adam, however faint it may have become, resides this promise. A return. A giving unmerited to what sought to take unprovoked from a friend.
Paul saw and knew this when he expounded on the "unknown" God to the pagans. 
The giving of breath to sons of Adam, that promise to be revealed and sustained in even that "giving of breath" he understood, for even when he "breathed out threatenings" against the very one who is his Lord, he found favor.
He was very bold, grace and mercy had made him so. Even in the face of what sought to contradict. 
Adam.

I don't doubt that Paul gave much consideration to the very first thing he heard from the Lord. I don't doubt its primacy was not lost on him. 
"Why do you persecute me?"


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> The point of stumbling remains the Lord, Jesus Christ. The offence, the cross.
> The stone the builders rejected, not because there is a great unfathomable God who can only be known by the making of himself known, but that he would come to man, dwelling in a man. And, in that man, and through that man, manifest himself as servant.
> This is an offense to all of men's considerations of what it means to be "great", a preoccupation men have taken up through the first Adam, the one who "grasped" at being God.
> Being under instruction of Adam, who being not deceived, as was the woman, chose the disobedience to commandment, and then was thrust into the deceitfulness of sin. All of Adam's experience is precisely as pronounced by his creator, sweating to eat, struggling to live, seeking to grow figs without thistles overwhelming. Toil and effort. Staving off death as best he knew how at every turn, with his own mind, his only, seemingly, resource. Is it any wonder it has grown "big" in his own sight?
> But there was promise, also, to Adam, wasn't there?
> A restoration by grace, of grace, for grace of a crushing of thing, and a bruising of a thing. In all of Adam, however faint it may have become, resides this promise. A return. A giving unmerited to what sought to take unprovoked from a friend.
> Paul saw and knew this when he expounded on the "unknown" God to the pagans.
> The giving of breath to sons of Adam, that promise to be revealed and sustained in even that "giving of breath" he understood, for even when he "breathed out threatenings" against the very one who is his Lord, he found favor.
> He was very bold, grace and mercy had made him so. Even in the face of what sought to contradict.
> Adam.
> 
> I don't doubt that Paul gave much consideration to the very first thing he heard from the Lord. I don't doubt its primacy was not lost on him.
> "Why do you persecute me?"




Look at all that stuff in blue that you wrote about as if it really happened; like it's common knowledge.  I call Bull poop on the enlarged part.

Start making arguments about why anyone should believe that stuff is real.  That's the name of the game here, isn't it?


----------



## ambush80

JB,

What do you think about my assessment in post #222?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> JB,
> 
> What do you think about my assessment in post #222?



Is this the part you are asking about specifically? (it's a big post)



			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> This is how I recall I came to think the way I do:
> 
> 1. I was told about god, the Christian god from EARLY childhood.
> 2. I got older and by accident was exposed to other gods.
> 3. I (by accident again) was exposed to the possibility of no gods. It made me uncomfortable, seeing as how the notion of god was ingrained in me and taken as fact.
> 4. I looked into all the claims; the different gods, no gods.
> 5. I realized that the claims about gods had no merit.
> 6. I looked for god again because I wanted him to exist.
> 7. still no proof.
> 
> Here's where I've noticed the divergence: Often believers follow a similar path as mine, sometimes skipping 2-7. Sometimes they get to 6 and have a "Moment". Sometimes it's a tragedy, sometimes it's an addiction, ennui, empty feelings, etc. That's where the rubber meets the road. They "feel" "something" happen. It's not an intellectual moment.
> 
> "I let him in." "I trusted". "I let go".
> 
> That's not how I came to unbelief. I didn't have to "let go" of anything. I Didn't have to "trust" like that. What I believe in can be measured, replicated, photographed.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Is this the part you are asking about specifically? (it's a big post)



Yeah.  I'd like to know if it's accurate.  I'd like to know what you think about the rest of the post too.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  I'd like to know if it's accurate.  I'd like to know what you think about the rest of the post too.



Ok.  I started on a response and it is going to take longer than I have right now.  I'll circle back to it later.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  I started on a response and it is going to take longer than I have right now.  I'll circle back to it later.



Check in with you around dinner time.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> This is how I recall I came to think the way I do:
> 
> 1. I was told about god, the Christian god from EARLY childhood.
> 2. I got older and by accident was exposed to other gods.
> 3. I (by accident again) was exposed to the possibility of no gods.  It made me uncomfortable, seeing as how the notion of god was ingrained in me and taken as fact.
> 4. I looked into all the claims; the different gods, no gods.
> 5. I realized that the claims about gods had no merit.
> 6. I looked for god again because I wanted him to exist.
> 7. still no proof.
> 
> Here's where I've noticed the divergence: Often believers follow a similar path as mine, sometimes skipping 2-7.  Sometimes they get to 6 and have a "Moment".  Sometimes it's a tragedy, sometimes it's an addiction, ennui, empty feelings, etc.  That's where the rubber meets the road.  They "feel" "something" happen.  It's not an intellectual moment.
> 
> "I let him in."  "I trusted". "I let go".
> 
> That's not how I came to unbelief.  I didn't have to "let go" of anything.  I Didn't have to "trust" like _that_. What I believe in can be measured, replicated, photographed.


Do you trust your recollection?


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Do you trust your recollection?




Sure.  What's your point?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Sure.  What's your point?


Just trying to understand how you are using "trust" and "believe".

Be back in a few minutes, I have to go see a man about a coon dog.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Just trying to understand how you are using "trust" and "believe".
> 
> Be back in a few minutes, I have to go see a man about a coon dog.




I'll be back too.  Gotta get a check.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Here's where I've noticed the divergence: Often believers follow a similar path as mine, sometimes skipping 2-7.  Sometimes they get to 6 and have a "Moment".  Sometimes it's a tragedy, sometimes it's an addiction, ennui, empty feelings, etc.  That's where the rubber meets the road.  They "feel" "something" happen.  It's not an intellectual moment.


Although I have a similar 1-7, I would word it differently. My "rubber meets the road moment" was more than a sensation. It was an intellectual comprehension. Only the Bible explains what happened, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

Knowledge, Logic, Rationality, Reason personified... Christ.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Although I have a similar 1-7, I would word it differently. My "rubber meets the road moment" was more than a sensation. It was an intellectual comprehension. Only the Bible explains what happened, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
> 
> Knowledge, Logic, Rationality, Reason personified... Christ.



Before your conversion, was it a reasonable, rational position to believe in walking on water or a resurrection?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Before your conversion, was it a reasonable, rational position to believe in walking on water or a resurrection?


To me? No, just foolishness. One man picks up the jaw bone of a donkey and kills a thousand men with it? Not remotely possible.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> To me? No, just foolishness. One man picks up the jaw bone of a donkey and kills a thousand men with it? Not remotely possible.



Was it like figuring out algebra for the first time?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Was it like figuring out algebra for the first time?


It would be like having a defect in the mind that prevented one from knowing algebra, only to have the defect removed and to become consumed with math.


----------



## JB0704

Before I get to the rest, I would like to point something out here:



ambush80 said:


> It's that you DO think you have the answers and look at where you think you're getting them.  I know you think that YOUR incantations are more powerful Ju Ju than the guy tossing chicken bones, but you're fooling yourself.



The 2nd highlight indicates that you have the answers that you claim we don't.  It shouldn't frustrate you if somebody believes something if you hold an equally strong belief in the opposite direction.

If we start at the beginning, though, and understand we each started in the same place, perhaps we can appreciate the path the other person took to get where he's going.  MAybe it's not nonsense if one person reaches a conclusion you don't.  We are looking at the same things from different angles. 

Many, many Christians skip 2-7.  Many take the first 6 and never get to 7.  Some go full circle.  For me:

1. I was raised in an extremely strict religious home
2. I rebelled against the background, and in my youth, accused God of my home's wrong doings.
3. I walked away from religion.
4. I tried very, very hard to be "Agnostic."  I never got there.  

And, I guess there was a "moment of clarity" for me......in a deer stand.  I've shared it here before, but I saw a satellite in the early morning sky.  Somehow, in that moment, the question was settled for me.  There is a God.

There was no voice, or feeling, or burning bush or talking donkey.  It was me recognizing that things work together in the universe like a machine.  From the smallest particle to giant galaxies.  Everything is contingent on another thing.  And somehow, it all works together.  I am a product of energy and matter, billions of lifeless particles assembled in a living thing.  Stardust that talks.  And, I am just one of these machines.  On this planet there are billions of them in different shapes and sizes.  Who knows what else exists.  However, that existence is contingent on so many other factors it is miraculous that it occurred.  IT is miraculous that there are rocks floating in space considering how complex the bonds that hold them together are.

Anyway, I never explored other religions.  I was raised a Christian, I believe in Jesus......that was settled over beer one night not too much longer after the deer stand revival, but, it is not a matter of logic, but faith (a different matter all together).

So, to say I got to where I am was a product of my intuition or feelings is not completely accurate.  If I had been raised an eskimo, I believe I would most likely share the faith that I was taught, but I am convinced I would have gotten there the same way I got here.  At some point, it would have clicked (as Gem alluded to, though he was discussing election), and the question would have been settled.  Perhaps it's how I'm wired......I dunno.

It's not a debate over "which God."  I don't buy that.  I think it's an easy way to muddy the water.  "Is God" is the starting point.  The we talk about talking donkeys, burning bushes, etc.  And, honestly, none of that stuff really matters in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Before I get to the rest, I would like to point something out here:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd highlight indicates that you have the answers that you claim we don't.  It shouldn't frustrate you if somebody believes something if you hold an equally strong belief in the opposite direction.



I have always claimed that I don't know.  The second point was that Judeo Christian prayer is on equal footing with reading tea leaves and tossing chicken bones and anyone who says that they're different is fooling themselves.  And I do get frustrated when someone insists that they know a truth that isn't readily apparent; like those climate change doom soothsayers.  



JB0704 said:


> If we start at the beginning, though, and understand we each started in the same place, perhaps we can appreciate the path the other person took to get where he's going.  MAybe it's not nonsense if one person reaches a conclusion you don't.  We are looking at the same things from different angles.
> 
> Many, many Christians skip 2-7.  Many take the first 6 and never get to 7.  Some go full circle.  For me:
> 
> 1. I was raised in an extremely strict religious home
> 2. I rebelled against the background, and in my youth, accused God of my home's wrong doings.
> 3. I walked away from religion.
> 4. I tried very, very hard to be "Agnostic."  I never got there.
> 
> And, I guess there was a "moment of clarity" for me......in a deer stand.  I've shared it here before, but I saw a satellite in the early morning sky.  Somehow, in that moment, the question was settled for me.  There is a God.
> 
> There was no voice, or feeling, or burning bush or talking donkey.  It was me recognizing that things work together in the universe like a machine.  From the smallest particle to giant galaxies.  Everything is contingent on another thing.  And somehow, it all works together.  I am a product of energy and matter, billions of lifeless particles assembled in a living thing.  Stardust that talks.  And, I am just one of these machines.  On this planet there are billions of them in different shapes and sizes.  Who knows what else exists.  However, that existence is contingent on so many other factors it is miraculous that it occurred.  IT is miraculous that there are rocks floating in space considering how complex the bonds that hold them together are.
> 
> Anyway, I never explored other religions.  I was raised a Christian, I believe in Jesus......that was settled over beer one night not too much longer after the deer stand revival, but, it is not a matter of logic, but faith (a different matter all together).
> 
> So, to say I got to where I am was a product of my intuition or feelings is not completely accurate.  If I had been raised an eskimo, I believe I would most likely share the faith that I was taught, but I am convinced I would have gotten there the same way I got here.  At some point, it would have clicked (as Gem alluded to, though he was discussing election), and the question would have been settled.  Perhaps it's how I'm wired......I dunno.
> 
> It's not a debate over "which God."  I don't buy that.  I think it's an easy way to muddy the water.  "Is God" is the starting point.  The we talk about talking donkeys, burning bushes, etc.  And, honestly, none of that stuff really matters in the grand scheme of things.



You made a choice that felt right to you, perhaps as a culmination of years of soul searching and philosophic struggle but still a choice.  Once you made that choice, you fit everything else to it.  But in reality you still don't know.  The only place that you REALLY know is within "all your heart". You can't know it with all your mind as we all understand the limitations of the mind.

Gems position can be the only right one.  Inability to feel god must be a defect.

If you were to simply say "I have this sense of god" or "I prefer to believe in god" we would be done; full stop.  I wouldn't have a leg to stand on in terms of rebuttal ,though I would insist that you still "don't know" like I don't.  But when you tell me that you get your information about god from the talking donkey book....well, you've got to appreciate how that might color my opinion about your choice to believe.  

It's like meeting someone for the first time and they seem cool and you get along well.  You have alot of the same interests and philosophies and you both like the same music.  They tell you that they like figurines.  Ok.  a little weird but , whatever.   Then they show you their collection of Barbie dolls with shrunken heads.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I have always claimed that I don't know.  The second point was that Judeo Christian prayer is on equal footing with reading tea leaves and tossing chicken bones and anyone who says that they're different is fooling themselves.  And I do get frustrated when someone insists that they know a truth that isn't readily apparent; like those climate change doom soothsayers.
> 
> 
> 
> You made a choice that felt right to you, perhaps as a culmination of years of soul searching and philosophic struggle but still a choice.  Once you made that choice, you fit everything else to it.  But in reality you still don't know.  The only place that you REALLY know is within "all your heart". You can't know it with all your mind as we all understand the limitations of the mind.
> 
> Gems position can be the only right one.  Inability to feel god must be a defect.
> 
> If you were to simply say "I have this sense of god" or "I prefer to believe in god" we would be done; full stop.  I wouldn't have a leg to stand on in terms of rebuttal ,though I would insist that you still "don't know" like I don't.  But when you tell me that you get your information about god from the talking donkey book....well, you've got to appreciate how that might color my opinion about your choice to believe.
> 
> It's like meeting someone for the first time and they seem cool and you get along well.  You have alot of the same interests and philosophies and you both like the same music.  They tell you that they like figurines.  Ok.  a little weird but , whatever.   Then they show you their collection of Barbie dolls with shrunken heads.



Please don't use the assumption of friendship as something corruptible by the reality of God.
He's the only friend you got.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I have always claimed that I don't know.  The second point was that Judeo Christian prayer is on equal footing with reading tea leaves and tossing chicken bones and anyone who says that they're different is fooling themselves.


Were you not just forced to assign different words to 3 different actions? Yet in your mind they are exactly the same?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I have always claimed that I don't know.



Then how can you know that anybody else is equal, right, or wrong?


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> Were you not just forced to assign different words to 3 different actions? Yet in your mind they are exactly the same?



Results are the same.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Please don't use the assumption of friendship as something corruptible by the reality of God.
> He's the only friend you got.



Noooo
we have thousands of invisible friends


----------



## gemcgrew

660griz said:


> Results are the same.


I do not see that as implied in the previous post, but may have missed it prior. There is a same result, in the matter of all three, that I would agree.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Noooo
> we have thousands of invisible friends


Friend is such a wonderfully full estate in which to find oneself with another, and we often easily accept such are of our own devisings and maintenance.
"I will be friend to this or that..."
But a man can end a stranger even to his own self.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Please don't use the assumption of friendship as something corruptible by the reality of God.
> He's the only friend you got.



I don't understand what your trying to say.



gemcgrew said:


> Were you not just forced to assign different words to 3 different actions? Yet in your mind they are exactly the same?



The effectiveness and the results are the same.  They have the same power, which is none.




JB0704 said:


> Then how can you know that anybody else is equal, right, or wrong?



Now you're playing games.  How can anyone know what happened before the beginning of all that we know?  That's how I don't know as much as you don't know.



660griz said:


> Results are the same.



And the spirit in which they are performed is that same, that being superstition.



gemcgrew said:


> I do not see that as implied in the previous post, but may have missed it prior. There is a same result, in the matter of all three, that I would agree.




It was related to a previous post.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Friend is such a wonderfully full estate in which to find oneself with another, and we often easily accept such are of our own devisings and maintenance.
> "I will be friend to this or that..."
> But a man can end a stranger even to his own self.



I always told my boys that if you have more friends than fingers you have 5 too many friends. It is nice to have lots of acquaintances but true friends are hard to come by.
I have three.
None of them invisible.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I always told my boys that if you have more friends than fingers you have 5 too many friends. It is nice to have lots of acquaintances but true friends are hard to come by.
> I have three.
> None of them invisible.



Would you say that "friendship" is a real thing?
Unless I am wrong in your pronouncement, I would also ask if you consider its preciousness/rarity also of some import, or at least noteworthy?
These "affinities" we have, and perhaps seek to satisfy by something like, or alike, do we not define them by things ethereal, that is, like loyalty demonstrated, or an integrity perceptible to maybe us alone...but whose value is never diminished even if another may not see nor appreciate them, or may even, deny their existence in that "other" person?
Like in "some say he is a good man, others say, No, he is a deceiver..."?
Even so are the things I see in Jesus, ever a friend despite my poor attempts at expression of his friendship.
I cannot deny I once viewed him with at least suspicion, if not outright hostility.
"Of what use" I once wondered, "could such a person ever be to me?"
And therein began an unraveling, an undoing of all my usury. Those things I would "put on loan" for profit, but able to be recalled in a moment of threat.
What I viewed as profitable is daily being revised.
That this may make a man appear to some as crazy and deranged is a very small thing to bear.
For now.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Noooo
> we have thousands of invisible friends


You do. Many many who wish you no ill, but greatest good.
And who lived their lives in service to that, seeing you afar off, willing to count you friend...even as yet unseen to some of them.
By faith they sowed the ground of your nativity with hope for you.
Perhaps, some still do?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Would you say that "friendship" is a real thing?
> Unless I am wrong in your pronouncement, I would also ask if you consider its preciousness/rarity also of some import, or at least noteworthy?
> These "affinities" we have, and perhaps seek to satisfy by something like, or alike, do we not define them by things ethereal, that is, like loyalty demonstrated, or integrity perceptible to maybe us alone...but whose value is never diminished even if another may not see nor appreciate them, or may even, deny their existence in that "other" person?
> Like in "some say he is a good man, others say, No, he is a deceiver..."?
> Even so are the things I see in Jesus, ever a friend despite my poor attempts at expression of his friendship.
> I cannot deny I once viewed him with at least suspicion, if not outright hostility.
> "Of what use" I once wondered, "could such a person ever be to me?"
> And therein began an unraveling, an undoing of all my usury.
> What I viewed as profitable is daily being revised.
> That this may make me appear to some as crazy and deranged is a very small thing to bear.
> For now.



All of my friends are friends because we have earned each others right to be called friends. All years in the making. It was earned not taken for granted. It is through actions thick and thin. It is through time and experiences. It is about counting on someone to be there no matter what. It is about being loyal past the point of embarrassment. It is about knowing someone personally.

 Jesus could be no more a friend to me than anyone else I have never met. To think differently would be a major flaw in character. I have no need to pretend to be friends with someone that was dead approximately 2000 years before I was born.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> All of my friends are friends because we have earned each others right to be called friends. All years in the making. It was earned not taken for granted. It is through actions thick and thin. It is through time and experiences. It is about counting on someone to be there no matter what. It is about being loyal past the point of embarrassment. It is about knowing someone personally.
> 
> Jesus could be no more a friend to me than anyone else I have never met. To think differently would be a major flaw in character. I have no need to pretend to be friends with someone that was dead approximately 2000 years before I was born.



A Father's words ring in a son's ears. Even if, in no one elses.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> A Father's words ring in a son's ears. Even if, in no one elses.



Explain the highlighted text.
Is that what you were commenting on with the Father's words reply?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Explain the highlighted text.
> Is that what you were commenting on with the Father's words reply?


Knowing that I could not, cannot convince you of the (present) life of Jesus Christ is not lost on me. I have seen I cannot even do this with myself. 
If I say "he knows" of the situations I have faced in the not knowing, the places I have been where "my faith" has seemed to tremble like a reed in the wind, these may also seem to you, silly. You could easily say "it was precisely those times of trembling when the supreme wisdom of non-belief was breaking through, but you defeated it with weak superstition...again." I think I get that.

I cannot say to you why a thing appears to me as it does, and to you appears very different. At least in our expressions, if our words can be taken honestly. It is, of course, the old "do you see blue when I say blue...or do you see 'my' red"?

But, I think it would be wrong (if wrong has any meaning) for either of us to assume we are "less" than one another. For my part, the atheism you may espouse, seems no less to me than the atheism I so palpably flirt with when in those places of trembling. I would be a liar were I to say "my faith is strong!...I never doubt, nor have feared...nor have called and seemed to hear only silence". 

I have seen things...yes...experienced things...which were to me at the time bizarrely weird but wonderful things for which I have no explanation except an unseen hand, unseen eye...that works and knows. And yet, again...I would be a liar were I to say, even after those experiences, like a soldier so far from home under flying bullets, home now appears illusory, and almost a myth, I have not felt all as futility in regards to faith. How easily touchstones may be abandoned in the press of fire.
And yet, I find myself not abandoned.

How can this be...me...who has perhaps had experiences which you say you have not...yes..."miraculous" in whatever sense you wish to apply or understand that word, coming to a place where I say inwardly, what you may speak outwardly, why would such a man be allowed further confirmations of a truth he seems to hold so tenuously? Maybe even carelessly? Why is proof and more proof made known to me, and not you? If you believe me, and I believe you when you say you have "no proof"?
I really don't know...except I do see it spoken, written of.
And, I hear it.

I hear it from a place you may say doesn't exist, from a mouth and heart you say (or may say) is a product of my own desperate imagination, and I am content in that. That it is a desperate longing, I cannot deny. I have seen all the forces of reason arrayed against this, in myself, all the pressure (maybe I flatter myself...maybe only "some" pressure) to abandon in certain situations what is made, in my own sight, to seem arcane, quaint even, and of no utility when some things seem to get "very" real, and speak against anyone, anything, rising from the dead.

And still, the perfect sense of it, gets shown. Mercy.

I am brought to a place of relinquishing something, (my self confidence) so that something else may be better seen. Where once in confidence I may have boasted of a deserving...I no longer can. Sort of like "Well, I am a christian, it's no wonder God loves me, makes himself known to me, and brings me through trials...after all, I have espoused his name...and I am 'owed'." Of course, the flip side of that is, "Look at all those other jerks struggling in their unbelief..." 
It is not a place to pitch camp, as you can probably tell.

Have I stopped there...to "drink"?
I can't deny it.

But...a Father's words ring in my ears, that you and I...no matter how I may try to cut for myself the bigger "half" of the candy bar, are brothers. 
I cannot explain where the simplest of knowing how wrong this is, my unequal "sharing" even when I do it almost assiduously at every turn, cannot be denied.
My frequent practice does nothing against what remains the truth...for me. 

And, in one real sense, I become your debtor. That you would bear with one who seems so far from what he espouses in word, and practices in deed, enough to read this far. That you would treat me as a man, worthy of an answer, while you may be far more faithful to your doctrines, than I am to mine.

So, you may ultimately be a man purposed for me to learn what greater "faith" is...in greater measure, where once...again I cannot deny, my own blindness would have been to discard and revile (the pearls before swine thing) anyone who slightly tipped my apple cart of superiority.
If I try to be "better" than you (of which my inner atheism already has condemned me), I find myself ashamed.
If I seek to stand, but without trying to make you fall, I am only answering words I hear ringing in my ears, that you and I can be no more loved, regarded for well being, and sought for by one who is neither added to by my declarations, nor ashamed at anyone's refusal.
I am not ashamed of your unbelief, how can I be...weak as I have shown myself to be?

Yes, there was a thing "of me" a defect, like you mentioned...a flaw, a thing propelling from a  mainspring of shame, that sought, through its unwinding to have me feel "better" about myself...precisely because I was so ashamed of myself. 

In yielding to it, I discovered, I had to not only feel better about "myself"...but better than all others. This "being a christian" seemed at first, to have an appeal to that...after all...what could make someone "better" than knowing the Creator? I mean, talk about the name droppers dream, huh? God is my buddy! I mean, that will surely get you the best seats anywhere...right? How easy to feel superior... 

I mean God is my friend...but theirs? Obviously...not so much.

In believing I had the "best" God, the better God...how would I not also be so much better?
The joke was on me.
He has shown me, as much as you can hear this, that the very mainspring was, and is melted down, consumed...in him. The "need" to feel superior is wed to the truth of shame.
If shame is gone, the other...wonderfully disappears.
Now, you may say "I have never felt the need to be better than anyone..you're right Israel, you are one defective human being"
I can't deny it.
But I can't deny the only reason I can even bear to consider that as truth, is because one came for me, and did for me, what I could never do.
That's what, and who, I call a friend.
And in truth, if you have never had that thing propelling you, you are surely a better man than I, and there may be much I could learn from you...maybe we could even be "friends"?


----------



## bullethead

All I can say is that I am not an atheist. I just don't know anything about a God directly from a God.


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> We are not saved by 'works'....anyway.
> 
> I don't have any problem believing/knowing that any nonbeliever can have good morals.
> 
> I have no doubt that anyone who posts in any of these threads, would protect my life or feed me if needed.



And yet you think they deserve to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> And yet you think they deserve to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.


I really haven't met anyone deserving of the lake of fire, except me.
I am very much a man spun round, and upside down.
I am not lying (if you can believe me) that every conversation I have had in heart regarding those I would appoint to fiery end, has always ended, ultimately...with an excuse for everyone else's behavior but my own.
Now, before I phrase those conversations, before I am moved to consider in rationality rather than heated emotion...yes, the whole of the world deserves burning.
Everyone is ALWAYS wrong but me.
But then...something happens. Somehow...a cooler head prevails...a thing not open to insult, but shows that I am. A thing not offended...but shows that I am.
A thing of unquenchable patience, shows my own lack.
A thing willing to work in a place I abhor, allows me to see...his work.
Jesus spoke of a man having two sons...to the first he said "go work in my field"...the first son agreed, but never went.
The second said "NO, I will not"...but later relented and went.
Jesus asked "who then did the will of the Father?"

I don't know if I have ever done God's will, I must leave that judgment with him. But I know what it means to think God wants "yes" men, I thought far too long of presenting myself as such "Hi, I'm a Jesus yes man, can I speak to you about the TRUTH?"
Now, maybe...not so much.
More like "everything I find life asking of me seems impossible, you ever get that feeling?"
There's only one man who gives me hope there, and he says he is life, and he does the impossible.
When I got married, I never even thought how much I would need to hear someone tell me..."love your wife".
But, I can also say, as with so many things I thought I "had in the bag" so to speak, my need to hear has far outstripped my need to show myself as anything.
But...I thank the speaker of all the things I easily thought I once knew, was willing to become as nothing...that in all my striving to be a big shot something, he gives me time.
To reconsider.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> And yet you think they deserve to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.



Did I say that somewhere? No, I don't think they deserve that. Unfortunately it isn't up to me though, is it?


----------



## mtnwoman

Israel said:


> I really haven't met anyone deserving of the lake of fire, except me.
> I am very much a man spun round, and upside down.
> I am not lying (if you can believe me) that every conversation I have had in heart regarding those I would appoint to fiery end, has always ended, ultimately...with an excuse for everyone else's behavior but my own.
> Now, before I phrase those conversations, before I am moved to consider in rationality rather than heated emotion...yes, the whole of the world deserves burning.
> Everyone is ALWAYS wrong but me.
> But then...something happens. Somehow...a cooler head prevails...a thing not open to insult, but shows that I am. A thing not offended...but shows that I am.
> A thing of unquenchable patience, shows my own lack.
> A thing willing to work in a place I abhor, allows me to see...his work.
> Jesus spoke of a man having two sons...to the first he said "go work in my field"...the first son agreed, but never went.
> The second said "NO, I will not"...but later relented and went.
> Jesus asked "who then did the will of the Father?"
> 
> I don't know if I have ever done God's will, I must leave that judgment with him. But I know what it means to think God wants "yes" men, I thought far too long of presenting myself as such "Hi, I'm a Jesus yes man, can I speak to you about the TRUTH?"
> Now, maybe...not so much.
> More like "everything I find life asking of me seems impossible, you ever get that feeling?"
> There's only one man who gives me hope there, and he says he is life, and he does the impossible.
> When I got married, I never even thought how much I would need to hear someone tell me..."love your wife".
> But, I can also say, as with so many things I thought I "had in the bag" so to speak, my need to hear has far outstripped my need to show myself as anything.
> But...I thank the speaker of all the things I easily thought I once knew, was willing to become as nothing...that in all my striving to be a big shot something, he gives me time.
> To reconsider.



Amen!


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> Did I say that somewhere? No, I don't think they deserve that. Unfortunately it isn't up to me though, is it?



Well they either deserve it or you worship an unjust god and I know you don't believe the latter.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Did I say that somewhere? No, I don't think they deserve that. Unfortunately it isn't up to me though, is it?



It isn't up to anyone or anything.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> It isn't up to anyone or anything.



I thought you ask me not to post to you? But you can post to me, eh?  Whatever.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> Well they either deserve it or you worship an unjust god and I know you don't believe the latter.



I don't think they do, but maybe their wives think so...or better yet their x's.  

You accused 'me' of thinking I thought they deserved it.  I don't know who thinks they do, but I don't think they deserve it.  I'm not a mind reader like you.  

Why is it so hard for you to be nice to 'certain' people?  Lighten up a little wouldya?


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> I don't think they do, but maybe their wives think so...or better yet their x's.
> 
> You accused 'me' of thinking I thought they deserved it.  I don't know who thinks they do, but I don't think they deserve it.  I'm not a mind reader like you.
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to be nice to 'certain' people?  Lighten up a little wouldya?



Would a just god torture people in a lake of fire that didn't deserve it?


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> I thought you ask me not to post to you? But you can post to me, eh?  Whatever.



What if it was a test?


----------



## Israel

atlashunter said:


> Would a just god torture people in a lake of fire that didn't deserve it?


(what answer did you get?)


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> Would a just god torture people in a lake of fire that didn't deserve it?



No He wouldn't. If He did/does that's where I will be.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> What if it was a test?



Does this mean I can post to you now???? awwww 

If it was a test, did I pass or not?


----------



## Israel

mtnwoman said:


> No He wouldn't. If He did/does that's where I will be.


amen.
 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Mercy!
What a strange and wonderful thing to behold in this land...and yet...where all else argues against it...one has shown it!


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> amen.
> For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
> Mercy!
> What a strange and wonderful thing to behold in this land...and yet...where all else argues against it...one has shown it!



You talk alot about mercy and how you have seen it.  What does it look like?  What happened to you that made you feel like mercy was show to you?  Mercy from what.  And if your answer is gonna be something cryptic like "Mercy from myself" I won't understand.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Does this mean I can post to you now???? awwww
> 
> If it was a test, did I pass or not?



You must have forgotten the conversation we had back in January.


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> No He wouldn't. If He did/does that's where I will be.



That's right he wouldn't. But the god of the bible does.

God sends nonbelievers to be tortured in a lake of fire for eternity.
Nonbelievers don't deserve to be tortured in a lake of fire.
A god that tortures people who don't deserve it is not just.
God is just.

You can agree with all of the above statements but you can't do so without contradicting yourself.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> That's right he wouldn't. But the god of the bible does.
> 
> God sends nonbelievers to be tortured in a lake of fire for eternity.
> Nonbelievers don't deserve to be tortured in a lake of fire.
> A god that tortures people who don't deserve it is not just.
> God is just.
> 
> You can agree with all of the above statements but you can't do so without contradicting yourself.


You are getting hung up on the details 
Just have faith.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> That's right he wouldn't. But the god of the bible does.
> 
> God sends nonbelievers to be tortured in a lake of fire for eternity.
> Nonbelievers don't deserve to be tortured in a lake of fire.
> A god that tortures people who don't deserve it is not just.
> God is just.
> 
> You can agree with all of the above statements but you can't do so without contradicting yourself.



I see what ya did there.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> I see what ya did there.



See post 288.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> You must have forgotten the conversation we had back in January.



Looks like it....LOL. I don't remember. Give me the lowdown.  I'm outta town and on someone's else's computer....but I'll see if I can find it next week when I get back from house sitting in the mtns...Yay! the mtns...home sweet home.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> See post 288.


Gotcha, didn't catch that.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> That's right he wouldn't. But the god of the bible does.
> 
> God sends nonbelievers to be tortured in a lake of fire for eternity.
> Nonbelievers don't deserve to be tortured in a lake of fire.
> A god that tortures people who don't deserve it is not just.
> God is just.
> 
> You can agree with all of the above statements but you can't do so without contradicting yourself.



So all the OT non believers in Christ will also be in the lake of fire, even though they were upstanding in the moral laws of God? Whether or not they could absolutely abide in the laws or not, but tried.  Do you live in morality as far as the 10 commandments go. Those are moral laws....do not kill, do not lie, do not commit adultery, etc etc. What is it in the commandments of Christ's teaching do you not believe?  To love? you disagree with that? Do you not molest children, but love them? Do you wanna cheat on your wife, or love her so much you wouldn't even though you may be tempted? Do you wanna be gay? Just what is it that you wanna do that the OT/NT forbids you to do?  There are differences in the OT and NT of what to abide in. 

I understand you may not agree with 'how' this all came about...virgin birth, risen from the dead, all that. But what in the moral law is it that you wanna do because you disagree with it?


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> So all the OT non believers in Christ will also be in the lake of fire, even though they were upstanding in the moral laws of God? Whether or not they could absolutely abide in the laws or not, but tried.  Do you live in morality as far as the 10 commandments go. Those are moral laws....do not kill, do not lie, do not commit adultery, etc etc. What is it in the commandments of Christ's teaching do you not believe?  To love? you disagree with that? Do you not molest children, but love them? Do you wanna cheat on your wife, or love her so much you wouldn't even though you may be tempted? Do you wanna be gay? Just what is it that you wanna do that the OT/NT forbids you to do?  There are differences in the OT and NT of what to abide in.
> 
> I understand you may not agree with 'how' this all came about...virgin birth, risen from the dead, all that. But what in the moral law is it that you wanna do because you disagree with it?



^This...

does not address this:



atlashunter said:


> That's right he wouldn't. But the god of the bible does.
> 
> God sends nonbelievers to be tortured in a lake of fire for eternity.
> Nonbelievers don't deserve to be tortured in a lake of fire.
> A god that tortures people who don't deserve it is not just.
> God is just.
> 
> You can agree with all of the above statements but you can't do so without contradicting yourself.



I do have some disagreements with what is biblically considered moral but that is really beside the point. Assume there are no differences there and I meet the standard you set when you said you believed nonbelievers could be moral people. According to christian theology those people still get cast into a lake of fire for eternity because they didn't believe in the divinity of christ and that his death redeemed them of their sins. I disagree that such people deserve that and you agreed with me. In doing so you contradict yourself on other points which I laid out in four simple statements. Tell me which of those statements you agree with or disagree with. Up to this point you seemed to agree with all of them which would mean you contradict yourself.


A mass murderer who repents and is saved before execution goes to heaven. His jewish victim that rejects the messiah is thrown in a lake of fire regardless of how moral they were. That is christianity in a nutshell. This theology is evil. It is not compatible with the claim of a just and loving god.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> ^This...
> 
> does not address this:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have some disagreements with what is biblically considered moral but that is really beside the point. *Like what? That was the question.*Assume there are no differences there and I meet the standard you set when you said you believed nonbelievers could be moral people.*If you can meet the mark then you won't be put in 'jail' just like real life.* According to christian theology those people still get cast into a lake of fire for eternity because they didn't believe in the divinity of christ and that his death redeemed them of their sins. * Because I know that I (personally) am not able to reach that on my own, meeting the mark that some (like some Jews or whoever can) assuming as you said.*I disagree that such people deserve that and you agreed with me.*Yes. Do I deserve to go to jail because other people murder someone and I haven't)* In doing so you contradict yourself on other points which I laid out in four simple statements. Tell me which of those statements you agree with or disagree with. Up to this point you seemed to agree with all of them which would mean you contradict yourself.*You're assuming. You don't know what I am capable of. Or do you?*
> 
> 
> A mass murderer who repents and is saved before execution goes to heaven. His jewish victim that rejects the messiah is thrown in a lake of fire regardless of how moral they were. That is christianity in a nutshell. This theology is evil. It is not compatible with the claim of a just and loving god.


 What if the jewish person hasn't done anything against the morals of the OT and goes to heaven, too?  Does he deserve the lake of fire...in my opinion, no, and that's what we're basing this on, isn't it, my opinion?  If you don't go against moral law, which is close to the moral law of this country, do you deserve it? no.

I ask you again, which moral laws do you not want to abide in? I'll try my best to answer your questions if you'll answer mine. Does that work for you? God says render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar (law of the land) what is Caesar's.


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> What if the jewish person hasn't done anything against the morals of the OT and goes to heaven, too?  Does he deserve the lake of fire...in my opinion, no, and that's what we're basing this on, isn't it, my opinion?  If you don't go against moral law, which is close to the moral law of this country, do you deserve it? no.



I share your opinion. No they don't deserve to be burned. I would say nobody deserves to be burned in a lake of fire for eternity.

According to Romans all have sinned. Without the salvation through faith in Jesus where does that leave the unbelieving jew?



mtnwoman said:


> I ask you again, which moral laws do you not want to abide in? I'll try my best to answer your questions if you'll answer mine. Does that work for you? God says render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar (law of the land) what is Caesar's.



If Romans is correct and all have sinned then it doesn't matter which ones I follow and which I don't does it? I could be a great philanthropist and still burn for eternity if I don't believe in Jesus or a mass murderer destined for heaven if I do believe. Is that just? Is it moral?


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> I share your opinion. No they don't deserve to be burned. I would say nobody deserves to be burned in a lake of fire for eternity.
> 
> According to Romans all have sinned. Without the salvation through faith in Jesus where does that leave the unbelieving jew?
> 
> 
> 
> If Romans is correct and all have sinned then it doesn't matter which ones I follow and which I don't does it? I could be a great philanthropist and still burn for eternity if I don't believe in Jesus or a mass murderer destined for heaven if I do believe. Is that just? Is it moral?



This is just my opinion ok? So please take it that way.

I am not a preterist, therefore I don't believe all prophesy is fulfilled yet.  I believe people are still temporarily blinded.  If you know the gospel and understand it then proof will be provided to you, if you still don't believe.  What would it take to make you believe? say in your case, that maybe if you had proof? or at least that's what most on here are asking for.  

Prophesy says that everyone will witness the 'rapture' (caught up)  with their very own eyes would some of y'all believe then? According to scripture some if not all Jews will.  I personally believe that it isn't done yet. There are many other things that Christians will disagree on.  Redemption is still at hand, and I needed that because I was gonna kill my own self off without Christ. And I searched for help for 20yrs and that's where I found it. It works for me now. Some people saved or unsaved could do better than I did on my own.  

I'm also not sure what judgement will be like. Some say our sins are covered in the blood, and that God will never see those sins (me). Some that believe say the same things but then say we will still be judged on our actions.  So you see it is a mystery even to most of us.  

Even though David in the Bible was chosen by God and led by God, but yet he committed adultery and murder, where did David go? I don't know. He was before Christ, so I can only assume his sins weren't covered by the blood. So where did he go? 

The Bible is too complex to understand, at least for me. Can I imagine a donkey talking, of course not. But I do believe there is nothing impossible for God.  Did the guy actully see the words coming out of the donkey, or was it God yelling in his head, or speaking from the heavens? I don't know.  Did David kill the giant with one stone, as it says. I don't know. But I do believe if I have something that lies before me that appears to be a giant that I can't overcome, I ask God for the wisdom of figuring out 'tools' I can use to overcome it.  

To me it's like me asking for forgiveness or forgiving someone, only I know whether I truly am sincere.  There is no proof to the other person of my true intent.  I am the only one who knows truly.  

You know what I think could happen, and you know what I think could help you, but I have no way to prove that to you. All I know and believe is that it works for me. I share info about the meds I take with others, that doesn't mean that will work for them, I do know that.  One pain med that doesn't work for me, may work for them.  Since I can't prove my meds work for me, no one knows but me and assuredly not even the doctors.

I don't think anyone deserves to burn, except for pedofiles and murderers, but do they really if they have a mental disorder?  So I don't know. 

Just examples of how I know for myself but cannot judge for anyone else.


----------

