# The God debates II



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

William Lane Craigs starts by saying (I paraphrase) "God gives a a sound foundation for objective moral values".  He also says "God is the embodiment of all that is good, kind, loving, etc...  Moral values are grounded in the character of God himself".

What makes him think he might have any idea what God might be like?  

The Bible.  

He posits the Bible is true FIRST.  I don't understand how anyone can simply state that and then try to build a case about anything upon that.  Are people listening simply supposed to agree with him?


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

What if the way that the world is, is a TRUE reflection of God's character.  Not because of Adam or the Devil but because this is how he likes it (see encephalopy picture).


----------



## welderguy (May 19, 2015)

To understand the answers to these questions,you would first have to believe in God.Once you have been enabled to do that, everything else falls into place.

But,..some(not all) of your human logic and reason will have to be abandoned.The good news is that when God enables you to believe,He also puts His spirit of truth in you that supercedes all logic.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What if the way that the world is, is a TRUE reflection of God's character.  Not because of Adam or the Devil but because this is how he likes it (see encephalopy picture).



So if man is made in the image of God which most believe is his mental/spiritual attributes, then Adam and Satan's characteristics are within this image? God does get angry and hates certain things. He is jealous and he seeks revenge. He has wrath. He repents. His physical manifestation weeps. His physical manifestation is tempted. His physical manifestation overcomes temptation. 
We have very God like characteristics. God expects man to overcome some of these attributes.
It does supersede all logic and does require a lot of faith. I don't believe the Holy Spirit has given me all of his spirit of truth yet as he has Welderguy but in due time he will.

For me personally, I still have trouble thinking as a human or natural man instead of a New Spiritual Creature. I still wonder. I still seek. I still haven't found what I'm looking far in regards to this "spirit of truth." 
Mainly because of the different "revealings" among his Elect. I ain't quite been given privy to that "understanding."


----------



## JB0704 (May 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> He posits the Bible is true FIRST.  I don't understand how anyone can simply state that and then try to build a case about anything upon that.  Are people listening simply supposed to agree with him?



You have to believe God exists before you can even consider believing in anything else.  That's the foundation.


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> You have to believe God exists before you can even consider believing in anything else.  That's the foundation.



If you watch the video he clearly starts with the God of Abraham.  

Even if you grant God, why would you think that the Bible describes him accurately?  Ok, so I believe in God.   Which description of him is accurate? A wolf that steals the sun from the raven and swallows it?  An eight armed, blue skinned, elephant headed creature?  A lightning bolt wielding rapist?  None of the above?  All of the above?  Some of the above?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> To understand the answers to these questions,you would first have to believe in God.Once you have been enabled to do that, everything else falls into place.
> 
> But,..some(not all) of your human logic and reason will have to be abandoned.The good news is that when God enables you to believe,He also puts His spirit of truth in you that supercedes all logic.


You should write commercials or train sales people or something 
You can definitely spin it.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If you watch the video he clearly starts with the God of Abraham.
> 
> Even if you grant God, why would you think that the Bible describes him accurately?  Ok, so I believe in God.   Which description of him is accurate? A wolf that steals the sun from the raven and swallows it?  An eight armed, blue skinned, elephant headed creature?  A lightning bolt wielding rapist?  None of the above?  All of the above?  Some of the above?


Bingo.
Particularly when you know how the Bible was produced and by who.


----------



## 660griz (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Are people listening simply supposed to agree with him?



Pretty much. The people that already believe anyway.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> But,..some(not all) of your human logic and reason will have to be abandoned.The good news is that when God enables you to believe,He also puts His spirit of truth in you that supercedes all logic.



I'm just glad that someone finally walked up to the mic and spoke naked truth.


----------



## 660griz (May 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm just glad that someone finally walked up to the mic and spoke naked truth.



I am glad it made sense to ya. My comprehension is down today. 



> *some(not all) of your human logic *and reason *will have to be abandoned.*The good news is that when God enables you to believe,He also puts His spirit of truth in you that *supercedes all logic*.



You have to abandon some logic until he puts the spirit in you and then abandon all logic?

Then others say, logic and God go hand in hand...to them.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> I am glad it made sense to ya. My comprehension is down today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Astounding....


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> I am glad it made sense to ya. My comprehension is down today.



It doesn't make sense to me, which is why I'm agnostic. 

The only part I focused on there was that, at multiple points, parts of logic and reason, and in the end all according to his post, have to be abandoned. We've been trying to show the believers this for a very long time. We now have one who came out and said it of their own volition. 

I think that makes it time for a 

We're finally seeing some common ground emerge. If he was serious, that is.


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2015)

1 Cor.2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but of demonstration of spirit and of power:"


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It doesn't make sense to me, which is why I'm agnostic.
> 
> The only part I focused on there was that, at multiple points, parts of logic and reason, and in the end all according to his post, have to be abandoned. We've been trying to show the believers this for a very long time. We now have one who came out and said it of their own volition.
> 
> ...



I agree with Welderguy on abandoning logic and relying on faith instead. I've mentioned this in past discussions.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree with Welderguy on abandoning logic and relying on faith instead. I've mentioned this in past discussions.



I distinctly remember having a discussion, I thought it was you, with the metaphor about the grand canyon being the logic leap required to believe and it ended up being left at me saying that you're jumping the whole canyon, end to end, where the other person said that it's just little gaps here and there. 

Welder pretty much corroborated my "end to end" jump theory, though. 

I could be remembering a different "opponent" on that discussion and, if I am, my apologies.


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree with Welderguy on abandoning logic and relying on faith instead. I've mentioned this in past discussions.



I think we've all been telling these knuckleheads that for years but they only hear what they want to hear.


----------



## JimD (May 20, 2015)

The Tao The Ching opens with "The Tao that can be named is not the Tao." Kierkegaard said "once you label me you negate me." I believe these two quotes sum up trying to label God or define him in human terms, that is of course if you believe in God/Creator/Spirit etc. I think we get pieces of what God is like and pieces of his "eternal truths", but I don't think we will ever know, with our feeble minds how God "thinks." Even Einstein said "all I really want to know is how God thinks, all the rest are just details." I believe the Bible gives us a glimpse of God but also that other "religions" and text also give us a glimpse of God, and that his "eternal truths" are found in many places, not just the Bible. I also believe God reveals things to us when we are ready for them. I believe when we make conscious contact with God through prayer or meditation and get quiet and listen, we receive wisdom, or as the Japanese call a Satori. This is one reason I don't buy into many things I've been taught in church or in a religion, as they go against what I have come to believe. I've heard it said that prayer is us talking to God and intuition is God talking to us.


----------



## 660griz (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think we've all been telling these knuckleheads that for years but they only hear what they want to hear.



Do you talk to Jesus with that mouth?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> Do you talk to Jesus with that mouth?



I was wondering the same thing. I toss out an olive branch saying that we're finding common ground and he calls all of us knuckleheads. 

I wonder if the Romans had offered Jesus an olive branch if he'd have spat on it and called them morons...


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Even if you grant God, why would you think that the Bible describes him accurately?  Ok, so I believe in God.   Which description of him is accurate? A wolf that steals the sun from the raven and swallows it?  An eight armed, blue skinned, elephant headed creature?  A lightning bolt wielding rapist?  None of the above?  All of the above?  Some of the above?



If we are assuming you believe in God, you would then have evidence of his nature through creation.  Which boot fits?  

What you are describing otherwise is characteristics assigned to the deity, and logic can be used to some extent.  For instance, the wolf can't be God if it's created, or, the wolf is the form God takes pre-creation, but how is the raven in the picture pre-creation if there is a wolf-God?  In such a circumstance both are pre-cretion leading back to another cause, or, and actual God.


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2015)

When I said "knuckleheads", I meant it in the most endearing way possible.
I am also a knucklehead because I often do not listen and only hear what I want to hear.

Prov 27:6 "faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. "

I don't think of you as my enemy.Soo...


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think we've all been telling these knuckleheads that for years but they only hear what they want to hear.



In their defense many Christians on this forum have said believing in God is logical. Those discussions might have been before you joined.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> If we are assuming you believe in God, you would then have evidence of his nature through creation.  Which boot fits?
> 
> What you are describing otherwise is characteristics assigned to the deity, and logic can be used to some extent.  For instance, the wolf can't be God if it's created, or, the wolf is the form God takes pre-creation, but how is the raven in the picture pre-creation if there is a wolf-God?  In such a circumstance both are pre-cretion leading back to another cause, or, and actual God.



Like the encephalopathy baby. 

They are infinite wolf and raven.  No one made them.  They have always been.  

Have you ever heard the story:

_ The year Bertrand Russell won the Nobel Prize for science and Literature, 1937, he was giving a public lecture on astronomy, he was describing how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy, he was also describing how our universe came to life through a cosmic event which we now refer to and call the 'The Big Bang'

At the end of the lecture, the little old lady got up and said:  

"Mr. Russell, what you have told us is a load of old rubbish; it is nothing like that at all, the world is a flat plate and it is supported on the back of a giant turtle, so there!"

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying," I thank you for that, but please, could you tell me, what is holding up the giant turtle?

"You think you're very clever young man, very clever indeed," said the old lady, "but now I know you don't know anything, you see, everyone knows the answer to that, it's TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN..."

The old lady then challenged Bertrand Russell to prove her wrong, she asked him firstly if he was around at the time of The Big Bang then she asked if he had been into outer space and seen for himself that the World was in fact round as he claimed?

When he replied with a quizzical 'NO' to both questions the old Lady told him that neither of them was actually right or wrong, she claimed instead that they both simply thought and believed different things…neither Bertrand Russell nor the room had a response and the phrase 'TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN' was heralded as a possibility from that day forth! _


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> In their defense many Christians on this forum have said believing in God is logical. Those discussions might have been before you joined.



Yes.

I think we are on to something now.  A Breakthrough.  Now that we've got all that silliness about logic out of the way, your objective is to explain to us and yourself why it is good to abandon logic.  Ever.


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Like the encephalopathy baby.



Does that instance define creation, and, is it the purpose?  There are plenty of moments in my life where if all a person knew about me was that one moment they would describe me as pure evil.  Does that make me pure evil?  

But, ultimately, you are discussing characteristics.  In your infinite wolf and raven scenario you have determined what God looks like, and put a face on a name.

Does the description of the wolf and raven line up with what you believe may have created this?  Does the evidence match?


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2015)

And, technically, the God of Abraham is also the God of Ambush, and JB, or he ain't God.  Same as the wolf and the raven.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Does that instance define creation, and, is it the purpose?  There are plenty of moments in my life where if all a person knew about me was that one moment they would describe me as pure evil.  Does that make me pure evil?



Craig says that God is all good and kind yummy -fuzziness. 
You tell me.  Is there more suffering than well being going on?  Are they equal?  Whatever the reality is, then that would be the nature of God.  Your capacity for good and evil would be a reflection of God as well.  I like the stance that Gem takes.  Yes, God does some terrible things and He is responsible for that messed up baby.  No apologies.  No excuses.  If that's the stance one wants to take then what I want to know is what kind of person does that make them?



JB0704 said:


> But, ultimately, you are discussing characteristics.  In your infinite wolf and raven scenario you have determined what God looks like, and put a face on a name.



And I'm entitled to.  I can't know and neither can you if that's what's going on in the God dimension.  Either adopt an image from antiquity or make up a new one.  It doesn't really matter.  That's what's so stupid about Craig's assumptions about what God is like.



JB0704 said:


> Does the description of the wolf and raven line up with what you believe may have created this?  Does the evidence match?



Just as well as any other mythology.  Honestly.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> And, technically, the God of Abraham is also the God of Ambush, and JB, or he ain't God.  Same as the wolf and the raven.



The wolf and raven are your Gods as well.  Whether you like it or not.

Here's another issue.  Your idea of God is limited to ONE being.  That's just your monotheistic background showing. Why? What's the philosophical justification for there only being ONE supreme being.  Maybe there's a council of equally supremely powerful beings.  Why not?


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> The wolf and raven are your Gods as well.  Whether you like it or not.



If they are God, then yes.  If they are not, then they are not.  Right?



ambush80 said:


> Here's another issue.  Your idea of God is limited to ONE being.  That's just your monotheistic background showing. Why? What's the philosophical justification for there only being ONE supreme being.  Maybe there's a council of equally supremely powerful beings.  Why not?



If there is, then they are collectively God.  Logically it makes more sense to me for there to be one rather than multiple which are equal and infinite and creative.


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Your objective is to explain to us and yourself why it is good to abandon logic.  Ever.



Simply because God, in His genius plan has used illogical means to hide His word from those that cling to logic and reason.

Jesus said this in His prayer in Matt.11:25
"I thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> If they are God, then yes.  If they are not, then they are not.  Right?



Right.



JB0704 said:


> If there is, then they are collectively God.  Logically it makes more sense to me for there to be one rather than multiple which are equal and infinite and creative.



They are The Gods or if you want to call them "God" it's only because you can't stand the thought of there being more than one.  Can you elaborate on your logic?  Do you think that your sensibility comes from your having been brought up with the idea of Monotheism?  Do you realize that other people feel quite comfortable believing in multiple Gods?  It doesn't faze them one bit.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Simply because God, in His genius plan has used illogical means to hide His word from those that cling to logic and reason.
> 
> Jesus said this in His prayer in Matt.11:25
> "I thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes.



The sublime part is that they (the writers) got anyone to believe that.


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> They are The Gods or if you want to call them "God" it's only because you can't stand the thought of there being more than one.



If they serve the function, wouldn't it be like a corporate being?



ambush80 said:


> Can you elaborate on your logic?



It has to do with my other thoughts relevant to infinite everything.  But, let's say there are billions of beings function in sync to create everything, and are the driving force behind existence, they would serve the role of God.  To me, it doesn't make any sense for things to have occurred that way.......no more than it makes sense for me to think everything we see has always existed, and always will exist. 




ambush80 said:


> Do you think that your sensibility comes from your having been brought up with the idea of Monotheism?



Don't most polytheistic religions recognize at least one "big dog?"



ambush80 said:


> Do you realize that other people feel quite comfortable believing in multiple Gods?  It doesn't faze them one bit.



Yes.  I just don't reason along with them.  

The premise of the discussion was your statement "assume I believe in God, now what?" Or something to that effect........I'm just going down that road.  I don't see creation as harsh and evil, nor do I believe people are wired to do so.  I don't know a single person who doesn't stand in awe of beauty when they see it.


----------



## 660griz (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Simply because God, in His genius plan has used illogical means to hide His word from those that cling to logic and reason.


How do you know?



> Jesus said this in his prayer in Matt.11:25



How do you know he said that?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

> Maybe there's a council of equally supremely powerful beings




Logically....impossible.  I'm sure you see that.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

> How do you know he said that?



In just about the same way that you know that the words "Four score and seven years ago" came out of Abraham Lincoln's mouth or any of Plato's famous quotes were actually said by him.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> If they serve the function, wouldn't it be like a corporate being?
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with my other thoughts relevant to infinite everything.  But, let's say there are billions of beings function in sync to create everything, and are the driving force behind existence, they would serve the role of God.  To me, it doesn't make any sense for things to have occurred that way.......no more than it makes sense for me to think everything we see has always existed, and always will exist.



I've understood your feeling about this and have been at a loss too explain why it doesn't have to be so.  It's a numbers thing.  You can't see a Gajillion individual pieces of matter being infinite.  What if you crush all the little pieces into one piece and then crush it down into pure energy?  Then there's just one thing that has to be infinite.  And it manifests itself into matter occasionally. 






JB0704 said:


> Don't most polytheistic religions recognize at least one "big dog?"
> 
> Yes.  I just don't reason along with them.



I don't think so necessarily.  Not always.  And anyway, their texts says that there are alot of them and their texts further state that understanding them with you human mind is futile.  They're OK with that. 




JB0704 said:


> The premise of the discussion was your statement "assume I believe in God, now what?" Or something to that effect........I'm just going down that road.  I don't see creation as harsh and evil, nor do I believe people are wired to do so.  I don't know a single person who doesn't stand in awe of beauty when they see it.




Actually, the premise of my thread was what Craig said about God, which is the same as most Christians I know.  Do you agree with the premise that people like to see patterns?  How about that they like to see causation?  

That's the thing about being moved by beauty.  It causes feelings that are sublime and complex and it's at the limits of our understanding of something that we like to insert a "whoopdie".


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Logically....impossible.  I'm sure you see that.



Supremely powerful being is already outside of the realm of logic.  Do you see that?

"The Monkey and the Fox sit side by side on the Great Throne of Heaven.  Neither more powerful than the other....."

There. I just did it.

"No one can understand the True Nature of the Fox and Monkey until they have turned to dust and their Essence of Smoke has crossed over the Great river of Onyx to once again be absorbed into the Wonder."

That's how you make nonsense make sense.  You write it down and get people to believe it.  Like Craig.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> In just about the same way that you know that the words "Four score and seven years ago" came out of Abraham Lincoln's mouth.



That's dishonest to the extreme.  There's PICTURES of Lincoln giving speeches.  There's a copy of a draft he made on some scratch paper on the train. 

To say that The Bible is anything like that is ridiculous.  That's the correct word.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Supremely powerful being is already outside of the realm of logic.  Do you see that?



If by "supremely", you might mean "most powerful imaginable", then no....and please explain.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's dishonest to the extreme.  There's PICTURES of Lincoln giving speeches.  There's a copy of a draft he made on some scratch paper on the train.
> 
> To say that The Bible is anything like that is ridiculous.  That's the correct word.



The only difference, as you pointed out, is that the camera had been invented in Lincoln's time.

There is no recording of the speech and the scratch paper it's written on is no more reliable than any text that Jesus' quote is written on.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> The only difference, as you pointed out, is that the camera had been invented in Lincoln's time.
> 
> There is no recording of the speech and the scratch paper it's written on is no more reliable than any text that Jesus' quote is written on.




Lawd.......


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

> "The Monkey and the Fox sit side by side on the Great Throne of Heaven. Neither more powerful than the other....."
> 
> There. I just did it.
> 
> ...



I have no idea what you're trying to prove with this part.  Maybe dumb it down a little bit for me.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> If by "supremely", you might mean "most powerful imaginable", then no....and please explain.



Imagine what kind of being He could imagine.  You can't.  

Might as well discuss decay rates of Dilithium Crystals.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Lawd.......



The question was asked "how do you know he said that".  The answer, obviously, is only because of eyewitness testimony.  

It's the same answer that you must give when someone asks "how do you know that Lincoln said 'four score'".  Outside of the written account of those who say they were there, there is no real irrefutable evidence.

I assume "Lawd" means, "I agree"?


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to prove with this part.  Maybe dumb it down a little bit for me.



If I substantiate the validity of my text with my text I'm beyond reproach.

It's true because it says so.

I could get people to believe that stuff.  If I tried hard I bet I could get alot of people to believe it.  I would start with "believers".


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Imagine what kind of being He could imagine.  You can't.
> 
> Might as well discuss decay rates of Dilithium Crystals.



If he is the most powerful being possible, then he cannot conceive one greater than he.  If he could....he would not be God.....logically.


----------



## JB0704 (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I've understood your feeling about this and have been at a loss too explain why it doesn't have to be so.  It's a numbers thing.  You can't see a Gajillion individual pieces of matter being infinite.  What if you crush all the little pieces into one piece and then crush it down into pure energy?  Then there's just one thing that has to be infinite.  And it manifests itself into matter occasionally.



Then we are left wondering how energy just happened, or matter that became energy, and that it worked together perfectly to become everything.  This would mean you have always existed, so have I.  That doesn't make any sense to me.



ambush80 said:


> Do you agree with the premise that people like to see patterns?  How about that they like to see causation?



Without a lot of scientific evidence to back up this statement, both conclusions appear reasonable.



ambush80 said:


> That's the thing about being moved by beauty.  It causes feelings that are sublime and complex and it's at the limits of our understanding of something that we like to insert a "whoopdie".



And, what I am saying is that there is more to it than synapses firing as I am not aware of an evolutionary mechanism which favors a species based on it's appreciation of landscapes......particularly human's appreciation of mountains and sunsets, which are both areas which don't naturally favor our habitation.

That digs further down to why I can believe in this expression of God over another, though.  Which expression of the creative being fits one which would make a species that could appreciate a sunset, or even satelite image of a huricane?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If I substantiate the validity of my text with my text I'm beyond reproach.
> 
> It's true because it says so.
> 
> I could get people to believe that stuff.  If I tried hard I bet I could get alot of people to believe it.



Got ya.  Just note that I did not say that the Bible is true because it says it's true.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> The question was asked "how do you know he said that".  The answer, obviously, is only because of eyewitness testimony.
> 
> It's the same answer that you must give when someone asks "how do you know that Lincoln said 'four score'".  Outside of the written account of those who say they were there, there is no real irrefutable evidence.
> 
> I assume "Lawd" means, "I agree"?



I assume you know how the Bible was assembled.  How long it took, how many authors and changes etc.  There's a reason why it's not considered an Historical document.

Contend here that all the events that happened in it are absolutely true and without error in their recounting.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> If he is the most powerful being possible, then he cannot conceive one greater than he.  If he could....he would not be God.....logically.



This is really just a version of "Can he make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it."

If I believed in God my answer would have to be "Yes.  Absolutely.  But I don't know how."


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I assume you know how the Bible was assembled.  How long it took, how many authors and changes etc.  There's a reason why it's not considered an Historical document.
> 
> Contend here that all the events that happened in it are absolutely true and without error in their recounting.



Well....it is considered a historical document.  So, let's not be misleading about that.  There are many on both sides of these debates that don't deny that it accurately recounts many historical events.  

You don't consider it an accurate historical doc.  I'll grant you that. 

Yes, I do know how it was assembled.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Well....it is considered a historical document.  So, let's not be misleading about that.  There are many on both sides of these debates that don't deny that it accurately recounts many historical events.
> 
> You don't consider it an accurate historical doc.  I'll grant you that.
> 
> Yes, I do know how it was assembled.



I'd stipulate that some portions are recordings of historical events. 

Jesus existed. Jonah and the whale, not so much.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Then we are left wondering how energy just happened, or matter that became energy, and that it worked together perfectly to become everything.



Or would you rather take the word of Talking Snakes?




JB0704 said:


> This would mean you have always existed, so have I.  That doesn't make any sense to me.



In some form or another. Our materials, anyway.



JB0704 said:


> Without a lot of scientific evidence to back up this statement, both conclusions appear reasonable.



There's quite alot of study on this.



JB0704 said:


> And, what I am saying is that there is more to it than synapses firing as I am not aware of an evolutionary mechanism which favors a species based on it's appreciation of landscapes......particularly human's appreciation of mountains and sunsets, which are both areas which don't naturally favor our habitation.
> 
> That digs further down to why I can believe in this expression of God over another, though.  Which expression of the creative being fits one which would make a species that could appreciate a sunset, or even satelite image of a huricane?



All these things are "in the eye of the beholder".  You really should read more creation myths.  They give 'just fine' explanations of these things.  They're wonderful and moving in and of themselves.


----------



## 660griz (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> The question was asked "how do you know he said that".  The answer, obviously, is only because of eyewitness testimony.



I believe the vast majority of scholars believe the Bible does not contain ANY eyewitness testimony.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> This is really just a version of "Can he make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it."
> 
> If I believed in God my answer would have to be "Yes.  Absolutely.  But I don't know how."



I don't agree totally.  It's a very specific (and important) point about the nature of God.  

If he is not the highest conceivable being, then he is not God....something else is.  It's a piece that follows once someone is at least willing to admit the possibility of deity.

The burrito thing is, IMO, simply a misrepresentation of what omnipotence means.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

660griz said:


> I believe the vast majority of scholars believe the Bible does not contain ANY eyewitness testimony.



I'm 100% sure you believe that.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm 100% sure you believe that.


So does the National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institute.


> In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book not an historical document.


http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> In just about the same way that you know that the words "Four score and seven years ago" came out of Abraham Lincoln's mouth or any of Plato's famous quotes were actually said by him.


That is so cool! I live about an hour and a half from Gettysburg and I visit the Battlefield and Center at least twice a year. Next time I am there I am going to look for the original drafts of Jesus's speeches written by his speech writers like the ones that are on display for Lincoln. Since my Son moved to Virginia and is 30mins from Washington DC I will most certainly visit the Smithsonian and Lincoln memorial where all the well documented authentic  and ORIGINAL historical papers exist and look for the ones Jesus wrote too. I missed all those authentic and original papers at Gburg and DC all of the other times I was there.
Yeah great analogy HF.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> The only difference, as you pointed out, is that the camera had been invented in Lincoln's time.
> 
> There is no recording of the speech and the scratch paper it's written on is no more reliable than any text that Jesus' quote is written on.


Absolutely false.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> So does the National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institute.
> 
> http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf



Super glad for them as well.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely false.



proof?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> That is so cool! I live about an hour and a half from Gettysburg and I visit the Battlefield and Center at least twice a year. Next time I am there I am going to look for the original drafts of Jesus's speeches written by his speech writers like the ones that are on display for Lincoln. Since my Son moved to Virginia and is 30mins from Washington DC I will most certainly visit the Smithsonian and Lincoln memorial where all the well documented authentic  and ORIGINAL historical papers exist and look for the ones Jesus wrote too. I missed all those authentic and original papers at Gburg and DC all of the other times I was there.
> Yeah great analogy HF.



I did not make the assertion that the speech was never written.  I made the assertion that the 'proof' that Lincoln actually said the words is 100% based on the testimony of eyewitnesses.  

I understand that you don't like the analogy (and, honestly, I probably could have come up with a better one).  But you're picking at a point that wasn't made.

BTW...as far as I know, Jesus never made it to Gettysburg.  So it's unlikely that you'll find any text of speeches that he made there.

It sounds an awful lot like you're using the contents of historical text to prove that what it says is true.  Don't skate too close to that line.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Super glad for them as well.



If you are interested you can read about what criteria has to be met for a document to be considered historical.
That way you wont make the claim -


> Well....it is considered a historical document. So, let's not be misleading about that.


Ya know, don't want to be misleading and all.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 20, 2015)

You're talking about the smithsonians requirements?


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> proof?


http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Gettysburg.html
This includes the ORIGINAL Envelope in Lincolns own handwriting where he rough drafted the GB Address.
This includes ORIGINAL official authenticated documents recorded by White House Historians at the time the speech was written.
This includes Original writings by Lincoln in his own handwriting.
This includes 20,000 Original Lincoln documents that are kept in the Library of Congress.
This includes a period correct original newspaper article that states 50,000 eyewitnesses attended the Gburg address. http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
Here you will find information to where you will find the original document and the original copies Lincoln gave to others that he put on two pages because the original was one page written on both sides.
And at your leisure you may search the Smithsonian archives to see the original pictures of Lincoln giving the speech.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> I did not make the assertion that the speech was never written.  I made the assertion that the 'proof' that Lincoln actually said the words is 100% based on the testimony of eyewitnesses.
> 
> I understand that you don't like the analogy (and, honestly, I probably could have come up with a better one).  But you're picking at a point that wasn't made.
> 
> ...



It sounds exactly like I am using DOCUMENTED ORIGINAL historical texts to prove what is true.
I am not using fragments of copies that date 4 centuries later which coincidentally happens to be at the time the church destroyed every copy that was made earlier and rewrote their own.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> You're talking about the smithsonians requirements?


Let me rephrase.
Any document from history is a historical document.
There are verifiable, legitimate documents and there are not.
The Bible -
1. Is not a document its a book
2. Contains discrepancies to what we know to be historically accurate.
3. Unknown authors
4. Most of it can not be verified
So if you want to call the Bible a historical document it is, just as my 1st grade ramblings on paper are historical documents.
Calling it a historical document carries zero weight as to its accuracy or factualness.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> BTW...as far as I know, Jesus never made it to Gettysburg.  So it's unlikely that you'll find any text of speeches that he made there.



BTW...Jesus never wrote down a thing where he lived.  BTW...Your god never wrote down a thing. So it is unlikely that you or I will ever find anything original about either one of them except fables that were written by anonymous authors decades and centuries later who never saw either one let alone was an eye witness to any of it. And BTW...much of it is historically, scientifically,geographically and culturally incorrect.


----------



## Hoot (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> To understand the answers to these questions,you would first have to believe in God.Once you have been enabled to do that, everything else falls into place.
> 
> But,..some(not all) of your human logic and reason will have to be abandoned.The good news is that when God enables you to believe,He also puts His spirit of truth in you that supercedes all logic.



Aha!  Now I finally get it, and understand why I am an agnostic.

"God" has yet to enable me to believe in him.  So, if I were to get sent to the mythical Hades, it's all his fault, because he didn't enable me to believe in him (despite me trying and trying and searching and searching for just one reason to believe in "Him", that mythical biblical God).

Not ragging on you personally, *welderguy*.  Just ragging on the ideal to which you refer.


----------



## Hoot (May 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> BTW...Jesus never wrote down a thing where he lived.  BTW...Your god never wrote down a thing. So it is unlikely that you or I will ever find anything original about either one of them except fables that were written by anonymous authors decades and centuries later who never saw either one let alone was an eye witness to any of it. And BTW...much of it is historically, scientifically,geographically and culturally incorrect.



That is exactly the way I see it.  I almost crack up every time I hear someone say that the Bible is the word of God.  I think a real God could write his own book, without the help of a bunch of humans translating and compiling things, out of context, to mold it into saying exactly what they want it to say.  And I doubt a real God would commission a homosexual and likely pedophile blueblood (King James) to compose the "correct" Bible.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't agree totally.  It's a very specific (and important) point about the nature of God.
> 
> If he is not the highest conceivable being, then he is not God....something else is.  It's a piece that follows once someone is at least willing to admit the possibility of deity.
> 
> The burrito thing is, IMO, simply a misrepresentation of what omnipotence means.




It's speaking on His being all powerful.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 20, 2015)

Hoot said:


> And I doubt a real God would commission a homosexual and likely pedophile blueblood (King James) to compose the "correct" Bible.



King James didn't compose anything.  He just commissioned some of the finest linquists of that (or any) day to translate the Bible.


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2015)

Hoot said:


> Aha!  Now I finally get it, and understand why I am an agnostic.
> 
> "God" has yet to enable me to believe in him.  So, if I were to get sent to the mythical Hades, it's all his fault, because he didn't enable me to believe in him (despite me trying and trying and searching and searching for just one reason to believe in "Him", that mythical biblical God).
> 
> Not ragging on you personally, *welderguy*.  Just ragging on the ideal to which you refer.



You are exactly right.
Jesus said "No man can come to me except my Father draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

He also said " All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and he who cometh to me, I shall in no wise cast out."

He has vessels created for honor and vessels created for destruction.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You are exactly right.
> Jesus said "No man can come to me except my Father draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
> 
> He also said " All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and he who cometh to me, I shall in no wise cast out."
> ...



If that's true then it all makes sense; our doubting and what not.  

Lucky you.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Christians besides Welder and Art,

Do you think that you have to abandon rational thinking in order to believe?  Any at all?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You are exactly right.
> Jesus said "No man can come to me except my Father draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
> 
> He also said " All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and he who cometh to me, I shall in no wise cast out."
> ...


What would you call a parent that creates a child for the sole purpose of destroying him/her?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Christians besides Welder and Art,
> 
> Do you think that you have to abandon rational thinking in order to believe?  Any at all?



And the Agnostics, what logic have you abandoned to believe  intelligent design is even remotely possible? How do you reason or rationally  think a universal creator could possibly exist if just to get the universal balls rolling? Even if this creator is just some spirit/energy force capable of thought. Does that possibility even seem logical? Why would this spirit/energy force make anything using science?

To everyone including Christians and Agnostics, why would this Creator make anything that we would some day be able to explain logically and with rational thinking using science? Thing such as rainbows, our atmosphere, and the miracle of life.


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2015)

The logic of never having to do anything and yet doing only what you are made to do, is.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What would you call a parent that creates a child for the sole purpose of destroying him/her?



And to the free will believing Christians, why did God let you create a child knowing full well that this child would never become a Christian? Why wouldn't God take this child to Heaven before it is born? Could the womb's "water" be his baptism if needed to qualify if child baptism is needed?

I do see why some Mothers believe God tells them to take their child for this purpose. They think they are saving their child's soul from eternal death. They are making the ultimate sacrifice of saving their son from eternal death.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

Israel said:


> The logic of never having to do anything and yet doing only what you are made to do, is.



Has God always made you do what you are made to do or did this start when you received the Holy Spirit?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> And the Agnostics, what logic have you abandoned to believe  intelligent design is even remotely possible? How do you reason or rationally  think a universal creator could possibly exist if just to get the universal balls rolling? Even if this creator is just some spirit/energy force capable of thought. Does that possibility even seem logical? Why would this spirit/energy force make anything using science?
> 
> To everyone including Christians and Agnostics, why would this Creator make anything that we would some day be able to explain logically and with rational thinking using science? Thing such as rainbows, our atmosphere, and the miracle of life.





> And the Agnostics, what logic have you abandoned to believe  intelligent design is even remotely possible?


Logic dictates that if we don't know for a fact how we got here then we cant say for a fact that it wasn't by intelligent design. However improbable or unlikely.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Logic dictates that if we don't know for a fact how we got here then we cant say for a fact that it wasn't by intelligent design. However improbable or unlikely.



Then that puts you in the same boat as us Christians as nobody truly knows without a doubt.

Atheists say logic dictates that if science explains some things such as creation, science explains everything. 
No way could a energy fired spirit logically start the universal balls rolling.

Some Christians and I would assume other God believers say; God didn't use science for creation or anything else. That science is "man's " way of explaining God's magnificent creation and works.
Yet they let school teachers explain man's science to their kids. Now that's not very logical or rational at all. Some Christians want their cake and eat it too. They want God to magically make creation but then use science to explain every other aspect of his creation to include rainbows, our atmosphere, and the miracle of life.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then that puts you in the same boat as us Christians as nobody truly knows without a doubt.
> 
> Atheists say logic dictates that if science explains some things such as creation, science explains everything.
> No way could a energy fired spirit logically start the universal balls rolling.
> ...





> Then that puts you in the same boat as us Christians as nobody truly knows without a doubt.


Not in the same boat or even on the same ocean.
Look through this thread. Christians are telling us what God does, doesn't do and why or why not.
That's far from just leaving open the possibility of intelligent design.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then that puts you in the same boat as us Christians as nobody truly knows without a doubt.
> 
> Atheists say logic dictates that if science explains some things such as creation, science explains everything.
> No way could a energy fired spirit logically start the universal balls rolling.
> ...



Your faith is often the ONLY arena in which you allow yourself to believe things without evidence.  You willfully believe in talking snakes and donkeys.  Any other similarly ridiculous claim would be rejected out of hand, reflexively, but not if it comes from the Bible.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Israel said:


> The logic of never having to do anything and yet doing only what you are made to do, is.




Is what?  Is there another way to say this?

For God's sake speak English.  What's meaningfully gained by the poetic delivery?


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Not in the same boat or even on the same ocean.
> Look through this thread. Christians are telling us what God does, doesn't do and why or why not.
> That's far from just leaving open the possibility of intelligent design.




...Tellingly not often in agreement.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

If anyone cares to see what this thread is referring to...


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What would you call a parent that creates a child for the sole purpose of destroying him/her?



First of all, the parents did not create the child.They reproduced.Their child, as a human being,does not belong to them.It belongs to God.He is the creator of life.And the kicker is that He's SOVEREIGN.Humans are not sovereign.We are the created thing.

It doesn't even take logic and reason to see the order of sovereignty here.
If He created something from nothing,He's perfectly justified in destroying or saving it.

Sorry.I got ahead of myself.First I should have said the parents were murderers, then you ask how that's different from what God does.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> First of all, the parents did not create the child.They reproduced.Their child, as a human being,does not belong to them.It belongs to God.He is the creator of life.And the kicker is that He's SOVEREIGN.Humans are not sovereign.We are the created thing.
> 
> It doesn't even take logic and reason to see the order of sovereignty here.
> If He created something from nothing,He's perfectly justified in destroying or saving it.
> ...



Predestination believers really have to put all logic aside. As a free will believer, sort of, I'm asking what is the sovereign God's logic for creating just to destroy? What is the Creator's logic to send a savior to only save the one's he chooses? Free will allows me to give God some abilities to reason. Free will allows me to give God the ability to be angry, happy, repentive, etc. Free will gives God human emotions or actually us Godly emotions. Predestination requires one to abandon all logic concerning God.

Maybe I'm somewhere between you and Walt in using logic to explain the existence of God. He can't logically rule out the possibility of a God and you can't use logic to rule out the possibility of no God.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> First of all, the parents did not create the child.They reproduced.Their child, as a human being,does not belong to them.It belongs to God.He is the creator of life.And the kicker is that He's SOVEREIGN.Humans are not sovereign.We are the created thing.
> 
> It doesn't even take logic and reason to see the order of sovereignty here.
> If He created something from nothing,He's perfectly justified in destroying or saving it.
> ...





> First I should have said the parents were murderers, then you ask how that's different from what God does.


One of the main reasons I had to reject Christianity is that it required me to believe that bad and good is dependent on who does it.
And this the crap they feed you to try to justify that -


> First of all, the parents did not create the child.They reproduced.Their child, as a human being,does not belong to them.It belongs to God.He is the creator of life.And the kicker is that He's SOVEREIGN.Humans are not sovereign.We are the created thing.





> First I should have said the parents were murderers


Notice it is not that they are parents that made them murderers. It is the action that made them murderers.
That's what makes your above justification crap.
It focuses on who and not on what.
Of course you HAVE to do that to avoid the truth. 
I choose honesty over Christianity.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Your faith is often the ONLY arena in which you allow yourself to believe things without evidence.  You willfully believe in talking snakes and donkeys.  Any other similarly ridiculous claim would be rejected out of hand, reflexively, but not if it comes from the Bible.



Not the only arena as I would also include electrical wires. I have enough faith that they contain amperage without any evidence that they do.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> One of the main reasons I had to reject Christianity is that it required me to believe that bad and good is dependent on who does it.
> And this the crap they feed you to try to justify that -


First of all, the parents did not create the child.They reproduced.Their child, as a human being,does not belong to them.It belongs to God.He is the creator of life.And the kicker is that He's SOVEREIGN.Humans are not sovereign.We are the created thing.[/QUOTE]

Notice it is not that they are parents that made them murderers. It is the action that made them murderers.
That's what makes your above justification crap.
It focuses on who and not on what.
Of course you HAVE to do that to avoid the truth. 
I choose honesty over Christianity.[/QUOTE]

Why didn't you make the switch from freewill to predestination/election? The actions of the individual are then based on if you are a vessel of good or evil. Then you don't even need Satan to blame for your evil.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> First of all, the parents did not create the child.They reproduced.Their child, as a human being,does not belong to them.It belongs to God.He is the creator of life.And the kicker is that He's SOVEREIGN.Humans are not sovereign.We are the created thing.



Notice it is not that they are parents that made them murderers. It is the action that made them murderers.
That's what makes your above justification crap.
It focuses on who and not on what.
Of course you HAVE to do that to avoid the truth. 
I choose honesty over Christianity.[/QUOTE]



> Why didn't you make the switch from freewill to predestination/election? The actions of the individual are then based on if you are a vessel of good or evil. Then you don't even need Satan to blame for your evil.


If Im convinced Im being fed crap Im not going to trade it for another flavor of crap.


> Then you don't even need Satan to blame for your evil


Going back to that honesty I mentioned above -
Anything Ive done in my life that may be considered evil was all me. No need to blame anyone else.
It was me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Not in the same boat or even on the same ocean.
> Look through this thread. Christians are telling us what God does, doesn't do and why or why not.
> That's far from just leaving open the possibility of intelligent design.



Your logic tells you there might be an intelligent designer? 
I understand he might not be the Christian God and he might be a Universal God. I understand that he might not have told any man to write anything about him. He might exist without actually telling us he exists.
What part of logic allows you to leave open the possibility of intelligent design? Do you think your previous Christian beliefs linger enough to give you this logic? 
I'm not faulting you for not believing in the Christian God nor for being Agnostic. I just don't see it as being in a different boat or ocean. Maybe another analogy.

I'm thinking that if I stopped believing in the God of Abraham, I'd stop believing in any and all Gods for the same reason. If I'm going to put aside my faith then I'd have to completely throw it away and I'd go all the way.
Did you originally become and Atheist after abandoning Christianity and eventually becoming Agnostic?

If I can look at things and can't use science to explain them logically and I can't say God uses science in creation and maintaining his creation then I would have to logically say; there is no God. I don't understand how one can half use science to explain things. 
I don't see a God vs science debate. To me they are one and the same. To me science isn't the enemy of God. If and when it becomes the enemy of god in my mind then I'd have to become an Atheist. Science is God in my mind. I don't think there is a logical way to explain it.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Your logic tells you there might be an intelligent designer?
> I understand he might not be the Christian God and he might be a Universal God. I understand that he might not have told any man to write anything about him. He might exist without actually telling us he exists.
> What part of logic allows you to leave open the possibility of intelligent design? Do you think your previous Christian beliefs linger enough to give you this logic?
> I'm not faulting you for not believing in the Christian God nor for being Agnostic. I just don't see it as being in a different boat or ocean. Maybe another analogy.
> ...





> Your logic tells you there might be an intelligent designer?


No. Only that I cant rule it out at this point. That's a lot different from thinking there might be.


> Did you originally become and Atheist after abandoning Christianity and eventually becoming Agnostic?


No. Although I reject Christianity that doesn't prove there is no god(s). So for me personally Agnosticism is what seemed to be the most honest/accurate to how I think.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> No. Only that I cant rule it out at this point. That's a lot different from thinking there might be.
> 
> No. Although I reject Christianity that doesn't prove there is no god(s). So for me personally Agnosticism is what seemed to be the most honest/accurate to how I think.



OK you can't rule it out but don't you have an opinion or belief? Perhaps without using logic even, do you honestly believe in intelligent design?
Just give me your gut reaction as of this moment.

I can't rule out that there isn't a God but I believe there is. Does that make me Agnostic? What if I believe God is Universal and not a particular God, does that make me Agnostic?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> OK you can't rule it out but don't you have an opinion or belief? Perhaps without using logic even, do you honestly believe in intelligent design?
> Just give me your gut reaction as of this moment.


I don't believe there is anything in the way of facts or evidence to make me think there is an intelligent designer.
Yes the Bible would be evidence but considering how it was produced and by who I have to reject it as being good evidence.
Im also not convinced that the Big Bang is the answer.
So.... I don't know is where Im at.


> I can't rule out that there isn't a God but I believe there is. Does that make me Agnostic? What if I believe God is Universal and not a particular God, does that make me Agnostic?


No to both because you believe there is a God.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> First of all, the parents did not create the child.They reproduced.Their child, as a human being,does not belong to them.It belongs to God.He is the creator of life.And the kicker is that He's SOVEREIGN.Humans are not sovereign.We are the created thing.
> 
> It doesn't even take logic and reason to see the order of sovereignty here.
> If He created something from nothing,He's perfectly justified in destroying or saving it.
> ...



You Sir, are a breath of fresh air.  True honesty.  When people do it it's murder.  When God does it it's sovereign killing.  I get the distinction.  I really do.

He makes some souls destined for He11.  Awesome.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not the only arena as I would also include electrical wires. I have enough faith that they contain amperage without any evidence that they do.



That's my problem too.  Even with the switch and breaker turned off I still cringe when I cut wires or even touch them.

Pssst....it's not really faith.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Your logic tells you there might be an intelligent designer?
> I understand he might not be the Christian God and he might be a Universal God. I understand that he might not have told any man to write anything about him. He might exist without actually telling us he exists.
> What part of logic allows you to leave open the possibility of intelligent design? Do you think your previous Christian beliefs linger enough to give you this logic?
> I'm not faulting you for not believing in the Christian God nor for being Agnostic. I just don't see it as being in a different boat or ocean. Maybe another analogy.
> ...



My friend,

Watch the video.

I went from believing in the God of Abraham to being a deist before becoming an agnostic (essentially an atheist).


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> OK you can't rule it out but don't you have an opinion or belief? Perhaps without using logic even, do you honestly believe in intelligent design?
> Just give me your gut reaction as of this moment.



You can still have intuition without abandoning logic.   Why can't it be that VERY powerful space aliens created the Universe under the authority of God, who doesn't care what they do? You can make up any story you want.  You're still left with the reason that you think you know what God is up to is because of the Bible just like Craig.  Craig touches on "why Yahweh" at the end during the question and answer.  What do you think of his reason.




Artfuldodger said:


> I can't rule out that there isn't a God but I believe there is.



It's really time to ask "why?" now.




Artfuldodger said:


> Does that make me Agnostic? What if I believe God is Universal and not a particular God, does that make me Agnostic?



Nope.  You're still a deist.  Can you imagine that there might be Gods?


----------



## Big7 (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Bingo.
> Particularly when you know how the Bible was produced and by who.



Just a question.

Do you know "how the Bible was produced and by who"?

Just curious if you know. And.. I can correct you
if you don't.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 20, 2015)

Big7 said:


> Just a question.
> 
> Do you know "how the Bible was produced and by who"?
> 
> ...


How about you tell me and I'll correct you 
What we know is well documented. And I don't mean in the Bible.


----------



## ambush80 (May 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> No. Only that I cant rule it out at this point. That's a lot different from thinking there might be.
> 
> No. Although I reject Christianity that doesn't prove there is no god(s). So for me personally Agnosticism is what seemed to be the most honest/accurate to how I think.



Dawkins has said that he's 99.999999% sure that there is no God.  That technically makes him an agnostic but in practicality an atheist.  

If you're not sure whether or not Russel's teapot is circling the Sun but hold out that it might be there, that would make you a Teapot agnostic.  If you think there's no good reason to believe in the teapot (still leaving the possibility open) and in fact it doesn't make sense to you that there would be one, so you actually operate as if it's not there, then you're an A-teapotist.


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that you have to abandon rational thinking in order to believe?  Any at all?



Believe in God and be a Christian?  No.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Believe in God and be a Christian?  No.



Why do you think Welder and Art are wrong?  They have the same information but think the exact opposite as you.


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2015)

Touching the reason of God is unlike anything else; is unlike all else. A man cannot imagine it, figure it out nor do, what it could appear I am trying to do, explain it. All of what "is not" to man...is to God.
Even the removing of all the "impossibles", the "cannot be's" imaginable by man in his conceptions, does not leave a man in the place where he can apprehend the possibles of God. One cannot come to God simply by the deductions, it is all and always the affirmation of God, by God to us, that enlightens us to the infinite glory of his reason, and the poverty of our own.
You ask whether you must leave "logic" aside, when what is left behind is reasonings...for reason.


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Dawkins has said that he's 99.999999% sure that there is no God.  That technically makes him an agnostic but in practicality an atheist.
> 
> If you're not sure whether or not Russel's teapot is circling the Sun but hold out that it might be there, that would make you a Teapot agnostic.  If you think there's no good reason to believe in the teapot (still leaving the possibility open) and in fact it doesn't make sense to you that there would be one, so you actually operate as if it's not there, then you're an A-teapotist.



What you say...is.


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Christians besides Welder and Art,
> 
> Do you think that you have to abandon rational thinking in order to believe?  Any at all?



I'm not advocating abandoning ALL logic and reason (I made that clear in my original statemen).The verse does not either.

1 Cor.2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power."

 Notice Paul is not saying man never uses wisdom.He's saying that the gospel is not revealed by man's widom.It's done by something that goes beyond natural reason:His Spirit. 

So, we should NOT abandon ALL logic and reason.Hope this untwists your twisted interpretation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> To understand the answers to these questions,you would first have to believe in God.Once you have been enabled to do that, everything else falls into place.
> 
> But,..some(not all) of your human logic and reason will have to be abandoned.The good news is that when God enables you to believe,He also puts His spirit of truth in you that* supercedes all logic*.



Now now.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm not advocating abandoning ALL logic and reason (I made that clear in my original statemen).The verse does not either.
> 
> 1 Cor.2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power."
> 
> ...


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now now.



The spirit of truth is what supercedes all logic, not the wisdom of man.

Can you really not see that distinction or are you just pretending? Because this is becoming laborious.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> Touching the reason of God is unlike anything else; is unlike all else. A man cannot imagine it, figure it out nor do, what it could appear I am trying to do, explain it. All of what "is not" to man...is to God.
> Even the removing of all the "impossibles", the "cannot be's" imaginable by man in his conceptions, does not leave a man in the place where he can apprehend the possibles of God. One cannot come to God simply by the deductions, it is all and always the affirmation of God, by God to us, that enlightens us to the infinite glory of his reason, and the poverty of our own.
> You ask whether you must leave "logic" aside, when what is left behind is reasonings...for reason.




So He exists in the nonsense.  The stuff that doesn't make sense.  Gotcha.

Unexplainable, inexplicable and 




What you have left is excuses.....for excuse.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> it is all and always the affirmation of God, by God to us, that enlightens us to the infinite glory of his reason, and the poverty of our own.



You have special powers.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> What you say...is.



It is if you want to use the word correctly.  Otherwise you can make up your own definition.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The spirit of truth is what supercedes all logic, not the wisdom of man.
> 
> Can you really not see that distinction or are you just pretending? Because this is becoming laborious.



Whoa, Hoss.   What does this mean?  You just went into the fuzzy zone.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> BTW...Jesus never wrote down a thing where he lived.  BTW...Your god never wrote down a thing. So it is unlikely that you or I will ever find anything original about either one of them except fables that were written by anonymous authors decades and centuries later who never saw either one let alone was an eye witness to any of it. And BTW...much of it is historically, scientifically,geographically and culturally incorrect.



Based on the responses from yesterday afternoon, it seems I've made the natives restless.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The spirit of truth is what supercedes all logic, not the wisdom of man.
> 
> Can you really not see that distinction or are you just pretending? Because this is becoming laborious.



Yeah, my piddly 3 posts are becoming laborious for you. You need to learn to properly aim your frustrations because this is the 3rd time you've quoted me and said something untoward and I know I'm not the cause of it, but here we are. 

The conclusion is the same, is it not? Logic is abandoned at the end. If it's superseded then it's irrelevant. 



> Search Results
> 
> su·per·sede
> ËŒsoÍžopÉ™rËˆsÄ“d/
> ...



All I'm doing is showing you how your word choice points to one conclusion. That Faith removes Logic, by the definition of the word supersede. 

If you're finding this laborious, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully so that they reflect the truth of your meaning because we're going by Webster over here, so if you say that a monkey is a papaya then that's what we're going to take as your meaning even if you don't mean it. We have no way to tell what you mean, we can only read what you write.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

striperr....while we are defining, could you tell us what you mean when you speak of "faith"?  I think that would help in determining whether faith actually requires the suspension of logic.

so that everybody is playing on the same field.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Based on the responses from yesterday afternoon, it seems I've made the natives restless.



Can an ALL POWERFUL God make a burrito so hot He can't eat it?


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, my piddly 3 posts are becoming laborious for you. You need to learn to properly aim your frustrations because this is the 3rd time you've quoted me and said something untoward and I know I'm not the cause of it, but here we are.
> 
> The conclusion is the same, is it not? Logic is abandoned at the end. If it's superseded then it's irrelevant.
> 
> ...



Striper.I love you.try not to be so sensitive man.We are all in this little rowboat of life together.We might as well row in unison as much as possible. 

Thanks for the definition. It affirms my use of the word "supercede".

But to clarify, the spirit of truth supercedes all logic IN THE SPECIFIC AREA OF THE REVEALING OF THE WORD.Man can't understand it by his own logic.That is proven daily on this very forum by folks that do not have the spirit of truth in them.

Again, I love you.And I think we could even fish together.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can an ALL POWERFUL God make a burrito so hot He can't eat it?



As far as I know....he doesn't eat mexican food.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> striperr....while we are defining, could you tell us what you mean when you speak of "faith"?  I think that would help in determining whether faith actually requires the suspension of logic.
> 
> so that everybody is playing on the same field.



I'm perfectly fine with that. 

When I say that I'm not a man of faith, I'm speaking of belief in any religious construct. I leave open the possibility of something being out there, but I don't think that any one religion has a bead on it. 

Faith is the bridge between believing what is real and observable, and what is not. 

You may not hold $1 million dollars, but the fact that it exists can be shown to you, so it's not a matter of faith that it exists. You can't really know that God is there, you feel things that you attribute to Him, sure, but you can't take his literal hand and put it in mine to introduce us to one another. You haven't seen his literal hand either. You may have seen his metaphoric hand at work in things, but it's an article of faith that He's what's driving it all. If you'd have been raised Muslim, you'd see Allah there. Buddhist, the Buddha, and so on and so forth. And some, myself included, can say that the religions are different languages and beliefs all about the same larger deity, but that's counteracted by the sharp divides that keep you from uniting as such (infinitive you here). 

I do have faith, but in the sciences. I've never seen a black hole with my own eyes, but I have seen the images from telescopes that show me the gravitational lensing that's been attributed to it. It may be that we're wrong, and if that comes to pass then I change my positions. No harm, no foul, and no existential crises. 

I have faith in science because it is, in my mind, honest about the frailty of their position. They don't try to put down a permanent flag on the shifting sands and call it permanent. It's always open to testing and validation or invalidation, and if that happens then the flag gets moved. There are some scientists that do try to do that, but I castigate them just as I do people who hold out religion to me. Sure, you could have strong statistical evidence of something, but you could run that experiment 1 billion times and get a result that deviates from the norm. The honest, the true, scientist admits that freely. Faith and religion try to put that flag down and have it stand eternal. While you could argue that God, if there is one, would be eternal due to the nature of what we describe as God, our beliefs about them, our rites and rituals surrounding them, and our ability, or desire, to live the mandates they supposedly require in the holy writs shift more quickly than the wind. 

That's how I define faith when I say that I am a man lacking it, in this context. 



> Full Definition of FAITH
> 1
> a :  allegiance to duty or a person :  loyalty
> b (1) :  fidelity to one's promises (2) :  sincerity of intentions
> ...



Faith is not a fixed construct. See definition 2b above. That's how Merriam Webster defines it. As you can see, even my faith in sciences isn't really even a faith. It's just the best thing I can see right now to explain what's going on in terms that we can all observe. That's why they don't say what happened before the big bang. We can presume, based on evidence we've collected thus far, that the BB occurred. It can change though, but if we take that as a given for this moment, then there was a singularity by which our other work tells us that all time and space break down as we know them. Therefore there is no way of knowing what happened prior to that time, so speculating about that is equal to speculating about God. There will always be a veil between us and it/Him, and until we pierce it, whereby we transcend this current realm and can't tell anyone else about it, there's no way of knowing for sure. Personally, I don't worry about what happened before. It doesn't govern my life. The rules, laws, and theories we have now are what does. 

Basically I take one thing to heart. I exist. I don't care if anyone else thinks I do or not. To me, I know I do. Everything else is up for debate based on observation and deductive reasoning and that's worked out pretty well for me so far. I don't get upset when people pray around me, if that's what makes their universe bearable. I don't get upset when they tell me that the gravitational constant isn't quite what we thought it was. My feet are still firmly planted today as they were yesterday. Science is just our best explanation for what we see, and it evolves. I'm okay with that as only a foolish man would say that they know everything right now, and forever. That's how you get the 6000 year age of the earth and the 4.6 billion year age. I don't hold out that 4.6 billion is fact, merely what our sciences right now tell us. But the difference between 4.6 billion and 6000 makes me really doubt the 6000 that is singularly sourced and not at all peer reviewed. 

For the record, and in case you've missed me say it before; I'm fine with people who do have faith. It's when they try to tell me that it's truth, or universal, that I have the problem. Absolute faith and absolute logic are antitheses. You can't have both at the same time. To get closer to one you have to give up the other. That's why I sincerely applauded Welder because he finally came out and said, in no uncertain terms, that faith requires the abandonment of logic in directly proportional amounts. You can't overfill the bucket and if 90% is dedicated to faith, that only leaves 10% for logic, and vice versa. Welder came out and directly said that, for absolute faith to exist that all logic is superseded and, thus, abandoned. It's truth. 

That was way longer than I intended, but I hope that helps understand me a little bit better.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Christians besides Welder and Art,
> 
> Do you think that you have to abandon rational thinking in order to believe?  Any at all?



I think 'abandon' is the wrong word.  You certainly have to allow for the possibility of miracles.  But that is not a belief exlusive even to religious people.

I will grant you the much of the Christian church today believes that faith and logic are mutually exclusive and that "faith" = "blind faith".


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

> Absolute faith and absolute logic are antitheses. You can't have both at the same time. To get closer to one you have to give up the other. That's why I sincerely applauded Welder because he finally came out and said, in no uncertain terms, that faith requires the abandonment of logic in directly proportional amounts. You can't overfill the bucket and if 90% is dedicated to faith, that only leaves 10% for logic, and vice versa. Welder came out and directly said that, for absolute faith to exist that all logic is superseded and, thus, abandoned. It's truth.



This piece, I think, is where I believe the error to be.  The Bible never calls Christian believers to have 'blind faith' or, as you put it, 'absolute faith'.  Christians who demand belief based on blind faith are doing something in direct contradiction to one of the main purposes that it seems Jesus came for.  

'blind faith' and logic are certainly contradictory.  As the definition you posted states,  there are many ways to define faith (there are six listed in just that copy/paste).  I believe that the faith that the Bible requires is simply belief or trust based on evidence.

I understand that you don't believe the evidence is real.  But, also understand that what you're defining as faith is not what the Bible requires of a believer.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Striper.I love you.try not to be so sensitive man.We are all in this little rowboat of life together.We might as well row in unison as much as possible.
> 
> Thanks for the definition. It affirms my use of the word "supercede".
> 
> ...


I'm sure we could fish together. These conversations do go way better in person. 

I don't hold ill will toward you. I do think that you could choose your words and meanings a little better, but so could I at times. 

My tone the other day was a little harsh, but the message remains the same, so I apologize for my tone to you. 

The spirit, the word, all of it, by your own post right here can't be obtained by logic. Therefore it has to be abandoned. Unless you also carry a garden trowel to help you cut a trench for a 3ft sewer line. If the tool is ineffective then you leave it in the box, you abandon it in favor of the one that works


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> This piece, I think, is where I believe the error to be.  The Bible never calls Christian believers to have 'blind faith' or, as you put it, 'absolute faith'.  Christians who demand belief based on blind faith are doing something in direct contradiction to one of the main purposes that it seems Jesus came for.
> 
> 'blind faith' and logic are certainly contradictory.  As the definition you posted states,  there are many ways to define faith (there are six listed in just that copy/paste).  I believe that the faith that the Bible requires is simply belief or trust based on evidence.
> 
> I understand that you don't believe the evidence is real.  But, also understand that what you're defining as faith is not what the Bible requires of a believer.



I'm not arguing the Bible, per se. I'm discussing Welder's post as it squares with my observation and experience. 

The ability to interpret every word of the Bible in myriad ways is well documented. I'm speaking about faith and religion in general, squared with the limitations of logic to support any of it.


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My tone the other day was a little harsh, but the message remains the same, so I apologize for my tone to you.



Already forgiven.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Already forgiven.





We should hit the lake sometime. 

Maybe we could have the AAA version of the WAR.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Based on the responses from yesterday afternoon, it seems I've made the natives restless.



Yes you have. We don't take kindly to your random pop-ins, make a few false claims,tell a few lies,then leave for another month or so.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Yes you have. We don't take kindly to your random pop-ins, make a few false claims,tell a few lies,then leave for another month or so.



You must have a mouse in your pocket, bub.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You must have a mouse in your pocket, bub.


We natives know who we are.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> We know who we are.



Ominous.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Yes you have. We don't take kindly to your random pop-ins, make a few false claims,tell a few lies,then leave for another month or so.



Maybe you should follow my lead and take a break from this area every once in a while.  I've discovered that it's helpful when I find myself getting all worked up over an internet forum.

What I did was correct a few things that I thought needed correction and stated what I believe to be true.  As far as I can tell, nothing I said have said so far in this thread has been a lie.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Maybe you should follow my lead and take a break from this area every once in a while.  I've discovered that it's helpful when I find myself getting all worked up over an internet forum.
> 
> What I did was correct a few things that I thought needed correction and stated what I believe to be true.  As far as I can tell, nothing I said have said so far in this thread has been a lie.



Who is worked up? Certainly not me.
Could you please provide proof to back up the things you thought needed correction and believed to be true ? I provided the proof you asked of me.



Huntinfool said:


> There is no recording of the speech and the scratch paper it's written on is no more reliable than any text that Jesus' quote is written on.


That is a lie.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ominous.


That is not the super double special secret code word.
The first rule about "we" is we don't talk about we.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> That is not the super double special secret code word.
> The first rule about "we" is we don't talk about we.



Which you just broke. Twice. 

Or is it that "ya'll" broke it twice? I'm confused.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can an ALL POWERFUL God make a burrito so hot He can't eat it?



This is nothing but a play on words. 

Can you picture a square circle?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I provided the proof you asked of me.



Actually, you didn't.  My assertion was not that Lincoln didn't give the speech.  My assertion was that no one can prove that the words "Four score....etc" actually came out of his mouth.  Nothing you posted proves that.

Of course he gave the speech.  You're choosing to focus on a nuance rather than the point.





> That is a lie.


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> We should hit the lake sometime.
> 
> Maybe we could have the AAA version of the WAR.



Woohoo!! 
I knew we would find something we agreed with eventually!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Woohoo!!
> I knew we would find something we agreed with eventually!



We'll set it up. I'm booked this weekend with family stuff, and there's no way I'm going out on Monday. 

After that, though, my schedule should open up a bit. It's been a busy couple of weeks.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> This is nothing but a play on words.
> 
> Can you picture a square circle?



Can God?  He can do anything......


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It is if you want to use the word correctly.  Otherwise you can make up your own definition.





> so you actually operate as if it's not there, then you're an A-teapotist


To relate as though God is not present, to speak "my mind" to you, to engage you on the basis of a logic that you and I limit by agreement, in definition, or by definition is to, as you say, practically operate as though he is not. How could a believer do that thing...? And why? I know I speak to you in the presence of another, and I dare not leave off the knowing of that for "our" agreements that would be at the very least, rude to him.
You have already made the little circular motion  at the mention of the dead being raised. I take no offense, and God I am sure, even less, but to abandon his reason for "ours" would be an effrontery both to him, and his reason for all exchange...
If not by you, then by me, surely...he knows very well the lengths he has gone to get my attention, and the joy of it to me...why, without insult, would I adopt a less than kind stance to him...to try and make more sense to anyone else? As only a witness can testify, I am delighted to have you precede me in the resurrection, but make no mistake, the dead are indeed raised. And if grasping of that is at all served by me being made less in your sight, so much the better. But, much beside me will become less in your sight. That's  good. For what could be more.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Christians besides Welder and Art,
> 
> Do you think that you have to abandon rational thinking in order to believe?  Any at all?



Unimportant

Why is it you automatically assume rational thinking is a superior quantity to have? Reason and Logic can only bring a man so far. There's a lot that science has to say about the world that's neither reasonable nor logical...why would you protest "faith" for the same reason?


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> We'll set it up. I'm booked this weekend with family stuff, and there's no way I'm going out on Monday.
> 
> After that, though, my schedule should open up a bit. It's been a busy couple of weeks.



Awesome


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which you just broke. Twice.
> 
> Or is it that "ya'll" broke it twice? I'm confused.


Hence the joke of it all.

I am from Pennsylvania,  North East PA, it might be "youz" in these parts.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Hence the joke of it all.
> 
> I am from Pennsylvania,  North East PA, it might be "youz" in these parts.



Isn't that area more Dutch influenced than Italian?


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Actually, you didn't.  My assertion was not that Lincoln didn't give the speech.  My assertion was that no one can prove that the words "Four score....etc" actually came out of his mouth.  Nothing you posted proves that.
> 
> Of course he gave the speech.  You're choosing to focus on a nuance rather than the point.
> 
> ...


Actually you are wrong about that.
Unlike your anonymous authors, the museums in the town of Gettysburg and the Visitor's Center have numerous letters and post cards from quite a few of the roughly 50,000 eyewitnesses that not only saw and heard President Lincoln's speech but they also wrote to friends and relatives about their experiences that includes them repeating word for word what President Lincoln said. These people were townsfolk,  visitors and soldiers. All of which can be proved to exist by birth records, census records, military records and family tree history. Their writings in their own handwriting are credible first hand eyewitness accounts that back up what came out out Mr. Lincolns mouth on that day and at that precise time in history.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

> Originally Posted by bullethead View Post
> Hence the joke of it all.
> I am from Pennsylvania, North East PA, it might be "youz" in these parts





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Isn't that area more Dutch influenced than Italian?


Italian would be "youz guyz"
Believe me I know


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Isn't that area more Dutch influenced than Italian?


Not really. This is a melting pot.


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can God?  He can do anything......



He squares circles with abandon. And, yes, he has no problems allowing for turtles all the way down if it fulfills his joy in you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 21, 2015)

Well, I think we all learned something today.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Unimportant
> 
> Why is it you automatically assume rational thinking is a superior quantity (quality?)to have? Reason and Logic can only bring a man so far.



Where else do you want to go?  Imaginary Land?



EverGreen1231 said:


> There's a lot that science has to say about the world that's neither reasonable nor logical



Like what?




EverGreen1231 said:


> ...why would you protest "faith" for the same reason?



Tell me what faith (in regards to the OP, how Craig is using it) is good for ?


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> He squares circles with abandon. And, yes, he has no problems allowing for turtles all the way down if it fulfills his joy in you.



Ok.  That's illogical.  Point made. I know that you unashamedly declare God's irrationality or as you would rather, our inability to understand Him.   Now you should tell your brothers in faith about it.  No need to tell me.  I get it.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can God?  He can do anything......



God cannot sin.

To answer your question, no, there is no such thing as a burrito too hot for Him to eat just like there is not such thing as a square circle.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> He squares circles with abandon. And, yes, he has no problems allowing for turtles all the way down if it fulfills his joy in you.





stringmusic said:


> God cannot sin.
> 
> To answer your question, no, there is no such thing as a burrito too hot for Him to eat just like there is not such thing as a square circle.



You're both wrong.

He can commit atrocious acts that would be considered sin if anyone else did them.  You whip out the idea that it can't be called sin when He does it out of your behind.  You make it up just like Craig.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Actually you are wrong about that.
> Unlike your anonymous authors, the museums in the town of Gettysburg and the Visitor's Center have numerous letters and post cards from quite a few of the roughly 50,000 eyewitnesses that not only saw and heard President Lincoln's speech but they also wrote to friends and relatives about their experiences that includes them repeating word for word what President Lincoln said. These people were townsfolk,  visitors and soldiers. All of which can be proved to exist by birth records, census records, military records and family tree history. Their writings in their own handwriting are credible first hand eyewitness accounts that back up what came out out Mr. Lincolns mouth on that day and at that precise time in history.


And you believe a bunch of uneducated hick mountain men that heard Lincoln make that speech? It was all just made up to try to free the slaves and keep people in line. 

Your faith is strong.

Isn't that what we hear all the time about the bible?


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You're both wrong.
> 
> He can commit atrocious acts that would be considered sin if anyone else did them.  You whip out the idea that it can't be called sin when He does it out of your behind.  You make it up just like Craig.



What atrocious acts are you referring to?


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> And you believe a bunch of uneducated hick mountain men that heard Lincoln make that speech? It was all just made up to try to free the slaves and keep people in line.
> 
> Your faith is strong.
> 
> Isn't that what we hear all the time about the bible?



They didn't say he flew or that his dog sang an aria


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> What atrocious acts are you referring to?



I can't....I... I ... just can't.....


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Where else do you want to go?  Imaginary Land?



It isn't imaginary, but if you like to call it that...



ambush80 said:


> Like what?



Quantum mechanics...





ambush80 said:


> Tell me what faith (in regards to the OP, how Craig is using it) is good for ?



What makes you think you have any idea what the world is like outside your life?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I can't....I... I ... just can't.....



Correct.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Correct.



https://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/god-committed-unspeakable-heinous-crimes-against-humanity/


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It isn't imaginary, but if you like to call it that...



I wasn't talking about any specific place.  You said "Reason and Logic can only bring a man so far."  I asked "Where else do you want to go?"





EverGreen1231 said:


> Quantum mechanics...



No one who knows anything about it will tell you that it's gospel.  When something more accurate becomes known it will change.  Which is one of the answers to firs part.







EverGreen1231 said:


> What makes you think you have any idea what the world is like outside your life?



What does faith give you that you couldn't have without it?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> https://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/god-committed-unspeakable-heinous-crimes-against-humanity/



The wages of sin is death...

Church of Truth...such a laughable title.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The wages of sin is death...




What did those babies that died in the flood do?  How about the ones still in the womb?


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The wages of sin is death...
> 
> Church of Truth...such a laughable title.



What difference does it make what the site is called?  Are those things in the Bile or not?

What's laughable is that a full grown man thinks that a snake talked....maybe that's not so funny as sad.  Sadder yet  children are deceived into believing it too.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I wasn't talking about any specific place.  You said "Reason and Logic can only bring a man so far."  I asked "Where else do you want to go?"



Faith.





ambush80 said:


> No one who knows anything about it will tell you that it's gospel.  When something more accurate becomes known it will change.  Which is one of the answers to firs part.



Whether it changes or not will depend directly on what inferences may be drawn from said discovery. At any rate, I wasn't talking about its credibility, I was talking about the fact that its basic ideas (which aren't likely to change a great deal) make little, logical sense; and since nearly everyone here is quick to lump science and logic/reason together as two sides of the same coin, I thought that was something worth pointing out.




ambush80 said:


> What does faith give you that you couldn't have without it?



Faith...


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What difference does it make what the site is called?  Are those things in the Bile or not?
> 
> What's laughable is that a full grown man thinks that a snake talked....maybe that's not so funny as sad.  Sadder yet  children are deceived into believing it too.



Do you think ISIS should be eliminated?


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Ok.  That's illogical.  Point made. I know that you unashamedly declare God's irrationality or as you would rather, our inability to understand Him.   Now you should tell your brothers in faith about it.  No need to tell me.  I get it.


 
No, you are upset that God doesn't meet your criteria for rationality. Being perfect in reason means that what is not (perfect in reason) will either change to some understanding, or if not, call it unreason.
God is neither irrational, nor refusing to be understood.
His ways are simply not ours. But he has made someone to be wisdom, righteousness, justification to us, and we do with him as we do.
You see, when you say you are willing to know, you have set yourself to be Ambush+some experience of God. It is everything that is not. It is Ambush, but no longer Ambush...where circles are squared. Where dead men live...and that abundantly.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What did those babies that died in the flood do?  How about the ones still in the womb?



Collateral damage


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What did those babies that died in the flood do?  How about the ones still in the womb?



So I'm hearing that you are opposed to the abortions of modern day,correct?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So I'm hearing that you are opposed to the abortions of modern day,correct?


Excellent comparison Welder.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> And you believe a bunch of uneducated hick mountain men that heard Lincoln make that speech? It was all just made up to try to free the slaves and keep people in line.
> 
> Your faith is strong.
> 
> Isn't that what we hear all the time about the bible?


I do not need faith. I have evidence.
The bible does not. 
That is the difference.

And you should brush up on your geography and who was in attendance at the GB address.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> And you believe a bunch of uneducated hick mountain men that heard Lincoln make that speech? It was all just made up to try to free the slaves and keep people in line.
> 
> Your faith is strong.
> 
> Isn't that what we hear all the time about the bible?



Did you miss the part about my examples being documented verifiable people writing at the time of the event with their original writings still available to be seen and read because their work was carefully preserved and the ones in the bible being anonymous unverifiable writers that took at least 40  to 70 years to write it and only fragments of 4th century copies are available to see because church leaders destroyed every earlier work they got their hands on ?

Yeah very similar.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> https://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/god-committed-unspeakable-heinous-crimes-against-humanity/



God doesn't "murder" anybody, He can and will take away a souls physical body.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I do not need faith. I have evidence.
> The bible does not.
> That is the difference.
> 
> And you should brush up on your geography and who was in attendance at the GB address.



The bible is the evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Did you miss the part about my examples being documented verifiable people writing at the time of the event with their original writings still available to be seen and read because their work was carefully preserved and the ones in the bible being anonymous unverifiable writers that took at least 40  to 70 years to write it and only fragments of 4th century copies are available to see because church leaders destroyed every earlier work they got their hands on ?
> 
> Yeah very similar.


Do you know what happened in those 40 to 70 years in between Christ's death and the written documentation? 

You should research it, not at a site like "I hate the bible dot com" though.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> God doesn't "murder" anybody, He can and will take away a souls physical body.


Mythology is so cool.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> The bible is the evidence.


I know, that is what makes it so inaccurate and unreliable! Lots of that evidence in the bible for sure.


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> Do you know what happened in those 40 to 70 years in between Christ's death and the written documentation?
> 
> You should research it, not at a site like "I hate the bible dot com" though.



You tell me and we will fact check.
I won't use I hate the bible .com as long as you don't use I have no facts to back up what I claim .com


----------



## stringmusic (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I know, that is what makes it so inaccurate and unreliable! Lots of that evidence in the bible for sure.



The evidence is what makes the evidence so inaccurate and unreliable?


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> The evidence is what makes the evidence so inaccurate and unreliable?



^^ This^^


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> The evidence is what makes the evidence so inaccurate and unreliable?


Yes. The bible is full of inaccuracies and unreliable information. That is outstanding evidence that the bible is inaccurate and unreliable.
It is really not that hard to follow boys.


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Yes. The bible is full of inaccuracies and unreliable information. That is outstanding evidence that the bible is inaccurate and unreliable.
> It is really not that hard to follow boys.



Just the fact that so many people hate the bible and wish it were destroyed and gone.They especially hate Jesus and all that pertains to Him, which is the central theme of the bible.That, to me, is an affirmation in itself.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Can God?  He can do anything......



He can?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Actually you are wrong about that.
> Unlike your anonymous authors, the museums in the town of Gettysburg and the Visitor's Center have numerous letters and post cards from quite a few of the roughly 50,000 eyewitnesses that not only saw and heard President Lincoln's speech but they also wrote to friends and relatives about their experiences that includes them repeating word for word what President Lincoln said. These people were townsfolk,  visitors and soldiers. All of which can be proved to exist by birth records, census records, military records and family tree history. Their writings in their own handwriting are credible first hand eyewitness accounts that back up what came out out Mr. Lincolns mouth on that day and at that precise time in history.



So we are back to eyewitness testimony (which is what I pointed out at the beginning of this discussion). I accept the eyewitnesses for Lincoln. You don't accept the eyewitnesses for what Jesus said. 

That's the difference that you're going to the mattresses on?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> He can?



If God has predestined everything to happen from before time to include the coming of Jesus, can he actually change the destiny that he predestined?
Even if he didn't cause it but knew how it would happen by foreknowledge?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Dawkins has said that he's 99.999999% sure that there is no God.  That technically makes him an agnostic but in practicality an atheist.
> 
> If you're not sure whether or not Russel's teapot is circling the Sun but hold out that it might be there, that would make you a Teapot agnostic.  If you think there's no good reason to believe in the teapot (still leaving the possibility open) and in fact it doesn't make sense to you that there would be one, so you actually operate as if it's not there, then you're an A-teapotist.



I place Agnostics closer to God believers than to Atheists. I think most Agnostics place themselves closer to Atheists.
I would say Dawkins is close enough to be called an Atheist.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God has predestined everything to happen from before time to include the coming of Jesus, can he actually change the destiny that he predestined?
> Even if he didn't cause it but knew how it would happen by foreknowledge?





> Omnipotent -
> 1. Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.


If he cant change it then his previous predestination is his limitation.
Or he's not omnipotent.


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God has predestined everything to happen from before time to include the coming of Jesus, can he actually change the destiny that he predestined?
> Even if he didn't cause it but knew how it would happen by foreknowledge?



Why would He even need to change?


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> So we are back to eyewitness testimony (which is what I pointed out at the beginning of this discussion). I accept the eyewitnesses for Lincoln. You don't accept the eyewitnesses for what Jesus said.
> 
> That's the difference that you're going to the mattresses on?


It is the credibility and provability of the eyewitnesses and their accuracy in their documentation. 
Lincoln is verifiable
His speech is verifiable.
The eyewitnesses are verifiable.
Their accounts are accurate and verifiable.
Gb address fact.
Bible fiction.

The bible says there were 500 witnesses and none wrote of such monumental events.
No verifiable witnesses.
No verifiable writings.
No verifiable evidence that Jesus ever muttered anything as written by the anonymous writers.

There were 50,000 in attendance for the GB address and multiple sources wrote and documented exactly what happened literally as it happened. 

If you cannot see the difference I cannot help you.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Why would He even need to change?


5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Apparently predestination wears off if it grieved him at his heart.
Or predestination is a man made concept to make himself feel special.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If he cant change it then his previous predestination is his limitation.
> Or he's not omnipotent.



I've never thought of that paradox. God knowing all future events left powerless to change things.


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
> 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
> 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
> 
> ...



What makes you think that it wasn't His plan all along.
I think so because of the plan that was already foreshadowed of Jesus coming to earth to save the predestined elect.That's the dead giveaway.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Why would He even need to change?



God doesn't change. Can God change one's destiny? If he knew the day I would be born, doesn't he know the day I will die? If God knows those two dates then he surely knows what will happen between those two dates. By changing one tiny event in one's life, he changes every future event.

If God changed the timeline of events in the ancestors of Jesus, it would affect when and whom Jesus would be born to.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've never thought of that paradox. God knowing all future events left powerless to change things.


If you figure out it out let me know


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What makes you think that it wasn't His plan all along.
> I think so because of the plan that was already foreshadowed of Jesus coming to earth to save the predestined elect.That's the dead giveaway.


You are trying to change what it says to fit what you believe.


> and it grieved him at his heart.


No grieving involved when all is going according to the plan


> for it repenteth me that I have made them.





> And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


What he saw was not what he planned or there would have been no reason to kill everybody.

THOSE are your dead giveaways.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If you figure out it out let me know



Maybe Welderguy can tell us how God's omnipotence and omniscience work together. How can God be all powerful and not be able to change anything because of his foreknowledge?
Does pre-destiny limit God's power to change things? Does God limit his creation to operate in the confines of his Laws of Nature such as gravity?


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You are trying to change what it says to fit what you believe.
> 
> No grieving involved when all is going according to the plan
> 
> THOSE are your dead giveaways.



You do understand that the saving of Noah and his family is one of the types and shadows pointing ahead to Christ saving a remnant of people for heaven and the others for destruction?
It's pretty self-explainatory if you can see that.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You do understand that the saving of Noah and his family is one of the types and shadows pointing ahead to Christ saving a remnant of people for heaven and the others for destruction?
> It's pretty self-explainatory if you can see that.


It says what it says Welder.


> It's pretty self-explainatory if you can see that.


Yes I see it. Its pretty cut and dry.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What makes you think that it wasn't His plan all along.
> I think so because of the plan that was already foreshadowed of Jesus coming to earth to save the predestined elect.That's the dead giveaway.



Then it would have to be in God's plan for Adam to sin so that God could send Jesus because the Word was with God.
Now God is limited to only save those whose names were written in God's book or books. I'm assuming these aren't literal books. God's Word isn't literal but his "thoughts" at the time of creation. 
It's a shame how God is powerless except to save only those whom he elected or foreknew from his foreknowledge.
I think I like the all powerful God better. Maybe he can wear blinders to keep from seeing the future.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

The all powerful God can have mercy on whom he will have mercy. I like the idea of God controlling my destiny instead of me.(man)
Man isn't very good at it. Man is too fleshy. Man could never save himself. Man could never see. 

Now one can get an idea of why faith is way more important than logic.


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe Welderguy can tell us how God's omnipotence and omniscience work together. How can God be all powerful and not be able to change anything because of his foreknowledge?
> Does pre-destiny limit God's power to change things? Does God limit his creation to operate in the confines of his Laws of Nature such as gravity?



The best I can tell it's like this: God knows everything and He can do anything He pleases.BUT, there are things He doesn't do, such as lie, sin, change His attributes, etc. And He never goes back on His promises.

"I am the Lord God.I change not.Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It says what it says Welder.
> 
> Yes I see it. Its pretty cut and dry.



It might help you when you study  to take the bible as a whole and let it interpret itself.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You do understand that the saving of Noah and his family is one of the types and shadows pointing ahead to Christ saving a remnant of people for heaven and the others for destruction?
> It's pretty self-explainatory if you can see that.



I can see the shadows(examples) in the Bible. What was their purpose? Why show examples if man has no choice? Why present shadows to show God saving a remnant of all humans worldwide? That's like God rubbing it in their faces.
Showing all of these examples of salvation from eternal death but only for a small fortunate pre-selected few.
Couldn't God have made a plan that didn't waste a lot of time for a host of individuals who diligently devote a lot of time seeking and searching for the light of his Son's saving grace? People who go to Church every Sunday? People who study the scripture daily? People who think they are on the right path only to be fooled by their parents Denomination? People suffering eternal death because their parents chose the wrong Church?


Wait, I almost forgot. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and God is no respecter of man. Nothing man does will buy his way into Heaven.
I guess I kinda answered my own questions!


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The best I can tell it's like this: God knows everything and He can do anything He pleases.BUT, there are things He doesn't do, such as lie, sin, change His attributes, etc. And He never goes back on His promises.
> 
> "I am the Lord God.I change not.Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."



I understand God doesn't change his attributes but does God change our destiny? Can a man pray for God to change his mind? God has had various covenants within the time frame of man. If God doesn't change, why the different covenants?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It might help you when you study  to take the bible as a whole and let it interpret itself.


And it might help you to try to not let what you already believe dictate what it says.
But Ill be the first to say that not agreeing on what a passage says is anything new.
For me -
He grieved
He was repenteth
And what he saw caused him to kill everything - 
means things didn't work out exactly as he hoped/planned they would.
Let me throw one more at you -


> 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.


"Flesh had corrupted his way"
How you are going to turn that into anything other than what was happening wasn't his way, I have no idea.
But more power to ya.


----------



## welderguy (May 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Let me throw one more at you -
> 
> "Flesh had corrupted his way"
> How you are going to turn that into anything other than what was happening wasn't his way, I have no idea.
> But more power to ya.



"his way" refers to the flesh's way, not God's way.

In other words, all flesh(people) had corrupted their own way.They became very rebellious and sinful in the sight of God.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> "his way" refers to the flesh's way, not God's way.
> 
> In other words, all flesh(people) had corrupted their own way.They became very rebellious and sinful in the sight of God.


Welder the subject was God looking upon the earth and what he saw. His refers to God. That's the reason he killed them. Because they had become evil etc and corrupted his way.
How could they have corrupted themselves? Are you literally going to claim that God predestined millions of people to corrupt themselves just so he can kill them????


----------



## Israel (May 22, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
> 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
> 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
> 
> ...



That's an excellent point.
What doesn't "man" do to _make himself_ feel special?
I don't disagree at all, most anything and everything "in the Bible" has been pressed into the service of man's seemingly insatiable will to exalt himself.
But, of course, one needn't go to the Bible to see that, must they?
What is the "thing" working inside man that causes him to take a thing to himself to make himself larger in his own sight? It's easily arguable that it's a conviction of his being small, that makes him want to appear as "big"...his conviction of vulnerability that makes him want to appear strong, his clear apprehension of being nothing...that makes him want to appear as a something.
Always a reacting "to".
Do "the rich" really enjoy being rich...in quite the same measure they may abhor being perceived as poor? Is the smart man...really smart? Or does he just hate the idea of looking stupid...so he gathers to himself as much learning, information, data as possible in hopes of keeping the thing of which he is ashamed...his really not knowing...at bay?
What if there is a way to be done with that? What if there is a way that shame is no longer the motivator? Death not the road sign everyone (tries to) takes the detour to avoid?
What if the mainspring, most often unseen, that has resulted in a world of woe, where at best, the pleasure of life appears only as a temporary tease against a backdrop of eternal meaninglessness, has been...itself destroyed?
Who could believe that?
Who does?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

bullethead said:


> It is the credibility and provability of the eyewitnesses and their accuracy in their documentation.
> Lincoln is verifiable
> His speech is verifiable.
> The eyewitnesses are verifiable.
> ...



Okie Dokie.  I promise there is a forest somewhere behind all those trees that are blocking your view. In order to move on with discussion, I concede. You are right that Lincoln is more verifiable. 

I assume you accept, without question, that Homer wrote the Odyssey?


----------



## 660griz (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> I assume you accept, without question, that Homer wrote the Odyssey?



I don't live my life by Homer either. So, I don't really care. However, if I were take the Odyssey as fact, written by a man, inspired by God, I would do a little research into it.

Comparing Odyssey and the Bible is a good start though.

Both share similartities.

Type of Work: epic poem

Genres: epic; *mythology*


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

660griz said:


> I don't live my life by Homer either. So, I don't really care. However, if I were take the Odyssey as fact, written by a man, inspired by God, I would do a little research into it.
> 
> Comparing Odyssey and the Bible is a good start though.
> 
> ...



You don't live your life by the Bible either.  But you demand a higher standard of verification even just to establish authorship....whether it's fiction or not.

I'd post a definition (as seems popular in here).  But I'm sure you know what word I would look up.


----------



## 660griz (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> You don't live your life by the Bible either.  But you demand a higher standard of verification even just to establish authorship....whether it's fiction or not.


Yes, because I once did. After a little research and some logic, I realized I had been duped.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

Personal disbelief in the message.  I got ya.

I don't agree that is a good reason to be inconsistent in your evidential requirements.  But I understand.


----------



## Israel (May 22, 2015)

The believer eventually comes to the point of dealing with these issues. Do I believe because it's "verifiable" among others? Do I believe because I can satisfactoritly demonstrate to myself what I believe is not foolish, not some fantasy embraced simply of my desire?
Or, must I be shown? Dare I accept that what I know, may make no sense to any other, and not even myself? How then, if I accept that acceptance of my seeming knowing as final arbiter, do I not become God in my own sight...? Will this not then lead to a self absorption...a solipsism that will both cut me off from everything, and everyone else...and in fact work contrary to all that I have perceived of Jesus Christ? I perceive Jesus reaching into me in "likeness"...and, yet, when all others deny anything could be so...even myself...at those times I might easily agree..."yes, I am not "like" Jesus at all, he could find nothing relatable of me to him in me"


It is preceisely here...something happens. Something of a nature told, but impossible to believe...unless it were true...and making itself true, before my very eyes. Though a proclivity to be ashamed is greatly manifest, someone unashamed, manifests greater.
And the truth of Jesus Christ, the reality of a Kingdom, the good news of something I must have "proven" to me as previosuly viewed as "too good" to be so, is accomplished.
All then is experienced of dissolving of a self to hold back, a self devoted to intactness, a self deceived by "selfness"...and a reaching out...even to rejection, is painless, without fear and without shame. And I begin to perceive how a man's knowing of of what it might appear would exalt himself in his own eyes, actually does nothing of that, and I see Jesus.
Not ashamed to say or hating to be what is sent to relate to the very weakest, the gretaest sinner, the most unlike God in every way...and calling it... brother.


----------



## 660griz (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Personal disbelief in the message.  I got ya.


 The message, the author, the purpose. All of it.



> I don't agree that is a good reason to be inconsistent in your evidential requirements.  But I understand.



Yea. I have different standards for all kinds of things. 
For instance, I believe the President should be held to a higher standard than say, a lawn care specialist. 
A book on science should be held to a higher standard than a book on fiction, etc.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yea. I have different standards for all kinds of things.
> For instance, I believe the President should be held to a higher standard than say, a lawn care specialist.
> A book on science should be held to a higher standard than a book on fiction, etc.



Let's leave the straw men to scare away the crows in the garden, ok?

You do not have different standards for different people who are running for President, nor do you have different standards to evaluate candidates for the account to mow your lawn.




> The message, the author, the purpose. All of it.



Even the parts that you know are historically accurate?


BTW, your avatar is probably my favorite one on GON.  Did you see the video of the dude today that pulled his EDC on a carjacker this morning?  Hilarious.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/man-holds-would-be-carjacker-gunpoint-until-police/nmL4Z/

"You went to bed last night and woke up this morning STUPID, huh?"


----------



## 660griz (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> You do not have different standards for different people who are running for President, nor do you have different standards to evaluate candidates for the account to mow your lawn.



True.
However,
President = Bible
Lawn care = Odyssey

Sorry you don't get the point. 



> Even the parts that you know are historically accurate?



You mean the parts that have been proven through archaeological studies? Yes. Why not? 
Do you believe the parts that have been proven false through studies? For example, there is no evidence of the mass exodus of Israelites. Do you still believe it because the Bible says so?

Thanks for the video link. I heard about it but, I haven't seen the video. That is awesome.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

> You mean the parts that have been proven through archaeological studies? Yes. Why not?



Was just curious because you said, emphatically, "all of it".




660griz said:


> Do you believe the parts that have been proven false through studies? For example, there is no evidence of the mass exodus of Israelites. Do you still believe it because the Bible says so?



Perceived lack of evidence does not equate to "proven false".  If that were the case, no one would believe in an origin of the universe that discounts a creator or many other things that are readily accepted from thousands/millions/billions of years ago.


----------



## 660griz (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Was just curious because you said, emphatically, "all of it".


 If the Bible was the only source for the stuff. Yes, all of it. I believe other texts that just so happen to coincide with some stuff of the Bible. 

Faith removes all standards of reason and places higher standards on everything EXCEPT the Bible. That is to be believed without question.



> Perceived lack of evidence does not equate to "proven false".


 Not all the time. I agree. 
In some cases, it kinda does. Especially in relation to archaeology. If evidence proves the Bible then, lack of it...
If my son says he was cut by a chainsaw but, there are no cuts on his body, no evidence proves he is false.


----------



## ambush80 (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Was just curious because you said, emphatically, "all of it".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People propose the possibility of an origin that doesn't require God. No one knows.  Do you propose a God created Universe as a certainty?

There's an archeological and fossil record.  Do you disagree with the present understanding of their revelation?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 22, 2015)

I don't get this whole belief based on "evidence" argument.


> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Even Christianity knows the evidence is lacking so it replaces it with hope and the faith that the evidence you cant see is actually there. 
Ive said it before and Ill say it again - seems like faith isn't good enough for many Christians. They seem to want to argue that the evidence justifies belief when clearly Christianity has provided a way to get around that there ISNT evidence to justify it -
Hope and Faith.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

> They seem to want to argue that the evidence justifies belief...



Some Christians aren't intellectually lazy.  You're right about that.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you propose a God created Universe as a certainty?



I propose that it is the most likely of all explanations.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> Okie Dokie.  I promise there is a forest somewhere behind all those trees that are blocking your view. In order to move on with discussion, I concede. You are right that Lincoln is more verifiable.
> 
> I assume you accept, without question, that Homer wrote the Odyssey?



To be honest, I do not care who wrote the Odyssey. Most likely it was Homer. With enough time and digging a case could be made through tangible evidence that Homer was the author. I do not have the time or care to get into it or having you keep adding one new case after the other until you may eventually come up with something that stumps me.
What I see through the trees is a god that cannot write his own book, let alone proof read the one that is supposed to represent him. I see positive evidence of an event that happened(which you picked) in Gettysburg and negative evidence of a book that you compare it to.
I stuck to the examples you had given.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The best I can tell it's like this: God knows everything and He can do anything He pleases.BUT, there are things He doesn't do, such as lie, sin, change His attributes, etc. And He never goes back on His promises.
> 
> "I am the Lord God.I change not.Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."



Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1 Kings 22:23

>Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Chronicles 18:22

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. Jeremiah 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jeremiah 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

> I stuck to the examples you had given.



You talked at length about Abraham Lincoln...I'll grant you that.  Unfortunately, all of your posts were addressing something I never said.  As I have pointed out several times, I did not claim the address didn't happen.  As you posted, there is sufficient evidence to believe that.

The address was not the original issue.  The question that brought up Lincoln was "how do you know that Jesus said that?".  My response was the same as yours is to Lincoln....eyewitness written testimony only.  That is the only evidence.....just like Lincoln.

See the forest now?  Our answers are the same.  How scary is that?

I have to say....this will be my last post about Abraham Lincoln.  I think we've killed him....again.


----------



## 660griz (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> My response was the same as yours is to Lincoln....eyewitness written testimony only.  That is the only evidence.....just like Lincoln.



Who Wrote the Bible
 "The bottom line," says Jerome Neyrey of the Weston School of Theology in Cambridge, Mass, "is we really don' know for sure who wrote the Gospels".

"The New Testament was not written by any of the disciples of Jesus nor by persons who even lived in that era. ...When the church fathers compiled the N.T. in the yr. 397, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. They decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made should be the word of God and which shouldn't. They rejected several, they voted others to be doubtful, and those books that had a majority of votes were voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all the people since calling themselves Christians would have believed otherwise. For the belief of one comes from the vote of the other."


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

660griz said:


> Who Wrote the Bible
> "The bottom line," says Jerome Neyrey of the Weston School of Theology in Cambridge, Mass, "is we really don' know for sure who wrote the Gospels".



So we are pulling random quotes from theologians now?

You realize that we could fill an entire 1000 post thread with you and me going back and forth posting quotes from theologians all over the world.  Mine would say the exact opposite of yours and yours would all say the above.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

I'm heading out for the long weekend guys.  So I likely won't be able to keep up here over the weekend.  I've enjoyed the discussion and will catch up later if the thing is still rolling.  It has truly made me think....which is a good thing.

Y'all enjoy proving me wrong while I'm gone!


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> You talked at length about Abraham Lincoln...I'll grant you that.  Unfortunately, all of your posts were addressing something I never said.  As I have pointed out several times, I did not claim the address didn't happen.  As you posted, there is sufficient evidence to believe that.
> 
> The address was not the original issue.  The question that brought up Lincoln was "how do you know that Jesus said that?".  My response was the same as yours is to Lincoln....eyewitness written testimony only.  That is the only evidence.....just like Lincoln.
> 
> See the forest now?  Our answers are the same.  How scary is that?


You said there was no way to prove those words came from Lincoln's mouth.
And what I offered was proof that people saw him people heard him and people recorded his words onto paper and passed them on.
Now, the difference between our "people" is that the ones I used are verifiable. Yours are not. Verifiable,credible eyewitness testimony from people that can be verified by name and date of birth and by census records that wrote it down as it happened  is solid testimony.

You are able to provide tales of events from anonymous people that did not witness it and wrote about it FOUR to SEVEN decades after it took place. 

I agree it is all about the eyewitnesses, not the speeches.
Which eyewitnesses are more credible?
The ones that can be shown to exist and who also witnessed and wrote down the words Lincoln as it happened.
Or
People who we do not know their names or if they existed at all that wrote stories (which do not match) about a guy who they never met 4 to 7 Generations after it supposedly took place?

HF, can't you see that it is not about the speeches but the credibility of the evidence and especially the ones who provide the evidence?


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm heading out for the long weekend guys.  So I likely won't be able to keep up here over the weekend.  I've enjoyed the discussion and will catch up later if the thing is still rolling.  It has truly made me think....which is a good thing.
> 
> Y'all enjoy proving me wrong while I'm gone!


I hope you and your family have a safe and enjoyable holiday.


----------



## 660griz (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm heading out for the long weekend guys.  So I likely won't be able to keep up here over the weekend.  I've enjoyed the discussion and will catch up later if the thing is still rolling.  It has truly made me think....which is a good thing.
> 
> Y'all enjoy proving me wrong while I'm gone!



Have a good weekend/holiday.


----------



## ambush80 (May 22, 2015)

Huntinfool said:


> I propose that it is the most likely of all explanations.



Well, that's VERY different than asserting it as a certainty.  Carry on my good man.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 22, 2015)

To clarify...

I am absolutely convinced that there is no other possible explanation than a creator.  But I certainly cannot prove it to you as an absolute certainty. 

Our best option, if we stick to the ground rules of logic and physical evidence, is to choose the explanation that is most likely.  Obviously we differ on which is most likely.


----------



## Big7 (May 22, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> How about you tell me and I'll correct you
> What we know is well documented. And I don't mean in the Bible.



Just a simple question and you want to get yer'
tights in a wad.. 

I axe you first.???

You TELL ME then I will CORRECT YOU.

Can't answer a question with a question.

Put up OR... Well you know the rest.

What's with the  ? I didn't do that to you??

I just didn't see where you you got yer' info.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 23, 2015)

Big7 said:


> Just a simple question and you want to get yer'
> tights in a wad..
> 
> I axe you first.???
> ...


Here's your original question -


> Do you know "how the Bible was produced and by who"?
> Just curious if you know. And.. I can correct you
> if you don't.


Yes I do know how the Bible was created.
Since I do, your offer to correct me if I don't isn't necessary.


> You TELL ME then I will CORRECT YOU.


Your assumption is that what I know is wrong and that you must have some secret knowledge that cant be researched.
If you want to discuss Bible creation, get off your high horse, work on your communications skills, start a thread and we can discuss what is known and what is not known about the creation of the Bible(s).
As for my comment about "especially when you know how the Bible was created and by who" it refers to that we know the books were written by men, argued and debated over by men, accepted and rejected by men and then claimed by men to be the word of God.
I'm no expert but I think Ive got those basic facts correct.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Here's your original question -
> 
> Yes I do know how the Bible was created.
> Since I do, your offer to correct me if I don't isn't necessary.
> ...


To quote Ed McMahon: "You ARE correct Sir!"

And lets add that what scraps we have left to study the earliest copies of the Gospels are incredibly small pieces that date around 125AD and after that we have 4th century copies....which just so happens to be around the time these men decided to round up and destroy every earlier copy they could get a hold of. What is left are the rewrites with no known originals to compare them to.


----------

